Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050702 CC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAY 7, 2002 The City Council convened in an adjourned workshop meeting at 5:38 P.M., on Tuesday, May 7, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, and Roberts Absent: Councilmember: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Relaying that a new Metrolink line traveling from Riverside to Los Angels through the 91 corridor had opened, Mayor Roberts advised that this new line would most likely have a significant impact specifically when the new line from the I-15 Freeway is set up. For informational purposes, Mayor Roberts relayed that approximately three weeks ago he sent a letter to the San Diego Union Tribune in rebuttal to the letters that the Mayors of San Diego cities had signed which urged the construction of SDG&E's transmission line; relayed that the letter was not printed in the newspaper until today (after significant editing), May 7th' which was coincidentally the day that the San Diego Board of Supervisors had on its agenda the recommendation to take action for approval of the SDG&E line in Riverside; and advised that the another coincidence was that one of the Supervisors in San Diego was also named Ron Roberts. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1 Ninth Workshop for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Receive and file. City Manager Nelson advised that the County representatives would provide an overview of the RCIP with a focus on the circulation elements and traffic impacts of the General Plan, and introduced Mr. Richard Lashbrook, the RClP Project Manager. Mr. Lashbrook proceeded with an overview of the General Plan, the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and a focused presentation on transportation issues, highlighting the following: · The hearing schedule for the County's General Plan, inclusive of a meeting scheduled for the City of Temecula on May 21st, and a meeting in the City of Riverside on June 5~ R:\Minutes\050702 1 The ptan for the environmental document to be out for public comments in late June or early July, and the anticipation of having the Board of Supervisors take action on the General Plan in November or December of 2002 With respect to the MSHCP, noted that a Draft Plan had been distributed in early March, relaying current efforts regarding implementing revisions; and advised that the issues of concern which would be extensively addressed in the next month would be the following: o An avenue for managing the reserve system o The administrative structures (i.e., the consideration for creating a new regional authority), and o Funding Noted hopes of releasing the environmental documents for public review in July, the General Plan being presented to the Board of Supervisors for action in December of 2002, and meetings with the cities regarding the Implementing Agreement being scheduled for January or early February of 2003 Via a PowerPoint Presentation, Mr. Steve Smith provided an overview of the proposed County's General Plan, and its associated impacts on the City of Temecula, as well as the CETAP alternatives in the Temecula area, highlighting the following: · The key features of the transportation analysis were, as follows: o Buildout of land use and roadway of the cities and the County- with approximately 1 million dwelling units, the majority of that development being within the cities o Employment in the Western County at approximately 1.3 million employees, the majority of that being within the cities. For Councilman Comerchero, Mr. Smith provided additional information regarding the analysis, which revealed that the percentage of anticipated development would be similar as is today. Councilman Stone advised that there was a vast differential between the approximate 4,000 additional approvals in the City, and the more than 30,000 additional approvals in the County. Mr. Smith noted that the analysis encompassed Western Countywide studies, relaying that the situation in Temecula could be slightly different, confirming that there was a plethora of development occurring in the unincorporated areas, additionally confirming that various assumptions were taken into account in the modeling regarding the tribal lands, as well as land use data regarding the Domenigoni Reservoir facilities. o The redistributed development of the MSHCP areas o The buildout of the CETAP corridors o The future planned transit express system for Western County · Other assumptions pertaining to Temecula, as follows: o Butter[ield Stage Road as a four-lane arterial R:'~inutes\050702 2 o CETAP Alternative 1,7a, or 7b o A new interchange (French Valley Parkway) o A new four-lane arterial tying into the 1-15 Freeway Interchange south of Highway 79 (South) o The 1-15 Freeway at 10 lanes and 14 lanes from Winchester Road to the 1-215 Freeway · Specified the CETAP alternatives which were analyzed For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Smith confirmed that there was a study analyzing an alternative east of Temecula, confirming that while there would be an alignment in that route that included Butterfield Stage Road, the issues associated with the alignment have been recognized, advising that this particular alternative would not be denoted as a preferred alternative but that the studies would continue. For clarification, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed, for Councilman Naggar, that as part of the environmental process, additional alternatives have to be studied. Mayor Pro Tern Stone advised that this City Council would never permit Butterfield Stage Road becoming a freeway corridor. The analysis which included the buildout of the existing General Plan land use and roadways, as well as the building out of land use and roadways in the cities, excluding the CETAP corridors and the MSHCP, and the analysis which studied no more development or roadway construction in the unincorporated areas with the buildout in the cities, excluding the CETAP corridors and the MSHCP. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Smith noted that the second analysis took into account the development of n~o additional ho.rnes in the unincorporated areas in order to obtain a comparison analysis o The results of the above analysis revealed the following: The arterials could accommodate the demand with the anticipated traffic The freeway system wouId be severely congested during peak hours, the LOS in various areas projected at LOS F over most of Western County For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Smith relayed that the expected long- term LOS on the freeway would be Service Level F, advising that Mayor Roberts was provided with additional information regarding this matter. · The County's contribution to the 1-15 Freeway impacts For City Manager Nelson, Mr. Smith relayed that the projected LOS levels reflected projections at buildout. · That the proposed General Plan resulted in less congestion than the existing General Plan R:\Minutes\050702 3 · Concluded that stopping County development and road construction would result in worse conditions on various roadways o Specified observations regarding the 1-15 Freeway · That the freeway currently carried 170,000 vehicles per day (between Winchester Road and the 1-215 Freeway) · That there was an anticipated 260,000 vehicles per day by 2025 · That there was an anticipated 350,000 vehicles per day at buildout · That these anticipated trips were commensurate with some of the highest volume facility freeways in Southern California · That the future growth of the County accounts for less than 10% of the projected volumes in this particular section at buildout - due to through traffic, and traffic generated locally and by other cites For City Manager Nelson, Mr. Smith confirmed that this analysis only addressed the freeway section between Winchester Road and the 1-215 Freeway, advising that Mayor Roberts had additional data provided him regarding the 1-15 Freeway and the 215 Freeway Via overhead maps, provided a comparison diagram comparing the buildout of the proposed General Plan with the existing General Plan which reflected the volumes capacity ratios for the facilities For Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Mr. Smith relayed that in the data the existing General Plan analysis included what was in existence now, and the proposed General Plan was the plan before the Planning Commission at this time. Providing additional clarification, Mr. Edwin Studor noted that the basis for the existing General Plan was the General Plan that existed when the a0alysis began, which did not reflect the amendments subsequently made in the last couple of years by the Board. · Via overhead maps, presented a diagram, which represented the percentage of traffic which would be attributable to growth and roadway development in the County, isolating areas with LOSs less than LOS D Mayor Pro Tern Stone noted that the comparison data appeared inaccurate between the proposed General Plan and the existing General Plan in that the existing General Plan analysis did not reflect the recent amendments, advising that the difference between the existing General Plan data and the actual existing General Plan statistics (with the recent amendments) would be substantial. For Councilman Naggar, it was reiterated that the no project buildout analysis only included development that existed today and not the assessment of approved projects, which do not exist at this time. · Recapitulated the CETAP Corridor studies o Identified priority corridors to be studied which encompassed two intra- County corridors and two inter-County corridors R:\Minutes\050702 4 o Identified alternatives to be studied for environmental study purposes in conjunction with the Federal agencies o The anticipated EIR/EIS circulation of the corridor studies for public review in early July · Relayed the objectives of the CETAP alternatives, as follows: o To maintain acceptable traffic flow on the Winchester Road corridor as well as on the 1-15 Freeway o To develop provision of an effective route for regional traffic between the 1-10 Freeway in Banning/Beaumont and the 1-15 Freeway to San Diego o To minimize the environmental impacts o To preserve right-of-way · Via overhead maps and diagrams, specified the routes of Alternatives 1, 5a, 5b, and 7b · Via overheads, specified the express routes and potential transit oasis locations Councilman Pratt relayed that mass transportation would aid in addressing traffic impacts, advising that in Europe the number of vehicles were restricted which could be a concept considered for this area. In response, Mr. Lashbrook noted that the previously presented express routes included the connection of major nodes of development within Western County, noting that transit will not solve the congestion problem but would provide options for travel. Mayor Roberts relayed that the three percent (3%) reduction in vehicle trips, which could occur in Western County with full implementation, would not create a significant positive impact, noting the need for utilizing mass transit. In response, Mr. Lashbrook relayed that while every effort would be made to provide a transit system, it would not eliminate the anticipated heavy congestion impacts. For Mayor Pro Tern Stone, Mr. Lashbrook confirmed that the anticipated LOS would be F on the 1-15 Freeway at buildout. Mayor Pro Tem Stone relayed that the forecast for this area was disaster, noting that if it was known today that in 2025 the LOS would be F on the freeways, and if this impact was not mitigated in these early planning stages, then it was his opinion that the CETAP process was a failure; forecasted that in 2027 the emphasis on public transit would be more acceptable due to expected high gas prices, opining that infrastructure should be provided now; additionally commented on the safety risks associated with transit options as the Metrolink which share a rail with cargo trains, recommending that right-of-way for a rail along the side of the freeway be secured at this time for future transit development; and concluded that this project was a complete failure unless remedies were sefforth to ensure that the quality of life could be enhanced. Councilman Comerchero relayed that the City of Temecula conducted traffic studies in order to resolve anticipated impacts, advising that per the County's presentation it appeared that the message was that gridlock was to be expected in the next 20 or more years, concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Stone's queries regarding conducting a $30 million planned effort which offered no substantial resolutions. R:\Minutes\050702 Mr. Lashbrook relayed that a detailed traffic analysis of this type had not been conducted until this point in time; clarified that the arterial roadways have been addressed and a framework for an express transit system has been laid out; and additionally noted that the only alternatives that would address the 1-15 Freeway impacts were the elements which included the route to the east of Temecula. Councilman Naggar noted his preference to not cluster development in order that a higher quality of living be maintained; noted that it did not seem prudent to invest in clustering with high density nodes which was only forecasted to reduce traffic congestion by three percent (3%); with respect to State mandates to provide affordable housing, relayed that when compared with alternate cities (i.e., in North County), the prices of homes in Temecula were affordable; noted that the anticipated future traffic impacts would worsen if all the projected traffic improvements indicated could not be implemented while the development continued; and recommended that the nexus of necessary road improvements be identified with development projects, as well as funding sources. Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that it would be helpful to know the anticipated growth regarding the number of trips contributing to the projected congestion which was generated from outside the area, including truck traffic; with respect to European development, noted that development occurred in density nodes (i.e., clustering), relaying that the transit ridership was well above thirty percent (30%); and advised that if efforts could be focused on transit nodes in terms of planning, then a higher percentage of transit ridership could be achieved. Councilman Naggar relayed that if clustered development only yielded a three percent (3%) reduction in traffic, the results were inconsequential. Mr. Lashbrook advised that although the projected traffic levels were alarming, there were benefits to having this comprehensive analysis available, noting that with this information planning could take into account the vital data; noted that clustering development was an alternative which cities could opt to implement to offset the impacts, relaying the efforts in seeking solutions to mitigate confining our residents to gridlock. For Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Mr. Lashbrook confirmed that in identifying corridors and major new facilities, sufficient right-of-way in the County was also being identified for the provision of transit alternatives; and concurred that planning for transit should be discussed regionally, confirming that setting aside right-of-way in the County would be negated if right-of-way was not also being secured in the cities. in response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone, Director of Public Works Hughes specified the issues that would have to be considered regionally, noting the importance of combining efforts to seek solutions to the traffic impacts (i.e., an alternate north/south corridor, addressing density issues.) Ms. Cathy Beck clarified that with the CETAP alternatives, there were routes that traversed through areas within the cities, concurring that the cities would be key partners with the County regarding the selected corridor as well as with other issues. Mayor Roberts thanked the County representatives for the presentation. At 7:20 P.M. the City Council convened to Closed Session, reconvening to the City Council meeting at 8:44 P.M. R:\Minutes\050702 6 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. CITY ATFORNEY'S REPORT No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 8:45 P.M., the City Council meeting was f(~rmaliy adjourned to Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., for the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers, of City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: [S[^L] R:\Minutes~50702 7