HomeMy WebLinkAbout021693 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 28816 Pujol Street
FEBRUARY 16, 1993 - 7:00 PM
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will
determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00
PM and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting.
All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM
EXECUTIVE iSESSION: :5:30 .:- Closed Session ofthe. City C0Un~l: pursuant :to" "
'Govemment. Code Sections'549~'6.8 and 54956:9 .... : ':: ' ' =
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 93-06
Resolution: No. 93-13
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor J. Sal Mur~oz presiding
Invocation
Pastor David French, Temecula United MethOdist Church
Flag Salute
Councilmember Roberrs
ROLL CALL:
Birdsall, Parks, Roberrs, Stone, Mu~oz
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council
on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are
limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item
not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink "Request To Speak' form
should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
AgendNO21683 1 02112/93
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Consideration of Rod Run Security Costs
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Discuss the cost of providing security for the Rod Run to be held in Old
Town and provide staff direction relative to the request from the Early
Times Car Club for consideration of waiver of these fees.
PUBLIC HEARING
2
City of Temecula General Plan, Imolementation Program, Environmental Imoact Report
and Mitigation Monitorinq Proaram
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Review the Circulation Element, take public testimony, and direct staff to
incorporate the element as presented, into the final General Plan which will be
presented for City Council adoption at the conclusion of the Public Hearings.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
3 Discussion of Schedulina Additional General Plan Public Hearings
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: February 23, 1993, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
Agendl/021693 2 02112/93
ITEM
NO.
1
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Police Chief R. H. Sayre
February 16, 1993
Consideration of Rod Run Security Costs
PREPARED BY: City Clerk June Greek
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council discuss the cost of providing security for
the Rod Run to be held in Old Town and provide staff direction relative to the request from
the Early Times Car Club for consideration of waiver of these fees.
BACKGROUND: The City Council directed staff to place this matter on the agenda after
members of the public and the Early Times Car Club spoke during the Public Forum portion
of the meeting of February 9, 1993. Due to the limited amount of time between these
meetings, an oral staff report will be presented.
JSG
ITEM NO. 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FINANCE OFFICER~
CITY MANAGER ';~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
February 16, 1993
City of Temecula General Plan, Implementation Program, Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
PREPARED BY:
John Meyer and David Hogan
RECOMMENDATION:
It is requested that the City Council review the Circulation
Element, take public testimony, and direct staff to incorporate
the element as presented into the final General Plan which will be
presented for City Council adoption at the conclusion of the
Public Hearings.
INTRODUCTION
On July 9, 1991 the City Council approved a contract with the Planning Center to assist the
City in preparing its first General Plan. State Law requires that the General Plan be
comprehensive, internally consistent, and long-term. The General Plan must address land use,
housing, traffic circulation, resource conservation, open space, noise and public safety. The
City Council has elected to include chapters on growth management, air quality, public
facilities, economic development, and community design.
According to State Law, the General Plan is the primary document required of a City as a
basis for regulating land use. Consequently, the Development Code, future Specific Plans, the
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and other development projects in the City must be
consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Standards contained in the Temecula General Plan.
In addition, all City capital improvements and public works projects must be consistent with
the General Plan.
The City's approach to preparing the General Plan involved substantial guidance by the
Planning Commission and City Council, a Community Participation Program, and technical
review and guidance by City staff and Technical Subcommittees. The Planning Commission
and City Council, through joint workshops, essentially functioned as a general plan advisory
committee throughout the preparation process. This allowed for clear direction on the Goals
and Policies of the elements, so they related to land use, circulation, open space/conservation,
and other issues.
The Citizen Participation Program was designed to provide a high level of communication
between City officials, citizens, landowners, and the consultant team. The Program offered
numerous opportunities for the public to attend workshops at key milestones during the
S~GENPI,AN%GP. CC1
formulation of the Plan. The community outreach meetings included a series of four
Neighborhood Meetings and two Town Hall Meetings. In addition, staff met individually with
concerned citizens and landowners throughout the process. Five Technical Subcommittees
met on two occasions during the process to provide a more detailed and technical review of
the General Plan elements. The City also disseminated information on the draft components
of the General Plan through a series of newsletters, press releases, newspaper articles, and
rBdio 8nnouncements.
A VISION FOR TEMECULA
The General Plan expresses a vision of the future of the City and prescribes techniques to
manage growth and development so that the vision can be achieved. The challenge of the
General Plan is to establish clear and sustainable direction. The Vision for Temecula is
intended to represent the values of the community that will contribute to Temecula's future
image and physical character. The Vision Statement draws upon the City's Mission
Statement which was developed by the City Council. The Vision Statement will enable future
community leaders and citizens to recall and endorse the meaning of the Plan and maintain
diligence in carrying out its intent.
Key aspects of the Vision Statement include:
· Maintain a safe, secure, clean, healthy and orderly community.
· Balance residential, commercial and industrial opportunities.
· Concentrate retail and business development within Village Centers.
Provide a convenient and effective transportation system which includes vehicular
circulation, transit, bicycles and pedestrian modes of travel.
· Provide an outstanding open space and parks system.
· Preserve community values, neighborhood conservation and public safety.
Support opportunities for community activities for a wide array of interests, ages and
lifestyles.
· Preserve and enhance historical and cultural resources within the community.
· Assure adequate public services are provided concurrently with development.
Capitalize on the community's greatest asset, its people, by encouraging community
involvement and community responsibility.
REPORT/PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT
This report is intended to provide a brief introduction and background into Temecula's Draft
General Plan. This report is intended for the general public, who may or may not be familiar
with the General Plan process and work program. The Public Hearing for the draft General
S~'GENPLAN~GP'CC1 2
Plan will be considered over several City Council meetings to provide ample opportunity for
public input and comment.
Only the Circulation Element will be discussed at the February 16, 1993 meeting. This
Element created the most controversy during the Planning Commission's Public Hearings.
The purpose of hearing this element first is to allow the City Council to address this
controversial issue first, thereby making the balance of the review go smoother. Moreover,
in the event the Council wishes staff to make changes to this Element, the overall process will
not be delayed. The Council can consider other elements while the additional information is
being gathered. The Council needs to be advised that the City is approaching its State's time
extension deadline of May 26, 1993 to adopt the General Plan.
REVISED GENERAL PLAN EDITION
A Revised General Plan Edition, dated February 16,1993, has been produced for the Council's
consideration. This revised edition contains all of the changes and additions that were
presented to the Planning Commission. Additions to the text are shown in bold italics and
deletions are show with a striko out. The recommended changes are the result of input
received during Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshops, Technical Subcommittee
Meetings and staff review, and from written comments by the public. Additions and
revisions directed by the Planning Commission are presented in the same manner, but noted
in the margins.
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
Individual Elements of the Draft General Plan contain:
· An Introduction
· A Summary of Issues
· Goals and Policies
· Implementation Programs
The Introduction provides the legal framework and requirements of the Element. The
Summary of Issues highlights those areas that have been identified as issues. The Goals and
Policies demonstrate how those issues will be addressed. The Implementation Programs
describe how the Goals and Policies are intended to be implemented. Individual elements
contain additional sections.
DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Background
The purpose of a circulation element is to address streets, highways, airports, public transit
routes and terminals, trails, and other local public transportation facilities and issues. A
circulation element is expected to: (1) describe the existing transportation system; and (2)
identify transportation needs within the community; and (3) identify the future public
circulation system.
S',GENPLAN~GP. CC1 3
Discussion
The primary issues addressed in the Circulation Element are the location and size of streets
and highways within the City's Planning Area.
The key aspects of the Circulation Element are:
· To maintain the peak hour Level of Service at level "D" or better;
· To enhance traffic safety on City streets;
· To integrate the local transportation network into the regional transportation system;
· To ensure an efficient circulation system;
· To provide adequate parking;
· To provide safe alternative transportation systems; and,
· To establish a safe and efficient system of truck routes.
Prior to the Planning Commission Hearing, the City had received a number of comments
regarding the Circulation Element. The most significant concerns centered on the North
General Kearny extension.
Planning Commission Hearings
During the November 2, 1992 Public Hearing, the Commission received extensive public
testimony requesting that the North General Kearny extension be removed from the
Circulation Plan. The Commission requested that a supplemental analysis be prepared prior
to making a recommendation on this issue.
The supplemental analysis included an assessment of build-out traffic forecasts for two
roadway network alternatives as follows:
The removal of the North General Kearny extension without additional network
modifications.
The removal of the North General Kearny extension with the extension of
Nicolas Road west to Margarita Road.
The supplemental analysis also included a select link analysis which was performed to identify
where the trips that use the extension begin and end. The supplemental analysis has been
attached for the Council's review.
Alternative A resulted in an increase of 4,500 vehicle trips per day along Winchester, between
Margarita and Nicolas Roads. The level of service remains at F only because service levels
are not defined below F. The increase in oaily volume to capacity ratio indicates severe
congestion over longer periods during the day.
S%GENPLAN~GP. CC1 4
Alternative B resulted in a lower increase of trips on Winchester. Although the analysis
suggests that the Nicolas Road extension would offset most of the traffic increase on
Winchester, the select link analysis indicates that the shift in traffic from North General
Kearny is still being added to Winchester, between Margarita and Nicolas, and other traffic
on Winchester is being shifted to the Nicolas Road extension.
Both alternatives would result in lowering the level of service on Margarita between
Winchester and North General Kearny, from C to D. The select link analysis indicates that 10
percent of the trips that would use North General Kearny, start or end at the "Regional
Center" project, while 3 percent start or end in the "Campoe Verdes" project, and about 30
percent start or end in the Meadowview area.
After consideration of the data, the Commission on a 2-1 .straw vote, decided to retain the
N. General Kearny extension, include the Nicolas Road extension, and add the following policy
statement:
The North General Kearny Road extension linking Nicolas Road to the realigned
Margarita Road is not to be implemented until all other major arterials and
improvements in the area are completed. These other improvements include:
· Construction of Butterfield Stage Road north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
· Construction of Margarita Road from Solana to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
· Construction of Overland Drive Overpass
· Widening of Highway 79 North, six lanes from Ynez to Auld
Widening of Winchester Road (79 North) 1-15 Overpasses and road
improvements
Construction of Nicolas Road easterly from Winchester Road to Butterfield
Stage Road
Construction of Murrieta Hot Springs Road east from Winchester Road to
Butterfield Stage Road
Construction of Calle Girasol to Calle Chapos to Walcott Lane (between La
· Serena and Nicolas)
Construction of Butterfield Stage Road from Highway 79 South to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road) has been completed.
The sizing of Santiago, Jedediah Smith, and Ynez in the Los Ranchitos/Santiago Estates areas
was also raised as a concern. The Circulation Plan shows these roadways as 4 lane
secondary arterials. The City's traffic consultant indicated that the sizing of these roadways
was necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service on Rancho California and 79 South.
It was pointed out that Jedediah Smith, between Cabrillo and Margarita was already improved
to full width, but currently operated as a two lane road. The consensus of the Commission
was to leave Santiago, Jedediah Smith, and Ynez on the Circulation Plan as proposed.
$~GENPLAN~,GP. CC1 5
CONCLUSION
The General Plan Consultants and Planning Department believe the Circulation Element has
been adequately revised to respond to comments received by individuals, groups and other
agencies. Comments on the draft General Plan document that enhanced and strengthened
the General Plan were incorporated into the General Plan.
Attachments:
1. Supplemental Traffic Analysis - Page 7
2. Circulation Element Comment Letters - Page 8
S~GENPLAN~GP. CC1 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
S~GENPt,AN~GP. CC1 7
SUPPLEI~IENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
GENERAL KEARNY ROAD EXTENSION
City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element
Introduction
At the request of the'. City of Temecula Planning Commission and Staff, Wilbur Smith
Associates has prepared supplemental analysis relative to the potential exclusion of the
General Kearny Road Extension between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road.
In more specific terms, the supplemental analysis included the development and assessment
of build-out traffic forecasts for two roadway network alternatives which eliminate the
General Kearny Road Extension. The two network alternatives identified by the Planning
Commission to be studied are as follows:
A. Removal of General Kearny Road Extension without addition roadway network
modifications; and
B. Removal of General Kearny Road Extension and additional of Nicolas Road
Extension easterly to Margarita Road.
The supplemental analysis also included a "select link" analysis to identify the - zonal
(geographic) origins and destinations of vehicle trips projected to use General Kearny Road
under the currently recommended Circulation Plan. This addresses the basic question
regarding who (e.g. which development areas) would use the General Kearny Road
Extension if it were implemented.
Build-Out Dailv Traffic Forecasts
Daily traffic forecasts representing build-out conditions within the City of Temecula and
surrounding communities were developed for the two roadway network alternatives using
the Temecula Circulation Element traffic model. The results of the traffic forecasting
procedure are illustrated in Figure 1 through 3. Traffic forecasts for key roadway segments
impacted by the elimination of the General Kearny Extension are as follows:
Alternative A - Without General Kearny Extension
· Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve
between 81,000 and 83,000 vehicles per day.
· Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an
average of 26,000 vehicles per day.
· Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would serve
an average of 35,000 vehicles per day.
Alternative B - Without General Kearny Extension and with Nicolas Road Extension
to Margarita Road
· Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve
between 78,000 and 80,000 vehicles per day.
· Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road would carry an
average of 28,000 vehicles per day.
· . Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Margarita Road would carry an
average of 10,000 vehicles per day.
· Margarita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would
serve an average of 34,000 vehicles per day.
Other shifts in traffic would occur as a result of eliminating the General Keamy Extension
which are not explicitly noted on Figure 1. These generally include increases in traffic along
the following roadways:
-the Butterfield Stage Road corridor between Borel Road and Pauta Road;
- the Borel Road/Hunter Road corridor west of Butterfield Stage Road;
- the La Serena Way corridor west of Butterfield Stage Road; and
- the Margarita Road corridor between Rancho Way and Rancho California Road.
2
Draft Circulation Plan - With General Kearny Extension
· Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Nicolas Road would serve
between 76,000 and 79,000.
· Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and Rofipaugh Road would carry an
average of 21,000 vehicles per day.
· Margafita Road between Winchester Road and General Kearny Road would
serve an average of 30,000 vehicles per day.
Traffic Oneration Imnacts
The assessment of forecasted volume to capacity ratios and corresponding Level of Service
is summarized in the following table:
Draft
Circulation Plan
Alternative A
Alternative B
v/c .LOS y/C LOS V/C LOS '
Winchester Road 1.02-1.06 F
1.09-1.12 F 1.05-1.08 F
0.62 B 0.67 B
Nicolas Road (East) 0.50 A
Nicolas Road N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.59 A
(Extension)
Margarita Road 0.71 C 0.83 D 0.81 D
V/C - Volume to capacity ratio
LOS - Level of Service
N.A. - Not applicable to alternative
3 ~
~ .
eeeeeeeee
ez ~
0 O00(~O00C
0
0
0
0 0000000
O0 (3 O0
Z
OC
Select Link Analvsis
The "select link" analysis is a tool offered by the traffic forecasting computer model which
allows the user to identify the origins and destinations of vehicle trips assigned to a roadway
segment (link) or segments in the highway network. This procedure was used to identify the
general geographic location of origins/destinations of vehicle trips which would use the
General Kearny Extension.
The results of the General Kearny Extension "select link" analysis are illustrated in Figure
4. For the purpose of graphically showing geographic origins/destinations of trips which
would use General Kearny, the Temecula Circulation Element Traffic Model traffic analysis
zones were grouped into larger zones which represent the geographic locations of the trip
ends.
The numeric value shown in each area represents the number of vehicle trip ends either
"originating in" or destined to" the area which would use the General Kearny Extension.
Number shown next to arrows indicate the general directional location and magnitude of trip
ends outside of the City.
In response to questions regarding the general contribution of trips to and from the proposal
Kernper Urban Core Projects (e.g. Temecula Regional Center, Campos Verdes, and
Winchester Hills), the contribution would total approximately 1,620 trip ends for the three
projects. Temecula Regional Center, which will offer shopping and employment
opportunities to area residents in the principal contributor of the three Urban Core Projects.
It should be noted however, that if these shopping and employment opportunities are not '
provided at this location, residents would seek these opportunities .elsewhere in the
community or outside the area. Since most other shopping and employment opportunities
are oriented along the 1-15 corridor (within and outside the City) the trip routings would still
maintain the same general orientation.
Findings
The projected build-out traffic volume and traffic operation analysis result in the following
key findings:
1. Alternative A, which eliminates the General Kearny Extension
--- 4
would result in approximately 4,500 vehicles per day being added
to the critical Winchester Road segment. The projected volumes
on the segment of Winchester Road would result in volume to
capacity ratios ranging from 1.09 to 1.12. Level of Service remains
at F (as compared to the Draft Circulation Plan) only because
service levels are not defined beyond the point that traffic volu,me
exceed the maximum roadway capacity. The increase in daily
volume to capacity ratio essentially indicates that severe congested
traffic conditions could be expected during extended periods of the
day.
Alternative B, which also ellminates the General Keamy Extension
but provides an extension of Nicolas Road to Margarita Road,
results in a smaller increase of approximately 1,400 vehicles per
day on Winchester Road. Traffic operation on Winchester Road
would worsen by extending the period of severe traffic congestion,
but not to the degree resulting from Alternative A. Although the
analysis suggests that the Nieolas Road Extension would offset
most of the traffic increase on Winchester Road resulting from the
elimination of the General Kearny Extension, data generated by
'the General Kearny "select link" analysis indicates that the Nicolas
Road Extension serves less than ~400 of the approximate 11,000
vehicle trips which would otherwise have used the General Kearny
Extension. In other words, the shift in traffic from General
Kearny is still being added to the critical Winchester Road
segment, and other traffic on Winchester Road is being shifted to
the Nicolas Road extension.
Both Alternative A and B would result in a significant increase in
traffic volume on Margafita Road (between Winchester Road and
General Kearny Road) and would degrade the Margafita Road
level of service from "C" to "D".
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CIRCULATION ELEMENT COMMENT LETTERS
S~GENPI..AN~,GP.CC1 8
ITEM NO. 3