The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About09 September 10, 2001 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00086 L0.60 IOOZ-o0M-62 <- 031101d 3/I I1 .3p 'lIp-AatIZOBSZ\IIA !nu \pp pp001\BSZYIO\vO <• 311VN 31IJ Alternative Alignments for Banning / Beaumont to Temecula Corridor III 11 1;r redNGe,egr T e„po tartgep I).e I., dem SO UTHERN CA LIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS N S LEGEND Pr oposed Mu ltimo da I Alter natives • Alt I - SR79/Scott Alt 3 - SR79/Ke ller Alt 5A - E By/Pour/SR79 Alt 5B - E By/Pour/Rain Alt 7A - Domgni/Leon Alt 78 - Domgn t/Scott Alt HY - Package of Alts Ex is ting Highwa y - Exlsting Arterial - --- Existing Railroa d - — — Cou nty Line - — - - Under Separate Study - DRAFT 0 I 2 3 MILE July 18, 2001 Alternative Alignments for Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore Corridor irmimmimAmmingr— Lake mo t)i v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ilikelks,,,t 401 ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS N 5 Proposed Multimodal Alternatives i Alt IA - Ramona/EI Sorb/Nth Alt IB - Ramona/El Sorb/Cent Alt 4A - Alt 4C - Alt 4D - Alt 5A - Alt 5B - SR74/Cent/SR74 a SR74/Cent/Nich SR74/Sth Dom/SR74/Cent/SR74 Dom/SR74/Nth/Lake LEGENQ Alt 5C - Dom/SR74/Cent/Nich Alt 5D - Dom/SR74/5th Alt 5E - Dom/SR74/Sth/Mich Alt 6A - Dom/Nth RR Cn Alt 6B - Dom/Sth RR Cn Alt HYI- Dom/1215/Cal Alt HY3- Dom/1215/La Sier y'0 Existing Highway - Existing Arterial - -- Existing Railroad - County Line - -- f W� • ` DRAFT 0 3 MILE July 18, 2001 & s2 000265 .L.TC, � t I) Ga6784 BARBARA A. SPENCER 33250 Sunset Ave. Menifee Valley, CA 92584 Phone: (909) 244-1352 Fax: (909) 244-6838 September 10, 2001 Ms. Cathy Bechtel Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Comments on corridors, alternatives, and issues Dear Ms. Bechtel: I am by letter at this time speaking to the Commission as a private citizen concerned about the Menifee Valley community in which I have chosen to live. However that statement is made in the context of my concern that governing entities which residents of this community have been led to believe have been representing its interests have apparently abdicated their opportunities to speak. Only now — very late in the process — are other community organizations becoming aware of this absence of representation by their fellow citizens who hold apparent power to speak for the community but have failed to do so. Also acts by County Supervisors contrary to the interests of this community while it pursues application for status as a city with its own government are of significant concern to many residents. Recently I was authorized by the Antelope-Menifee Rural Center ("Rural Center") to be its advocate before the California Public Utilities Commission questioning the need for and preferred routing selection of the SDG&E 500 kV transmission line through and along our northeasterly boundaries. The Rural Center was founded 70 years ago to promote the interests of the grain farmer founders of this community, and it has since operated continuously as a non- profit association serving and protecting the interests of its rural community which now comprises more than 2000 rural families and includes urbanized tracts developed over the past 15 years or so. Presently, however, significant portions of its community are rapidly becoming urbanized, still without a governing voice to speak for them. This silence is working to the detriment of a sizable segment of land which is proposed to be seriously impacted by transportation planning for the coming decades of anticipated enormous population growth. The unconscionable silence of an organization abdicating its authority and failing to address on behalf of its developing community issues on such important and far-reaching matters 1 as this major transportation planning cannot be allowed to continue. My voice is small, but I must speak! Our un-incorporated community of Menifee Valley, which includes Sun City and Quail Valley as well as the semi -rural and rural Antelope, Menifee and Paloma Valleys, is situated on approximately 42 square miles, or 26,880 acres. It presently contains a population of approximately 55,000 to 60,000 representing some 26,000 registered voters. Our community is impacted by both the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor and the Winchester to Temecula corridor. My focus is to encourage transportation developments which will aid growth rather than cut off segments of our community, destroy its existing cohesion and serve merely to transport large numbers of people through our community without providing opportunities for them to stop, shop and work in areas designated for residential, industrial and commercial growth within our community over the next two decades. We recognize that transportation improvements can be a positive factor in development of our valley IF built in a unified approach. What we do not wish to see is a maze of roads built as mere transports, even on land which now appears to be vacant, that will have the effect of cutting off neighborhoods from access to our community connections (schools, shopping, work and neighborhood friends) by restricting, blocking, or otherwise limiting local streets in deference to moving large numbers of vehicles or people through our explosively growing community in a hurry. My specific comments include: Hemet to Corona -Lake Elsinore Residents I have spoken to: • Strongly favor the SR 74 corridor along Ethanac Rd. from Hemet on the east to its I-15 junction. The connection more northerly of Railroad Canyon Rd. (5b) appears to be more logical — existing congestion around Railroad Canyon Rd. is already exacerbated by too many intersections and signals within a very short distance — and no good solution for this bottleneck has been found. • Favor widening and improvement of Newport Rd. from 6a/6b near entrance to Diamond Valley Lake on the east to a new interchange at 1-15 so long as that connection remains close to Canyon Lake and is not too close to Bundy Canyon Rd. exit further south. We recognize that topography and drainage present engineering challenges. Reasons for this preference include: • the fact there already exists a strong commercial base along Newport Rd. within the Menifee Valley community; and • improved access made available to residents of Canyon Lake will permit them to shop/work in Menifee Valley rather than being restricted by traffic constraints to these activities in Lake Elsinore. 2 • Major lake -side housing developments which have already been approved to be built east of Winchester are in a direct line with the extension of Newport Rd., and residents of these projects could benefit from a direct connection also. • Prefer development and widening of Newport Rd. over that of Bundy Canyon Rd. further south. Reasons for this preference include: • The areas north and south of Bundy Canyon Rd. between I-15 and I-215 have long been primarily designated as 2-1/2 acre minimum lot size (some deviations have been made, however development in larger parcels of 2-1/2, 5, 10 and 20 acres is the norm) — certainly less dense than 5000 to 7200 square foot lots in urban tracts as exist in conjunction with commercial development along Newport Rd. • Stands of protected oak trees along Bundy Canyon Rd. need to be preserved. • We wish to preserve as long as possible the existing ambiance of Bundy Canyon Rd. with oaks creating a canopy over the road. • Need to preserve the scenic corridors established as part of the Sun City-Menifee Community Plan. These corridors are: • Along I-215 from Keller Rd. on the south to Ethanac Rd. on the north; • Along Newport Rd. from I-215 east to Menifee Rd.; • Along Menifee Rd. north from Newport Rd. to its present end and following its projected alignment north to McCall. We as the unified voice of the Rural Center are addressing the proposed SDG&E routing of the Valley -Rainbow Interconnect transmission line which directly negatively impacts the northeasterly quadrant of this scenic corridor along Newport Rd. and Menifee Rd. and then continues at an angle through the entire remainder of our community. • What is the impact of 6a and 6b east of I-215 versus the 5a through 5e series? • Which of alternatives 4, 5 and 6 has the least impact on MSHCP proposed links of habitat? • Which route will permit co -existence of multi modal facilities and habitat crossings? Winchester to Temecula Please clarify an explanation that has been given in several open house presentations I have attended. 3 If the intent of the Winchester to Temecula corridor is "to move traffic in by-pass through Temecula", HOW IS THAT INTENT ACCOMPLISHED by widening Newport Rd., Scott Rd., Keller Rd. and even Craig or Clinton Keith north of Temecula, funneling all of SR 79 traffic via those 4 or 5 streets, dumping it all onto I-215 with concentration of approximately 5 interchanges in 5 miles, then compounding congestion on the freeway system by all these arteries loading onto combined 1-15 and I-215 within another few miles where it meets the northerly end of Temecula? And this question remains even if the eventual I-15/1-215 roadway is 14 lanes in width! From my own freeway driving experience, such number of connections within such a correspondingly short distance will create congestion rather than relieve it. And this proposed multi -road widening in the Menifee Valley community area does not address the bottleneck at the southern end of Temecula. I fear this proposal will extend gridlock — it certainly will not eliminate it. If the NIMBY attitude of many Temecula residents that 5a and 5b along Butterfield Stage Rd. "has been eliminated" due to their vocal opposition is correct, the effect will be to correspondingly more severely impact the Menifee Valley community. This is because elimination of that southerly route pours all of the traffic from SR 79 onto the combined widening of Newport Rd., Scott Rd., Keller Rd. and (apparently added in recently) Craig Rd. (7a) within its community boundaries. Our other concerns include: • The area west of I-215 from north of Newport Rd. on the north and Keller Rd. on the south appears from all draft RCIP maps we have seen to be designated for either industrial or multi -use development. Access and interchanges on both sides of I-215 need to be built to handle movement of people and goods to work in the area west of I-215. Your documents are unclear whether there are planned interchanges to permit exit off I-215 directly to the commercial, industrial and residential areas to the west. • Frequent freeway under -crossings or over -crossings and signalized frequent intersections along Newport Rd., Scott Rd., Keller Rd. and Craig Rd. need to be incorporated into the plan to permit local residents unrestricted access to all portions of their Menifee Valley community which is bisected by I-215 as well as by these proposed widened streets. This current discussion, chopping through our community in such a significant number and manner, makes actual development of the long - promised Holland Rd. over -crossing even more critical than ever, but in addition there need to be similar crossings constructed at other points as well. Since the RCIP and all its elements require an approval vote of population directly affected, responsible parties and community groups need NOW to go to those voters/population directly affected and consider their opinions. To this point in time, that connection has not been effectively made in the Menifee Valley community. 4 It is not the intent of Menifee Valley residents I have spoken with to be NIMBY in attitude as are other local communities. Rather, our stress is to logically consider the economic effects of multiply bisecting our Menifee Valley community with major transportation 'components as related to the overall effects of transportation development for the coming decades. This Commission has the power as well as the obligation to make good choices. We sincerely request you consider our opinions and the future of our community when making your recommendations. Respectfully submitted, /A/ Barbara A. Spencer 5 e �t9 o\ \b► 9Oy -.; . v�@� .F P. . L�0 O56 r b5 September 9, 2001 Gary Grant Fax 657-9319 It is our belief that the traffic light at Meadow Brook and Highway 74 should NOT be moved. Leave the lighfalone. Neill B. Scott Suzanne R. Scott 27915 Wasson Cyn Rd., Perris CA 92570-7576 tJ567b6 Fax Cover Sheet Moreno Valley Dialysis Center 22620 Goldencrest Drive, S.Jite ; 0 i Moreno Valley, California 9?553 ;`909) 656-3804 Telephone /909) 656-7508 fax Send to: G 0, Attention: Office Locution„ r From: Fax Number. ; F'hone Numb Dote: - !n -b/ Office ! ocalion: Urgent Re; -_,,!y ASAP J Please comment Pease ReYiew i For your irifcormafior, Toro Loges. ..;ding cover: Comments: t9--(9,12,4 b { S(tattrus.• 'jSi,�,rj,,�� e m�rx- �°.-e�. v C( t. r\, zt 44? 4 -7 - -! o rn-6u q C><-cn- ( e; -1,44 -0 ct- L a 3 Z rk.Yr gas -)o eT c- 0) atvol of September 9 , 2001 Attention : Eric Haley Riverside County Transportation Commission Re : Traffice Signal Hwy 74 /Cross Streets — Greenwald & Meadowbrook This evening we learned of a meeting taking place tomorrow morning in regards to a traffic signal located at Highway 74 at cross streets Greenwald Avenue and Meadowbrook Avenue . Are we to understand that you are even thinking about removing this signal and relocating further South ? We were never so happy when we saw construction of this signal . What a relief it has been ! After living in the Meadowbrook area for the past 10 years and having to deal with that intersection WITHOUT a signal , you could only understand from having to use it on a daily basis to get on and off of Highway 74 . There were times we would sit at the intersection on Meadowbrook , waiting for 5 to 10 minutes for there to be a break in traffic . Not only a break , but the speed of the traffic , you had to be extremely carefull in pulling onto Highway 74 . The amount of accidents which have occurred at this intersection over the years is no secret . Many lives have been lost and many injured . As motorcycle riders , commuting to work , I cannot begin to explain the safety factor , that this signal has allowed . We can safely enter and exit Highway 74 from Meadowbrook . The traffic coming from Canyon Lake is non stop . From what I can see , if this signal is relocated , Canyon Lake residents will be the ones that benefit from this . A group of people have protested and petitioned over the years to have this signal installed for the safety of all . Now , we finually get one installed and someone wants to remove it ?? All the money invested in this project for the safety of all and you want to remove it? We hope that you will think this over extensively before making any consideration in removing this signal . If a signal is needed elsewhere , install another signal . This signal has been beneficial also , as far as the traffic speeding down Highway 74 . The majority of drivers DO NOT drive the speed limit , and a large amount of them drive dangerously . The signal is a way of making them have to slow down and stop . It is an excellent location , being about midway between Lake Elsinore and Perris . Respectfully , Karen De Rouen /� Benedict Salvador d,4y,��..e C�.�1 � � 26565 Hammack Avenue Perris , California 92570 ano», ut2r,