Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010506 PC Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 2006 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:30 p.m., on Thursday, January 5,2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Mathewson thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Referencing a recent accident, Mr. Robert MacHa Ie, French Valley, stated that the corner of. Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos is a dangerous corner at night, advising that the corner is not property lit; that the corner lacks yellow blinking lights; and that the corner is too sharp for the posted speed limit. In response to Mr. MacHa Ie's concern, Chairman Mathewson suggested that he contact the Department of Public Works. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 16, 2005. 1.2 Approve the Minutes of December 7, 2005. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained on Item No. 1.2. Chairman Mathewson advised the audience that any comments regarding Item No. 2 (Temecula Hospital) be limited to new items that were not addressed at the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission hearing. Chairman Mathewson also requested that speakers observe the time limit, respect those who speak, and refrain from making any comments. R:IMinutesPCI010506 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from December 7, 2005 2 Plannina ADDlication No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned DeveloDment Overlav. PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and DeveloDment Plan. PA04- 0571 Parcel MaD. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General Plan Amendment. Zone Chanae. Conditional Use Permit. DeveloDment Plan and a Tentative Parcel MaD to construct a 566.160 sauare foot hosDital. includina medical office buildinas on 35.31 acres. located on North side of Hiahwav 79 South and south of DePortola Road. and aDDroximatelv 700 feet west of Maraarita Road Senior Planner Papp provided the Planning Commission with a staff report (of written material). Responding to a question raised by Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that an access point mid-block between DePortola Road and Highway 79 South has been discussed, but that it was not found to be a viable option due to the fact that the City, nor the applicant of this project, owns or controls the property in question; and that it is not designated on the Circulation Element to have a roadway in that vicinity. Senior Planner Papp offered the following additional information: . That medical office NO.2 will be a four-story,building . That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified the Corona property as an alternative site for the proposed hospital. For the Commission, Director of Public Hughes noted that the road portion south of DePortola Road would be identified as an offer of dedication, but has not been accepted by the City for use; and that it would not be considered a private street, (but a paper offering to be a public street) should the City elect to accept the offer of dedication. Referencing potential leaking underground storage tanks, Senior Planner Papp stated that a consultant will be addressing the issue and that no plume was found on the proposed site. Per PowerPoint Presentation, representing P & D consultant, Ms. Laura Stetson, highlighted responses to comments as well as comments that were received after the 30-day public review period of October 28, 2005 (of written material in staffs report), noting the following: . Noise of sirens . Hazardous waste operations from the hospital; . Groundwater issues Mr. Dan Johnson, representing Environmental Business Solutions, offered the following information with regard to groundwater issues raised by the public, per a PowerPoint Presentation: . That after carefully reviewing available information regarding potential leaking underground storage tanks, it was determined that there would be slight groundwater contamination on the project site R:\MinutesPCI010506 2 . That potential impacts would be limited to groundwater, but that there is no direct data that would indicate that there would be, at this time, impacts in the groundwater at the site in question . That low concentrations of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, was detected . That groundwater would not be used as a drinking water source for the proposed hospital . That potential issues would be vapors rising off the impacted groundwater, up through the soil, and possibly up to the ground surface and into the building . That vapors could possibly rise up through the soil column, off the impacted groundwater which in turn could affect a potential receptor . That after measuring MTBE concentrations and gasoline additives, it was determined that no MTBE and no gasoline constituents were detected . That in conclusion, there would be no health risk associated with the release of soil vapors. In response to Chairman Mathewson's question, Mr. Johnson reiterated that there would be no definitive data that would indicate whether or not there would be any MTBE in the groundwater; that oil companies have a responsibility and obligation to the Water Quality Control Board to investigate the full extent of MTBE in groundwater; and that whether there is MTBE in the groundwater or not, there would be no potential risk or threat, advising that there would be no complete exposure pathway but for the soil vapors. . That in conclusion a soil vapor survey was conducted; that the location of the soil vapor samples were located to assess the potential for migration and intrusion into the site from the MTBE plumes into the proposed site buildings; that no MTBE or gasoline constituents were detected; that, therefore, it would be unlikely that there would be any health risk associated with the release; and that if there were any impacts to the groundwater, it would be very slight. Mr. Tom Wright, licensed professional geologist, offered the following comments: . That oil companies have put in recovery wells that would be located east to the subject site; that recovery wells would not be placed on the proposed site; that the wells would treat any contamination that could be in the groundwater; that all the concentrations at the proposed site have been declining over the last several years; and that remediation systems have been implemented, which will further decrease the levels. R:\MinutesPCI010506 3 At this time, Ms. Stetson P & D consultant, continued with the responses to comments, highlighting the following: . Traffic . Cumulative traffic impacts . Change in neighborhood character. In closing, Senior Planner Papp informed the Planning Commission that staff received two additional e-mails and one letter, expressing opposition to the proposed project (at this time, Mr. Papp distributed the letters received by staff). Mr. Papp recommended that the Planning Commission accept the responses to the comment letters and recommended removal of the Condition of Approval related to Dartolo Road access; and recommended that the City Council approve the Planning Application for the proposed project; that if the Planning Commission were to concur with staff recommendation, staff would reverse the resolution and Condition of Approval regarding Dartolo Road access, prior to the City Council hearing of January 24, 2006. Per PowerPoint Presentation, Ms. Linda Bradley CEO and Managing Director of Southwest Heath Care System Services, provided responses to the issues related to the design of the facility raised at the hearing of November 16, 2005, as well as other questions. At this time, Ms. Bradley highlighted on the following: . Design decisions . Hospital health care today . Best practice design . Best demonstrated practice . Regulatory compliance . Patient care . Patient safety . Employee safety . Facility security . Customer considerations . Community satisfaction . Aesthetics considerations. Addressing comments made by the Planning Commission, Ms. Bradley noted the following: . That the hospital will be part of Phase I, but that Phase 1 will be split into 1a and 1b; that in order for the proposed hospital to be built, it would need an approval from the State which could take between 12 and 24 months; and that a medical office building may be built without State approval . That a hospital does not generate ambulance runs; that ambulance runs are generated by the need of the community; that if the proposed hospital were approved, it would reduce the length of siren noises because ambulances would have a shorter distance to drive . That the hospital will hold regular disaster drills and will be working closely with Emergency Medical Service (EMS) agencies and Fire and Police Departments; that disaster drills will be held at regular required intervals; and that the drills will go through actual disaster scenarios and mock victims R:IMinutesPCI010506 4 . That the administration of the proposed hospital has never intended to make the proposed hospital a trauma center . . That the hospital, as designed, would deliver the largest number of beds, built in the most affective design in the shortest time possible . That the cost of redesign would not be a primary concern for the applicant; that the primary concern for the applicant would be that the hospital/healthcare needs be delivered to the community in the least amount of time . That any delays for the proposed project would be time and money. At this time, the Planning Commission took a six-minute recess. Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Ms. Stetson stated that there would be an average of two siren ambulance runs per day; that there would be an average of five to seven ambulance runs a week; and that the balance of those siren runs would not be using its sirens. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke in succort of the proposed project: . Ms. Atalanta Olito, Murrieta . Ms. Michelle Arrellano, Temecula . Mr. Bruce Barton, Riverside . Mr. David Cruz, Alta Loma . Ms. Ramona Delaney, Wildomar . Ms. Pam Diran . Mr. Dennis Frank, Temecula . Mr. Roger Ziemer, Temecula . Ms. Jan Bates, Fallbrook . Mr. Brent Jacobsen, Temecula The above-mentioned individuals spoke in succort of the proposed project for the following reasons: . That the community of Temecula is in great need for a hospital . That currently every patient that is transported by the 911 system would be transported out of the City of Temecula, resulting in Emergency Medical Service resources leaving the City . That horses that live in the adjacent community to the proposed project could be trained to become accommodating of noises such as helicopters and sirens . That the function and form of a hospital would be critical . That the hospital was designed for the community it serves R:IMinutesPCI010506 5 . That the City of Temecula has always addressed projects with a vision towards the future needs of the community, while balancing community impacts and the need for community services projecting 20 to 30 years out; and that the proposed project would be one of those projects that would need to be projected 30 to 40 years out . That there would be a specific community need for the project hospital to serve the entire region especially, the Redhawk and Vail Ranch community. . That the proposed site has been planned for commercial/professional/industrial development for many years, it would not be considered rural . That the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) strongly supports the proposed project as presented for its specific needs and the services in the City of Temecula . That Emergency Medical Services will work with the hospital in lending assistance on how Code 3 responses could be used as an ambulance would approach the hospital. The following individuals spoke in ODDosition of the proposed project: . Ms. Gloria Smith . Ms. Nicole Stormon, Temecula . Mr. Brad Stermon, Temecula . Mr. Neal Zift, Temecula . Mr. Tom Hannum, Temecula . Mr. A. Evan Harbottle, Temecula . Mr. Paul Gupta, Temecula . Mr. Kenneth Ray, Temecula . . Mr. Ricardo Echeverria, Temecula . Mr. Don Brown, Temecula The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed project for the following reasons: . That the City errors in placing the burden of a health risk on the California Nurses Association (CNA) . That the City has failed to provide the public with information in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with regard to potential leaking underground storage tanks . That the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would require more than the reviewing of files or vapor studies · That as a matter of law, the City's statement of overriding consideration violates CEQA · That the handling of the proposed project has been irresponsible and showed signs of improprieties · That the manner in which the proposed project has been pushed through the system showed that the City is hiding issues that citizens have the right to know R:\MinutesPCI010506 6 . That if the City Council were truly looking out for the citizens of the City, it would have asked the administration of the hospital to look for property for a longer period of time . That to destroy a 40-year old neighborhood and way of life, to endanger families and animals, and to utilize staff with bad attitudes would show the bullying methods of the City . That the residents in the adjacent community were of the understanding that the bearming and landscaping separating the hospital project from DePortola Road and the association of residential neighborhoods, would be installed as part of Phase 1 . That the proposed hospital should be redesigned to a smaller configuration . That the hospital, as proposed, will generate immense negative impacts upon the neighborhoods of southern Temecula. Chairman Mathewson thanked the audience for their observance of the rules and regulations of the pubic hearing. In response to a comment made regarding City Council and staff, Chairman Mathewson stated that the City's planning staff has always demonstrated a high level of professionalism and has done an outstanding job addressing all issues that have been raised by the public by providing information in the timeliest manner; and that the City Council has consistently demonstrated its commitment to the community. At this time, the Planning Commission took a five-minute recess. Ms. Bradley, representing Southwest Healthcare System, responded to two issues that were raised by speakers, noting the following: . That heavy landscaping will be installed around the perimeter of the site as part of Phase 1 . That the intent for Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center would be to expand, not close. Director of Public Works Hughes offered the following comments: . That Pio Pico Road was analyzed during the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process . That the EIR analyzed the Dartolo Road access and found that the connection would actually create significant traffic impacts . That every impact reflected in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was either resolved, or will be resolved by the proposed project, and/or will be resolved by actively funded projects that the City will be undergoing · That it would be important to understand that the current zoning for the property site could have generated two to three times as many trips per day with another project. R:IMinutesPCI010506 7 At this time, the public hearing was closed. Commission Discussion Commissioner Guerriero stated that although he would be in favor of the proposed project, he would ask that the applicant consider reducing the height of the towers by redesigning the proposed hospital. Understanding the concerns of the opposing residents, Commissioner Telesio relayed his full support of the proposed project as presented. Echoing Commissioner Telesio's comment, Commissioner Harter stated that he, also, would be in full support of the proposed project as presented. Relaying his disappointment that the applicant did not take more time to address the concerns of adjacent residents with regard to height, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the following: . That his concern would be that there would be no guarantee that the proposed hospital would be built . That he would suggest postponing the second reading until the proposed project has been approved by the State. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeffs suggestion, City Attorney Thorson stated that postponing the second reading would result in the denial of building the medical office building until the second reading has been read. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he would be in favor of the proposed project, but would request that the landscaping around the perimeter be installed as soon as possible to allow time for trees to grow. Relaying his support of the hospital project, Chairman Mathewson requested that the applicant explore the possibility of redesigning the hospital project with regard to the height of the proposed hospital, and that the applicant address this request with the City Council. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation which would include the recommendation to delete Dartolo Road access connection from the proposed project. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. R:\MinutesPCI010506 8 , PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND RELATED ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE TEMECULA REGIONAL HOSPITAL PROJECT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080- 004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0462, PA05-0302, PA04-0463, PA04-0571 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO REMOVE EIGHT (8) SUBJECT PARCELS FROM THE Z "FUTURE SPECIFIC PLAN" OVERLAY DESIGNATION AND CORRESPONDING TWO-STORY HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR A SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD," AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND959-080-007.THROUGH 959-080- 010 (PA04-0462) R:IMinutesPCI010506 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO-8) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY-9 (PDO-9) AND ADOPT SECTIONS 17.22.200 THROUGH 17.22.206 INCLUDING THE PDO TEXT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD" AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-08-007 THROUGH 959-080- 010 (PA04-0462) PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0463, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 320-BED HOSPITAL FACILITY AND HELIPAD; AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 408,160 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, A HELIPAD, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 140,000 SQUARE FEET, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CANCER CENTER, AND AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT FITNESS REHABILITATION CENTER ALL TOTALING 566,160 SQUARE FEET ON 35.31 ACRES," LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 959- 080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 R:IMinutesPCI010506 10 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 32468, TO CONSOLIDATE EIGHT LOTS TOTALING 35.31 ACRES INTO 1 PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 959-080-001 THROUGH 959-080-004 AND 959-080-007 THROUGH 959-080-010 (PA04-0571) COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS In response to Commissioner Telesio's concem regarding Apis Road, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that he will have Code Enforcement address the situation. For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Public Works Hughes noted that he will have a Public Works Technician check the timing of the signalization at Rancho California Road and Margarita Road. Chairman Mathewson advised the Commission that he has submitted a letter of resignation, effective February 3, 2006. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 10:15 p.m., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned to Wednesdav. Januarv 18. at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ulln-<' ~y0 Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:IMinutesPCI010506 11