Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111605 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on . Wednesday, November 16, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Per requirements of the Fire Marshal, Chairman Mathewson announced that additional seating will be available in the Main Conference Room. 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 No public comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of November 2, 2005. 2 Director's Hearina Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October, 2005. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\MinutesPC\ 111605 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS New Items 3 PJannina Application No. PA04-0462. General Plan Amendment. PA05-0302 Planned Development Over/avo PA04-0463 Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. PA04- 0571 Parcel Map. submitted bv Universal Health Services. Inc.. for a General. Plan Amendment: Zone Chanae. Conditional Use Permit. Development Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map to construct a 566.160 sauare foot hospital. includina medical office buildinas on 35,31 acres. located on North side of Hiahwav 79 South and south of DePortolaRoad. and approximatelv 700 feet west of Maraarita Road By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Papp presented the Planning Commission with a staff report (of written record), advising that subsequent to the preparation of the agenda report and packet of this meeting, two additional letters and three emails were received concerning the proposed project. For the Planning Commission, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that all street improvements along 79 South, the intersection at 79 South, and the driveway on De Portola will be in the first phase, except forthe Dartolo Road connection. . With regard to helicopter flights, Mr. Papp noted that the type of license that the applicant will be applying for would allow an average of one flight to six flights a month and that the perimeter landscaping will have 24-inch box and 15-gallon trees installed. By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Ms. Laura Stetson, representing P&D Consultants, presented the Environmental Impact Report (of record), highlighting the following: . Impacts considered but found to be less than significant o Aesthetics - scenic highways and visual character or quality o Air Quality - construction odors and consistency with adopted plans and policies o Hydrology and water quality o Land Use Planning o Noise - construction, ground-borne vibration, traffic-related noise, sirens, loading dock activities, trash pick-up, landscape maintenance, future exterior/interior noise environment . Potentially Significant Impacts that can be mitigated o Aesthetics - Light and glare o Noise - Operational impacts (mechanical yard, emergency generators, mechanical equipment, rooftop equipment) o Transportation - Project impacts . Unavoidable Significant Impacts o Short-term, long-term, and cumulative air quality impacts o Noise impacts associated with the maximum potential number of emergency helicopters flights o Cumulative traffic and circulation impacts R:\MinutesPC\ 111605 2 Ms. Stetson stated that given all the information, and as part of the approval process, if the Planning Commission were to recommend and the City Council were to approve the project with these significant unavoidable impacts, a finding must be made that the project benefits out-way the unavoidable significant affects (as noted below) associated with construction and operation of the hospital. . That the proposed hospital will provide necessary medical services to the local community including Emergency Acute/Outpatient and Cancer Medical care and rehabilitation . That the proposed hospital will provide the region with new employment opportunities for highly trained medical staff and medical service workers . That the proposed hospital will support diversification of Temecula's Economic and Employment base including and not limited to the biomedical research and office facilities that would be on site . That the Temecula Regional Hospital will be centrally located with access from a major roadway to best serve the medical service needs of local residence as well as the region. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked the applicant how the noise concern of sirens at night will be addressed. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thorson stated that because staff does not have all the responses to the numerous comments that were received from private parties, the Planning Commission will be asked to continue this item to the December 7,2005, Planning Commission meeting; at that time, staff will be addressing concerns of the Planning Commission as well as concerns from speakers. For the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that all questions and comments will be addressed at the December 7,2005, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Scott Crane, Director of Business Development for Riverside County for Universal Health Services and Ms. Linda Bradley, CEO and Managing Director of Southwest Health Care System (consisting of Inland Valley Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center) spoke in favor of the proposed project, offering the following: . That in light of the size of the City and considering its anticipated growth, this City should have a high-quality, state-of-the-art hospital . That a hospital would be a key facility in providing health care services to citizens of Temecula . That Temecula Valley is currently served by two Universal Health Service Hospitals, Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, both part of Southwest Health Care System; that Rancho Springs Medical Center (closest emergency room to the proposed site) is approximately eight miles north of the hospital project for Temecula R:IMinulesPC\ 111605 3 . That both current hospitals regularly operate at above 90% capacity for its average daily census; that the health care team desires and needs the proposed hospital; and that currently patients are treated in hallways because the community and demand for medical services has exceeded the design capacity of the current facilities . That Universal Health Services will be investing more than $50 million in expanding the two existing hospitals to add beds and rooms, an open heart and cardiac unit at Inland Valley Medical Center, O.B. Department at Rancho Springs, including a neo-natal intensive care unit, and doubling and tripling the size of the current emergency room . That expansions of Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs will not be able to accommodate the current demand . That in the event of a natural disaster, the community will not have the facilities to adequately handle a natural disaster or national security event . That although other properties were considered, it was determined that the 79 South corridor is properly configured with appropriate access . That for years Southwest Health Care Systems has proven to be a good corporate citizen for the community . That if the proposed project were approved, the hospital will be providing high-quality services easily accessible to Temecula residents who will no longer have to travel long distances to receive such care . . That the hospital design will be based on clinical needs and patient-care concerns; that departments that need to be close to each other for optimum critical patient care are the emergency departments, x-ray, and surgery; that out-patient services tend to flow horizontally within a hospital and in-patient services tend to flow vertically; that additionally, loading dock functions, materials management, and other support services are all areas that have primary relationships to the first-floor functions; and that departments such as administration, Human Resources, and Education are also located on the first level, to enable access from the public while maintaining secured areas on the non-public side of the hospital, including patient care towers . That patient rooms will be designed in stacking order, similar to a hotel; that typical bed floors operate most efficiently at 34 to 38 patient rooms per floor; for initial construction of the 1"10 beds; that the project will dictate five floors of patient rooms above the first floor of the whole facility; thereby, defining the project as a 6-story bed tower . That the State limits the distance hospital staff may travel from a nurse station to the patient room to 90 feet which, in turn, has an affect on how large a bed floor may be designed in order to maintain practical efficiency; that State code requires that all patient rooms have an exterior window; that with 170 beds, the amount of exterior wall needed to ensure that code requirements are met will dictate multiple levels of patient floors R:\MinutesPC\ 111605 4 . That after establishing a need for a multilevel tower, the location of the hospital tower will be determined by how the tower will relate to internal functions; and that the key criteria for locating the bed tower will be dictated by the proximity of the critical core departments, ER, Imaging, and surgery . That in the design of the Temecula Hospital, the core elevators are located centrally among the core departments and central to the first-level floor plan; that optimum patient transfer efficiency will be achieved with the central core; that if you were an in-patient in the hospital, one would desire to be closer to the elevators so that one could get to the needed services faster . That mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems are more efficiently designed with the central tower which lead to faster construction and help provide quality health care sooner . That if the proposed hospital were designed with shorter bed towers, patients would have a longer distance to access needed critical services and, therefore, taking longer to get life-saving services to patients . That the hospital project will bring between 1,000 and 1 ,200 new local jobs and will eliminate long commutes; and that. the hospital will also bring two medical office buildings, one that will be built prior to the hospital, providing outpatient hospital services such as outpatient care, x-ray and lab, physical therapy as well as physician offices . That the hospital will bring medical and surgical services, an intensive care unit, eight operating rooms, lab and x-ray, and an emergency department that will be able to assist more than 40 patients at one time . That the hospital will not be designated as a trauma center . That when the hospital will be built, it will be one of the top three employers and tax payers in the City of Temecula . That the applicant is aware of the concerns of the helipad but that the helipad would only be used to transport critically injured or ill patients to a specialty hospital . That the patient care tower will allow for a future planned expansion if necessary, with no need to expand infrastructure; therefore, expansion may occur rapidly to meet the needs of the community . That the proposal including a complete plan for the hospital with no hidden parts and/or no changes contemplated down the road for the hospital . That with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council and the City Council's approval, Universal Health System will deliver a hospital. R:\MinutesPCI 1 1 1605 5 In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern regarding the sound of sirens at night, Mr. Crane stated the construction of a hospital would not create more ambulance runs; that ambulance runs are currently based on population, that ambulance needs occur whether there is a hospital or not; and that it would be the destination of the ambulance that would cause the siren. Referencing Chairman Mathewson's question regarding doubling up on nurses station to reduce the height of the towers, Ms. Stetson advised that doubling nurses station to have broader patient towers and less stories would result in a longer distance to get a patient to emergency services; that it is very important to have patient care floors be the perimeter in order to provide shorter distance times from the furthest patients out to the central core down to the emergency services; and that higher towers, with less square footage, would be best for patient care. For the Planning Commission, Mr. Crane stated that a designation for a trauma center would be designated by the County, not Universal Health Systems. Ms. Stetson informed the Commission that because sudden and unanticipated changes in patient's conditions occur, it would be difficult to determine how patients are placed in a hospital. It was also stated for the Commission that the State and County regulate the disposal of hazardous materials. Mr. Crane advised that Universal Health Systems explored other construction sites but that the sites were not adequately designed to meet the needs of the hospital. In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr. Crane stated that typically the number of helicopter flights would relate to emergency room visits; that there will be occasions when conditions will change with a patient which would require relocation and that if the hospital were to exceed the maximum number of helicopter flights allowed, a viable alternative would be to ground transport patients to Inland Valley Regional Medical Center (Trauma Center) from a critical care ambulance transfer and helicopter transport the patient from there. Chairman Mathewson thanked Mr. Crane and Ms. Stetson for their report. At 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a 15-minute break. At 8:15 the Planning Commission resumed with the meeting. At this time the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed hospital project . . Dr. Russ Hatt . Dr. Kevin Flaig, Murrieta . Dr. Edward Pillar, Murrieta . Ms. Linda Maxwell, Temecula . Mr. Charles V. Bahr, Corona . Ms. Joan Sparkman . Mr. Rick Meyer . Ms. Leah Patterson, Murrieta . Ms. Tomi Arbogast, Temecula R:\MinutesPC\ 111605 6 . Ms. Vanessa Ruelas . Mr. Roger Ziemer, Temecula . Ms. Alice Sullivan, Temecula . Mr. Dennis Frank, Temecula . Mr. Michael Murphy, Canyon Lake . Ms. Rene Aberle, Murrieta . Ms. Debbie Parker, Temecula . Janis Rustard, Temecula . Mr. Mark Nelson, Temecula . Dr. Brett Ginther, Fallbrook . Dr. Reza Vaezazizi, Temecula . Ms. Debbie Moss, Temecula . Ms. Barbara Lasko-Hoellinger, Temecula . Ms. Chesi Levy, Temecula . Ms. Susan Wildgoose, Temecula . Ms. Linda Barr, Murrieta . Mr. Norm Everett, Temecula MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend the meeting time to 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. . Ms. Trisha Heide, Temecula . Ms. Justine Castro, Temecula . Mr. David Moorhead, Temecula The above mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons: . That Universal Health System is committed to quality patient care . That there are not enough beds at the current hospitals to provide the health care needs of the community . That the expansion efforts of Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center will only help with the current over crowding issues . That true adequate future health care coverage could only be obtained with building the proposed hospital project . That in terms of an emergency, minutes are critical . That to avoid> a local health care crisis, the proposed project must be built . That if the proposed project were not approved, the health of the public will be in jeopardy . That the combined yearly volume of patient visits at Rancho Springs Medical Center and > Inland Valley Regional Medical Center would be over 60,000 patients a year R:\MinutesPC\ 111605 7 . That the City of Temecula needs and deserves a state-of-the-art hospital . That the diversity and accessibility of the helicopters would make medical operations more capable . That good emergency care is needed in the Temecula Valley . That the current and future growth of Southwest California and Temecula Valley requires that a state of the art hospital be a key component in the community . That the health and well being of Temecula citizens depend greatly on the ability for pave the way for such facilities to be built . That considering the projected population growth of the combined cities of Temecula and Murrieta will exceed 200,000 within the next 10 years, it will require immediate action and approval of this hospital facility . That any delay in approving the proposed project will have profound impacts on the region's ability to grow, prosper, and meet future health care needs of the community . That while Temecula's population has tripled since incorporation, the City of Temecula and its outlined region cannot rely on medical facilities at its immediate service areas . That in the event of a major catastrophe access to Murrieta or Wildomar may not be available . That Southwest Healthcare System will be committed to developing a state-of-the-art facility to serve the need of the community . . That although the services at Inland Valley Regional Medical Center and Rancho Springs Medical Center are excellent, the facilities are inadequate to deal with the current growth as well as the future growth . That Universal Health System is a great organization to work for and will provide high- quality cost-effective, coordinated health care services to the Temecula Valley. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed hospital project: . Mr. Brad Storman, Temecula . Ms. Gloria Smith, Murrieta . Mr. Matt Hagemann, San Marcos . Mr. Don Stowe, Temecula . Mr. Jerry Toliver, Temecula . Mr. Richard Anderson, Temecula . Mr. Kenneth Ray, Temecula . Mr. Don Brown, Temecula . Mr. Raymond Bennett, Temecula . Mr. George Di Leo, Temecula R:IMinutesPCI 111605 8 The above mentioned individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: . That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has not completely addressed the noise traffic impacts that the proposed project will bring . That a block wall installed between the proposed project and nearby residents would significantly reduce the noise impacts that will be created by the proposed hospital . That the EIR should include estimated number of helicopter flights and its associated noise . That the EIR does not describe the project . That the EIR does not analyze the reasonablelfeasible impacts . That the residents surrounding the proposed site are of the opinion that the City could mitigate the noise impacts to the homes by installing a brick wall along DePortola Road and Pio Pico Road, advising that this would be a simple, inexpensive, and affective opportunity to reduce the noise impacts . That the surrounding residents are concerned with the additional impacts that the hospital will have on Pio Pico Road . That the EIR does not address leaking underground fuel tanks from nearby gas stations that are contaminating ground water and moving toward the hospital site; and that the EIR must address all issues regarding leaking underground fuel is warranted Under the law and requires the preparation of an EIR . That the EIR only addresses a fraction of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project . That the EIR has failed to address hazardous waste materials and geology . That in review of documentation obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board's website, there are gas stations leaking plumes to the area of the proposed project; and that a Methyl Tertyl Butyl Ether (MTBE) gasoline additive has been detected in the drinking water along the southern boundary of the proposed hospital site . That further evaluation of the proposed site and a revised EIR would be necessary to ensure hospital water and patient safety; that sampling of ground water should. be granted in the vicinity of the proposed hospital to ensure that the water supply well will be protected; and that any necessary clean-up should be conducted prior to construction . That the proposed hospital is located in a liquefaction hazard zone; that the Riverside County Geologist has designated this area as very high potential for liquefaction; and that maps indicate that a study will be required prior to a public hearing for the project entitlement . That although residents agree with the need for a hospital in the community, it will have a negative impact on the surrounding residences . R:\MinutesPC\ 111605 9 . . That surrounding residents of the proposed project are concerned with traffic problems as a result of the DePortola Road access; and that a No access on DePortola Road would be preferred . That noise from sirens would be a safety issue for equestrian-type activities that occur around the area . That the proposed project will lower property values and destroy the rural setting of the community . That visual tranquility will be destroyed with the lights and tower height of the proposed hospital . That Los Ranchitos and Santiago Rancho Estates represent equestrian areas within the City of Temecula; that the streets in the area are narrow rural residential streets without cement curbs, sidewalks, and street lights; and that the streets cannot handle the daily cut-through traffic that will be generated by a DePortola entrance . That the proposed height of the hospital site will be unacceptable . That the applicant of the proposed hospital must make reasonable modifications to better conform to the City's height limits. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue Item No.3 to the December 7, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the doctors and nurses who spoke on behalf of the hospital. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Chiniaeff advised the Commission that he will not be in attendance of the December 7,2005, Planning Commission meeting due to him being out of the Country. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Referencing the selection process and reappointments of Commissioners, Deputy City Manager Thornhill, advised the Planning Commission that at some point in the future, staff will ask the Commission for their thoughts with regard to the selection and reappointment process. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the Planning Commission meetings for the month of December 2005 will be December 7 and December 14, 2005, advising that that December 21, 2005, will be cancelled. R:lMinutesPC\111605 10 . ~ ADJOURNMENT At 10:21 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to be held on December 7.2005 at 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. R:\MlnutesPCI 111605 .~~-~~J~ De bie Ubnoske Director of Planning 11