Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020205 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday, February 2, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Mathewson informed the audience that, as per Fire Code requirements, any individual not seated will need to exit the City Council Chamber to the Main Conference Room which has been opened for overflow seating. Chairman Mathewson also implored the audience to remain courteous to speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 2, 2005 2 A reauest to rescind Plannina Commission Resolution 2004-066 which aooroved Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0260. a Develooment Plan for an additional 20 units at the aooroved Temecula Ridae Aoartments to result in the desian. construction and ooeration of a 240- unit. two and three-story aoartment comolex with a 0001. clubhouse. workout buildina and tot lot on aooroximatelv 21 acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Moraaa Road. known as Assessor's Parcel No. 944-290-011 MOTION: Chairman Mathewson moved to approve the Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aooroval. Chairman Mathewson announced to the audience that the Planning Commission will only be focusing on the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update and that all other elements will R:\MinutesPC\020205 1 be considered at another Planning Commission meeting. He also informed those individuals wishing to speak with regard to the Anza Circulation Element should address their issues and concerns with the County. Clarifying the hearing process, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that Chairman Mathewson would be abstaining with regard to issues pertaining to Meadowview, North General Kearney, and Kahwea. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 A General Plan Uodate to comorehensivelv uodate the followina elements of the General Plan: Land Use Circulation. Ooen Soace/Conservation. Growth ManaaemenVPublic Facilities. Public Safetv. Noise. Air Qualitv. Communitv Desian. and Economic Develooment 3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan of Land Use, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Economic Development, and Community Design Elements Principal Planner Hogan offered the following comments: . That the Update to the General Plan process began in 2001 with a Council Appointment of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) representing local citizens, local businesses, and community organizations . That the purpose of the Committee was to work with staff and consultants to create a General Plan that would update the existing 1993 General Plan and address issues within the community. At this time, Mr. Hogan introduced Mr. Henderson and Ms. Stetson of Cotton/Bridges and Associates. By way of PowarPoint, Mr. Henderson highlighted the Draft General Plan, noting the following: Status of General Plan . Public Comment period for Environmental Report (EIR) will end March 12,2005 . Responses to agency comments to be distributed prior to City Council Hearing scheduled in March 2005 . Airport Land Use Commission Determination of Consistency is pending . California Geological Survey review of Safety Element completed (recommended changes to Safety Element identified in staff report) R:\MinutesPC\020205 2 General Plan Elements . Land Use . Circulation . Housing (2002 Update) . Open Space/Conservation Element . Growth Management/Public Facilities Element . Public Safety Element . Noise Element . Air Quality Element . Community Design Element . Economic Development Element The above mentioned elements are from the previous General Plan and have had some form of update in the current effort. General Plan Chanaes . Overall policy direction will remain consistent . Most proposed changes will fit within the framework of the current General Plan . Changes primarily affect the Land Use and Circulation Elements . Technical changes to the Plan are based on: . Changed circumstances, facts, and new information . Consolidation of similar policies . Updated implementation programs for each element New policy directions . Encouraging mixed-use development near 1-15 corridor . . Preserving established rural areas - Nicolas Valley, winery locations, SR 79 South, and Anza Road Land Use Policy MaD . Several recommended changes reviewed with City Council/Planning Commission Workshop in August 2004 R:\MinutesPC\020205 3 . Additional property owner requests described in staff report . Rural residential . Vineyards/Agriculture . Tribal Trust Lands . Commercial Recreation Overlay . Industrial Park . Remaining Land Uses . Changes in French Valley . Plan will reflect entitlements granted by the County . Preservation of Open Space corridors . Consistency with French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALCUP) Circulation Element Primary Chanaes to Dolicv direction: . Provisions that allow for additional street dedication at high-volume intersections . CAC recommendation to consider opening closed connecting streets to improve City- wide circulation . New roadway cross-sections are introduced such as Modified Secondary Arterial, a Limited Secondary Arterial, and a Rural Highway; that these new roadway designations are not present in the current General Plan and are recommended for the updated General Plan . New Roadways are introduced in the roadway plan such as: Loma Linda/Avenida de Missiones, Eastern/Southern Bypass, Sky Canyon Drive/Briggs Road . Roadway Improvements: within the Rancho California 1-15 corridor Roadwav Plan Residents Concerns . Rainbow Canyon Road - Collector or Secondary Arterial R:IMinutesPCI020205 4 CAC Recommendation (not part of the Draft General Plan that is before the Planning Commission) . North General Kearny - Limited Secondary, La Colima to Nicolas Roads Chanaes to Other Elements Growth Manaaement/Public Facilities . New statement will discourage street closures that may limit or delay access to emergency services ODen SDacelConservation Element . New discussion of historic and cultural resources Community Desian Element . New discussion of mixed-use design concepts . Policies and implementation encouraging creation of public spaces and public art EnvironmentallmD8ct ReDort (EIR) Draft EIR circulatina for Dublic review and comment . 5 comment letters received to date . Responses will be in final EIR Sianificant unavoidable imDact . Air Quality - short term construction impact . Air Quality - long term emissions exceed standards for particulate matter . Transportation - 3 intersections and 6 freeway ramps projected to operate below LOS standards All other imDacts found to be less than sianificant . Required mitigation measures are incorporated in the General Plan as Implementation Findinas and statement of overridina considerations At this time, Mr. Henderson concluded his PowerPoint Presentation. Principal Planner Hogan presented the Planning Commission with additional changes to the General Plan Update (see staff report) R:\MlnutesPC\020205 5 For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that because the Planning Commission would be acting as an advisory body making recommendations to the City Council, the Commission would not be required to adhere to the closing period for the EIR. In response to the Commissioner's Chiniaeff's query, Principal Planner Hogan stated that the proposed General Plan will be consistent with the current Housing Element. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Hogan relayed that although the challenges and efforts of coordinating continual growth with the County will continue, with a newly elected representative on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, improved awareness of the need to manage growth and to match it with resources is present. He noted that staff would be of the opinion that by incorporating and addressing the issues in the General Plan, it will give staff more weight and authority when dealing with the County. Deputy Public Works Director Parks stated that the City has been successful in challenging the County's approval of specific plans for the French Valley area; that staff has required the County to approve to require certain street improvements/infrastructure prior to the County's issuance of building permits; that the City has been proactive in working with the County; and that by including it in the General Plan, it would provide the City additional support. It was reiterated by Chairman Mathewson that all non-Meadowview related circulation matters will be addressed first and that he would be abstaining from any Meadowview-related circulation aspects. Principal Planner Hogan presented a brief staff report regarding Rainbow Canyon Road, highlighting the following: . That when the General Plan was adopted in 1993, Rainbow Canyon Road was designated as a secondary arterial 88' right-of-way . That during the planning process, the recommendation was to retain it as an 88' right-of- way . That staff has received several letters from residents in the Rainbow Canyon area concerned with retaining Rainbow Canyon Road as a Secondary Arterial . That the residents' primary concern would be the difference in the current size of Rainbow Canyon Road (a collector with a 66' right-of-way) as that from the current General Plan designation (Secondary Arterial with an 88' right-of-way) . That staff would recommend that the roadway designation for Rainbow Canyon remain as a Secondary Arterial; and that once the Southern Bypass has been completed, the City will have an opportunity to readdress the designation of this roadway. Expanding on Mr. Hogan's comments, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that the current designation for Rainbow Canyon Road is as an 88' right-of-way with four lanes; that this designation would be an appropriate classification and should not be downgraded; and that with the new interchange and the Eastern Bypass connecting to the south, larger capacity road would be necessary; and that Rainbow Canyon Road is the only alternate route to the 1-15. R:IMinute.PCI020205 6 For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Hughes stated that, in his opinion, the appropriate right-of-way width was not required when the existing 12 homes were built; that there is. a deficient right-of- way width along Rainbow Canyon Road for these 12 home fronting Rainbow Canyon Road; and that staff would be of the opinion that options are available to widen the road without impacting the existing homes, reiterating the need for these four lanes. In response to Chairman Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks stated that the current 66' right-of-way on Rainbow Canyon Road would accommodate for two lanes and an additional 22' would be needed to accommodate for the 88' right-of-way. In response to the Commissioners, Mr. Parks offered the following comments: . That the subdivision was approved by the County and built as a County Plan . That the County had envisioned Rainbow Canyon Road as a 66' right-of-way/residential collector . That the County did not perform a Circulation Element for the City . That once the City performed its first General Plan and Circulation Element, the City could foresee the potential need for four-lane road (88' right-of-way) . That as development occurs in the area, the City will be making the design to that particular standard. Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that General Plan level planning does not create any exposure to any claim against a City, noting it is recognized that it is part of a long-range planning process. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the Rainbow Canyon Road Draft General Plan Update: . Mr. David Payne . Ms. Renea Broderick . Mr. Mark Broderick . Ms. Roberta Adkins . Ms. Adrian McGregor . Ms. Kathleen Montaldo . Mr. Bernie Thomas The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to widening Rainbow Canyon Road for the following reasons: . Potential destructions of the 12 existing homes . Significant noise, air, light, and aesthetic impacts the future 1-15 interchange and Bypass will create . . Significant impacts with regard to air quality and transportation R:IMinulesPClO20205 7 . Traffic impacts . Property depreciation for the existing 12 homes that front Rainbow Canyon Road Speaking in support of the proposed General Plan, Mr. Mike Kuhn, Temecula resident, noted that every community in the City should be considered as a whole and that the entire City would benefit from the Draft General Plan. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Addressing the above-mentioned concerns, Public Works Director Hughes stated the following: . That the current designation for Rainbow Canyon Road as a four-lane, secondary arterial has existed since 1988 . That the impacted residents would be compensated at fair market value . That with regard to the Eastern Bypass and the new interchange, staff does realize the challenges with coordinating the connection work; that the 1-151SR 79 Interchange will be upgraded whether or not the Eastern Bypass Interchange is completed; and that although the road widening will create impacts, the City will be required to mitigate them . That the City has plan on improving the operations near SR 79 South/l-15 . That staff is not aware of any legislation, guaranteeing transmission lines along any route that would connect with a freeway. Mr. Hughes clarified projects that are currently funded for the SR 79 South: . Upgrade SR 79 South/I-15 to be completed in the next five to seven years . Upon City control of SR 79 South, the existing lanes will be restripped to eight lanes between Pechanga Parkway and the freeway northbound ramps; that a median will be installed from 1-15 to Butterfield Stage Road to assist with capacity and constricting turning movements Commissioner Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Olhasso, stated that the City should be planning to create parkways that have limited access and would allow traffic flow without impacting and accessing local streets. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that Rainbow Canyon Road should be retained as an 88' right-of- way; that the interchange is necessary and should be included in the Draft General Plan; and that Anza between SR 79 South, near Auld Road, should be upgraded to a four-lane secondary road. Although expressing her support of the SR 79 South/I-15 Interchange, Commissioner Olhasso expressed concern with the current designation for Rainbow Canyon Road (88' right-of-way). R:\MinutesPC\02020t 8 For Commissioner Guerriero, Public Works Director Hughes advised that the proposed upgrades for Loma Linda Road will not impact Pechanga Parkway or SR 79 S. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Hughes relayed that there are plans for development on Pechanga Parkway, including a golf course; that staff has had on-going conversations with the Tribal Council regarding secondary access to the casino; that while there is no firm commitment at this particular time, the Tribal Council does understand the traffic impacts; that the City has discussed the possibility of reserving corridors that such roadways but that the Tribal Council has made no commitment. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the Draft General Plan Update as presented by staff, including retaining Rainbow Canyon Road as an 88' right-of-way and upgrading SR 79 South to a secondary arterial with limited access as determined by traffic studies. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Removing himself from the dais, Chairman Mathewson abstained from the following discussion. At 8:03 P.M., a short recess was called and at 8:10 P.M. the Commission reconvened. Vice-Chairman Guerriero thanked the audience for their patience and stated the following issues to be discussed would be the North General Kearny Kahwea elements. Vice Chairman Guerriero informed the public that additional seating was available in the downstairs lobby area. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the extension of North General Kearny Road: . Ms. Lisa Stute Kardouce . Mr. Nicolas Kardouche . Ms. Maria Hetzner . Mr. Richard Moriki . Mr. Norman Clark . Ms. Lisa Weinmann . 'Mr. Williams Herrmann . Ms. Diana Lovett-Webb . Mr. Terry Stute . Ms. Cheryl Huber . Mr. Brett Saunders . Mr. Bernie Thomas . Ms. Lori Nelson . Mr. Jon Andrews Mr. Joseph Wasek, Jr. . Mr. Steve Gossett Ms. Linda Gossett Ms. Jennie Strutz Mr. Robert Johnston Mr. John Austin Ms. Nancy Ray Ms. Ellen Ellish Ms. Adrian Mc Gregor Mr. Peter Francheschina Mr. Jerry Throckmorton Ms. Teri Biancardi Ms. Jessica Christopher The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition for the following reasons: . That building a road through Meadowview to even traffic flow will not be a solution . That the citizens of Temecula should not have to be impacted as a result of City actions R:\MinulesPC\020205 9 . That solutions must be explored - especially ones that will not continue to destroy the neighborhoods and the City . That Meadowview was created long before the traffic congestion . That no more construction permits should be granted . That extending North General Kearny Road would directly overlap with the use of the trails (bikers, horseback rides, walkers, and daily joggers) . That the City has a long and colorful history associated with the horse from Native America~ to the famous Vail and Roripaugh Ranches, the Stage Coach, and Pony Express; that horses have always been here; and that the City has a unique history for suburban area and horses have always been a part of it . That Meadowview is zoned as low-density residential with open space . That horse ownership is inherent in this zoning designation . That a General Plan goals is to preserve rural communities within Temecula and to preserve the quality and value of a single family neighborhood . That drivers tend to ignore horse crossing signs . That by opening Kahwea Road, the risk of horse/car accidents would increase . That by extending North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads, the City would not be adhering to the goal to preserve rural areas and that the extension would not complement the zoning designation for Meadowview . That extending North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads would create a safety concern for the Meadowview residents . . That there currently are existing traffic problems on residential streets such as Calle Pina Colada, Via Norte, Del Rey, and Avenida de Barca . That by opening another road into the Meadowview, the traffic congestion will significantly worsen . That Meadowview roads such as Del Rey and Via Norte were designed for low-density traffic usage; that drivers, not familiar with the Meadowview area, will not be accustomed to driving on streets with no sidewalks, streets with trails, and no lights . That the Meadowview area has numerous housing densities (two churches, a school, a public park, a doctor's office, and an equestrian center), which contribute to congestion. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed Draft General plan: . Ms. Evelyn Buchanan . Mr. Brian Harrold . Mr. Mike Kuhn R:\MinutesPC\020205 10 . Ms. Susan Zychovich . Ms. Diana Broderick . Ms. Jessica Christopher The above-mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the extension of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads for the following reasons: . That the City of Temecula must take responsibility of opening roads and planned roads in the City, including North General Kearny Road . That Meadowview residents should have equal access to emergency services . That opening roads will help balance the traffic flow in other congested areas . That the removal of fences/barriers would assist local residents with daily driving routes . That the Meadowview residents should have equal access to traffic circulation . That the closed roads in Meadowview were planned to accommodate local traffic . That Meadowview is within the City; that the streets are paid for and maintained by City services, funded by tax dollars; that the Meadowview streets are not private; that they are public streets and should be utilized as such; that maps show North General Kearny Road and Kahwea Roads as through streets . That Meadowview may choose to be a private gated community, priv!ltely funding all required services and closing its streets to public access . That opening North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads will not add more trips to City streets; that it will decrease traffic on Calle Medusa, Calle Pina Colada, Winchester, and Margarita Roads; and that residents of Calle Medusa and Calle Pina Colada should not have to bear the burden of daily local traffic . That by providing alternate traveling routes, traffic congestion on heavily burdened streets will decrease . That in an effort to create proper circulation, alternative routes are necessary; that all residents should share in the solution and benefits of improved circulation. Although always dependent on the location of the emergency, Fire Marshal McBride noted that road closures will negatively impact response times. Principal Planner Hogan offered the following comments: . That there would be one lane in each direction with space for a .Ieft-turn lane . That in an attempt to design a road to minimize conflicts, the cross-section would have a separated trail from the roadway; that this would be an attempt to separate pedestrians and equestrians from the road surface; and that this cross-section is not currently in the existing General Plan but would be a proposed addition R:IMinule.PCI02020S 11 . That when the Public Traffic Safety Commission reviewed this item, it was difficult for the Commission to achieve a recommendation with regard to the extension; that the Commissioners who opposed the extension were of the opinion that the extension would not be necessary to improve circulation efforts; that the Commissioners who were in favor of the extension were of the opinion that it was necessary to improve emergency access and response times; and that it was also noted by a Commissioner that traffic affects all residents and that a street closure would adversely impact all residents. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the City has a traffic problem that must be resolved and that the extension of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads should be reflected in the General Plan for studying. Deputy Director Thornhill offered the following comments: . That the City has made limited General Plan changes . That City has constructed the Overland Bridge, provided improvements around the perimeter of the Promenade Mall, and installed signals near the Promenade Mall - totaling over $ 35 million . That the Promenade Mall generates $4 million a year in retail sales tax - monies which are then utilized for new road construction and Capital Improvement Projects . That the Roripaugh project at pourroy and Nicholas Roads was preapproved by the County under development agreements prior to City incorporation . That the City inherited 10 to 11 thousand homes that were preapproved by the County under development agreements which the City was obligated to process and approve; that in addition, the City has had three Specific Plans that were transferred cases in 1990 from the County such as Wolf Creek, Harveston, and Roripaugh . That the City has been very judicial in its review and approval of projects. At this time, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to extend the meeting another 20 minutes. At this time, the public hearing was closed. For the Planning Commission, Mr. Thornhill stated that Kahwea Road is not a General Plan element; that the Planning Commission would be dealing with a policy regarding the opening of closed streets; and that no separate action regarding Kahwea Road would be necessary. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commenting on the importance of preserving the City's rural areas, Commissioner Olhasso advised that she could not support the opening of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads. Although stating that the extension of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads should be reflected in the General Plan, Commissioner Telesio, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, recommended that, at this time, no funding be proposed until a complete and comprehensive study of the area has been performed. R:\MinutesPC\020205 12 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to extend the Planning Commission's meeting another 20 minutes. Commissioner Chiniaeffseconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Mathewson who abstained. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to recommend to the City Council that the extension of North General Kearny Road be reflected in the General Plan but that no funding be proposed until a comprehensive study has been completed. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who voted !!2 and Chairman Mathewson who abstained. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to support the policy of opening roads. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Mathewson who abstained. It was the consensus of Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, and Guerriero to start future Planning Commission meetings at 6:30 p.m. versus 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT No reports. PLANNING DIF/ECTOR'S REPORT No report ADJOURNMENT At 11 :45 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to be held on Wednesday. February 16. 2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ))!~'- Chairman <:J'jdhrL' ~ ~ Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\020205 13