Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071900 PC MinutesR:PlanComm/m[nutes/O71900 CALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY '19, 2000 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Wednesday July 19, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Rockholt, Senior Management Analyst Brown, and Minute Clerk Hansen PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. It was noted that the Consent Calendar Items were considered separately. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 19, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of June 7, 2000. With respect to page 2, under Item No. 3, Commissioner Webster relayed that the request for a continuance should reflect that it was due to the need for additional time to prepare comments regarding the Negative Declaration; and noted that on page 13, the word Quick should be replaced with the word Quit. With respect to page 9, in the second paragraph, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the phrase Forest Hills should be corrected to reflect Forest City. Commissioner Telesio noted that on page 8, under his concluding remarks, the minutes should reflect that he applauded the diversity of design in the context of the mall. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the minutes, as revised. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 General Plan Annual (Implementation) Report - Senior Planner Dave Hoqan Senior Management AnaLyst Brown provided an overview of the staff report (of record), noting that the General Plan (Implementation) Report was a requirement of State Planning Law. Referencing the Land Use Element portion of the report, specifically Item No. 8 (regarding provision of park and recreation facilities), Commissioner Mathewson queried the denotation of No Action regarding the progress of the implementation action. In response, Senior Management Analyst Brown relayed that due to a shortage of staff personnel the implementation action had not been implemented; and confirmed, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, that the issue had been addressed on a project-by-project basis. Referencing the Open Space/Conservation element portion of the report, specifically Item No. 5 (regarding adoption of a hillside-grading ordinance), Commissioner Mathewson queried the timeframe of the development of the ordinance. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that in approximately 60 days the ordinance would be presented to the Planning Commission, clarifying that the ordinance would be a general grading ordinance, inclusive of hillside grading. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would take note of any comments from the Commission - regarding hillside grading in the interim period in order to incorporate the remarks into the ordinance. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, with respect to the Open Space/Conservation Element portion of the report, specifically Item No. 11 (regarding the Village Center concept), Senior Management Analyst Brown noted that the implementation measure would most likely be revised or deleted; and confirmed that it could be reported that it was no longer applicable. Referencing the Public Safety Element portion of the report, specifically Item No. 4 (regarding adoption of a hillside development ordinance), Commissioner Mathewson queried whether this ordinance would be developed in conjunction with the hillside- R:PlanCommlmi~ute$1071900 grading ordinance. Senior Management Analyst Brown confirmed that this was referencing the same ordinance. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided information regarding the focus of discussions for the upcoming Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop. Commissioner Chiniaeff commended staff for their efforts with respect to the overall report; recommended presentation to the State, in a positive manner, of what the City has accomplished, specifically recommending that with respect to the Public Safety Element portion of the report, Item No. 8 (regarding routes for conveyance of hazardous materials) that the report indicate that this issue was addressed on a case-by-case basis, recommending that alternate portions of the report reflect progress as on a case- by-case basis when applicable (i.e., Growth Management/Public Facilities Element, Item Nos. 1, and 8). For Commissioner Chiniaeff, with respect to the Air Quality Element portion, Item No. 4, Senior Management Analyst Brown provided additional information regarding efforts associated with energy conservation standards. Commissioner Webster noted that since he would be unable to attend the Joint Workshop that he would provide his comments at this time to be forwarded to the City Council, as follows: with respect to the Land Use Element, Item No. 8 (regarding incorporating incentives within the Development Code for park and recreation facilities) recommended that this issue be given a higher priority level; with respect to the Housing Element, recommended that there be consideration to incorporate additional implementation actions per the General Plan; with respect to the Open Space/Conservation Element, Item Nos. 3, and 4 (regarding recreation trails and a Citywide bicycle system) recommended that these items be prioritized at a higher level in order to not further restrict the availability of trails as development progresses; with respect to Item No. 9 (regarding energy conservation guidelines), recommended that staff investigate adding additional specificity to the Development Code or at the Specific Plan level in order to provide stricter regulations; with respect to Item No. 11 (regarding Agricultural Areas), recommended that this issue be addressed in the Roripaugh Ranch and Wolf Creek areas; with respect to the Growth Management]Public Facilities Element, Item No. 5 (regarding the comments associated with installation of park reclaimed water systems) queried the use of the word encourage with respect to the implementation action, noting that the City could be making greater strides with respect to this issue; with respect to Item No. 14 (regarding the Growth Management Program) noted that the action plan was not in conformance with actions items that the Growth Management Program was intended to accomplish, noting that numerous specific goals and policies within the General Plan were in direct conflict with the action plan, querying the term completed regarding the progress of the Growth Management Program, advising that the process was not complete due to the inconsistencies. With respect to the Public Safety Element, Item No. 8 (regarding transportation routes for conveyance of hazardous materials) Chairman Guerriero recommended that the City investigate establishment of a singular route (from the freeway) northbound and southbound that would enter the west side area, noting that a hazardous material incident could be better confined on the west side of the freeway. R: PlanC om rn/rninat es/071900 With respect to the Open Space/Conservation Element, Item No. 11 (regarding the Village Center concept), Commissioner Mathewson noted that he had interpreted the language differently than Commissioner Webster. Senior Management Analyst Brown relayed that this issue could be better addressed at the Joint Workshop. Since this Agenda Item required no formal action, the Commission moved forward with Agenda Item No. 4. 4 ERACIT (Enforce Responsible Alcohol Consumption in Temecula) Program Presentation - Police Officer Robed Alexander Officer Alexander provided an overview of the ERACIT program, noting that the program was implemented approximately four years ago; provided additional information regarding the rove patrols, the DUI checkpoints, and the liquor store sting operations; invited the Commissioners to attend a DUI checkpoint, noting that the dates were published in the newspaper, relaying that the Commissioners could also contact him to obtain the dates for the scheduled DUI checkpoints; for Chairman Guerriero, provided additional information regarding the history of the ERACIT program; relayed that during the sting operations that if a business was cited three times the data would be turned over to the ABC, advising that the use could have its license suspended; noted that the majority of arrests at the checkpoints were adults; for Commissioner Webster, relayed that alternate cities had similar programs, noting that the arrests in the City of Temecula for driving under the influence of alcohol were about average with alternate cities; advised that there was a requirement to publish the DUI checkpoint dates in the newspaper; noted that since the Shakespeare's nightclub had closed, there was not a specific area with a concentrated proliferation of drivers driving under the influence; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that there had been checkpoints set up proximate to the wineries; for Commissioner Telesio, advised that at the checkpoints the Officers were also investigating for drivers driving under the influence of drugs; and for Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, advised that it appeared to him that the drivers driving under the influence of alcohol in the City of Temecula had decreased since the onset of the program. Since this Agenda Item required no formal action, the Commission moved forward with Agenda Item No. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Planninq Application No. 99-0371 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minutes/071900 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMOVE THE WESTERN PORTION OF VIA RIO TEMECULA FROM THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP (PLANNING APPLICATION 99- 0371) Chairman Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this issue, and therefore left the dais, Vice Chairman Mathewson presiding. Senior Planner Rockholt presented the staff report (via agenda material), noting that the request for the General Plan Amendment had been made by Old Vail Partners and Land Grant Development to remove a portion of roadway denoted on the General Plan (a segment of Via Rio Temecula); provided additional information regarding the purpose of originally placing the roadway segment on the General Plan; provided additional information regarding the analysis of intersection delays at build-out, indicating that there would not be a significant negative impact if this segment of Via Rio Temecula was removed. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed additional information regarding accidents proximate to this area; and provided the rationale for staff's recommendation to remove this segment of roadway from the General Plan. Commissioner Telesio recalled that this issue had been discussed when the project was presented; and queried whether there was a signal proposed for the center entrance into the project. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the previous plan for Assessment District No. 159 to construct Temecula Creek Improvements further to the west, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that at this point in time the land was being utilized for wetland mitigation, noting that it was controlled by the Resource Agencies, advising that staff did not anticipate any additional improvements in this area to Temecula Creek with the exception of a bridge crossing proximate to this area; and confirmed that there was an open space conservation easement in this area. Commissioner Webster relayed that due to the above-mentioned data this was an additional reason to remove this element from the Circulation Plan. Mr. Chris Smith, representing Land Grant Development, for Commission Telesio, relayed that there was a proposed signal at the entry to the Village area, noting that the determination would ultimately be determined by Caltrans; noted that to the best of his recollection, there were proposed traffic signals at Jedediah Smith Road, and Avenida De Missions for a future date when the traffic warranted the installations; with respect to traffic generation, relayed that this particular project would generate less traffic than the Office Professional which was what the area was originally approved for; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that the applicant was proposing an access easement point from Avenida De Missions; relayed that the access points onto Highway 79 would be restricted to right-ins, and right-outs only, with the exception of the center access point which would potentially be signalized. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Mr. Ray Schooley (owner of the property east of this project), for Commissioner Webster, provided additional information regarding access issues to Avenida De Missions; and provided additional information regarding the area proximate to the proposed segment of roadway to be removed from the General Plan. For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Smith relayed that the traffic counts for this project reduced the vehicular trips by ten percent (10%) due to the opportunities to live and work at the site. The Commission relayed the followinq closing comments: Commissioner Chiniaeff noted his concern which had been raised by Mr. Markham that if this segment of roadway was removed from the General Plan it could additionally remove a condition attached to the map associated with access to Avenida De Missions, advising that his concern was based on ensuring that the residents from Multi-Family Area B could access Avenida De Missions. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the City had conditioned Mr. Schooley's map to provide the right-of-way for that access due to the fact that the property of discussion had been zoned as Office Professional which would be an attractor of traffic; advised that since the this current proposal had been presented with residential units which would not attract traffic, it reduced the need for a circulation element road as a major thoroughfare, requiring only a minor driveway access. Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that his concern was based on removing the segment of roadway from the General Plan since there would be no obligation for the adjacent property owner to provide access over to Avenida De Missions; queried whether the approval of this project had been inclusive of a requirement to provide access to Avenida De Missions via a signalized intersection for exiting the project. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Schooley map had been conditioned to provide the right-of-way, noting that this map had been conditioned to provide an exit point at that location per a Public Works requirement, and a Fire and Safety requirement. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted his concern if the property owners could not come to an agreement, and the subsequent inadequate access to the property. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that prior to development on the Schooley map there would need to be development approval, noting that the City would still have the ability to condition the development with respect to the right-of-way area. Commissioner Webster concurred with Commission Chiniaeff's comments regarding ensuring adequate access to the property, recommending that staff address the access issue with future development proposals; and noted that the proposed residential area did have provision of two access points. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could support the General Plan Amendment. Vice Chairman Mathewson relayed that his concern had been based on access to the project from the east, noting that he could support moving forward with the General Plan Amendment. R:P~an C ommlminut es~071900 MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to adopt the proposed resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted n_~o and Chairman Guerriero who abstained. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS With respect to the memorandum regarding the status report on the Promenade Mall/Power Center, Commissioner Webster relayed that compared to the approved landscape plan for the parking area, the site did not have the correct number of trees planted, advising that there was a fifty percent (50%) shade coverage required per the Specific Plan, noting that even at full growth it did not appear that the landscaping would meet this requirement, specifically, proximate to the theater and the ring roads since there were no field trees in this area of the parking lot. For Commissioner Webster, Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the Park N Ride facility within the mall area; relayed that after additional investigation it did not appear that there was a clearly stated Park N Ride requirement, advising that there was an inconsistency of language utilized from document to document; noted that to enforce a Mitigation Measure there needed to be evidence that the obligation existed and that there was a clear definition of what the obligation was; advised that the City was going to communicate with the mall developers to relay that while exact certainty needed to be clarified that this issue would be addressed under the original approvals or in the context of future approvals due to the Park N Ride facility being part of the expectations of the approvals; and clarified staff's intent to move the issue forward with the developer. Commissioner Telesio queried whether staff was in the process of developing policy standards for Commission ex-parte communications. Attorney Curley relayed that staff was in the process of preparing the legal contours of the standards, and investigating other policies in alternate jurisdictions; and noted that staff would bring options to the Commission at a future date. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that based on discussions with Deputy City Manager Thornhill that in past years there had been a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop at which time the Council had provided clear direction of support for the ex-parte communications to the Planning Commission; and noted that of there was consideration for modifying the policy, this issue would need to be presented to the Council, as well. Chairman Guerriero recommended that if the ex-parte communications were to continue that the Commissioners disclose the meetings and the topics of discussion verbally or in written form. For Commissioner Mathewson, DirectOr of Planning Ubnoske relayed that since there was a full agenda for the August 1, 2000 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop the issue of ex-parte communications could be addressed with the Council at a future date. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske provided an overview of the upcoming workshop topics (i.e., "The Role of the Commission"), inviting the Commission to provide comments for additional topics for discussion; and relayed that the workshop would be held in approximately 60 days. Chairman Guerriero requested that the Commission be provided copies of the segments of the Municipal Code that pertained to the Commission's responsibilities. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the "Role of the Commission," was an important workshop topic of discussion due to various issues that had been addressed during the Commissioner's Report portion of the meeting, advising that further direction needed to be provided regarding discussion of non-agendized items; and relayed that during the workshop the Commission could provide additional input to staff (i.e., comments regarding the length of staff presentations, staff reports, analysis reports). Commissioner Telesio commented on the process of the Commission's approval procedure for projects. Attorney Curley relayed that any questions the Commissioners had could be relayed to him via a written memorandum, advising that he would address their concerns; and provided clarification regarding the Findings associated with a project's approval. Relaying that Mr. Timothy Miller had recently passed away, Chairman Guerriero expressed heartfelt sorrow to the family; noted his previous role on the Planning Commission and in the community; and relayed that Mr. Miller would be greatly missed. Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the August 1st Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop. ADJOURNMENT At 7:39 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to be held on Tuesday, August 1, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ro~ Guerrie o~o,/ - - Chairman Director of Planning