Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout013101 PC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 31, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:04 P.M., on Wednesday January 31, 2001, 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 Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Commissioner Mathewson. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Diaz, Senior Planner Hogan, Senior Engineer Alegria, Associate Planner Anders, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, Project Planner Naaseh, Fire Captain McBride, Fire Marshal Norris, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Planning Commission heard the Public Comments during consideration of Agenda Item 3; see page 12. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 31, 2001. 2 Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of November 15, 2000 R: PlanComm/minutes/013101 Chairman Guerriero relayed that the Fire Department would provide a presentation after consideration of Agenda Item No. 5 if the Commission concurred with the need for this presentation to be placed on the Agenda; and relayed that it had been recommended that Agenda Item No. 3 be considered after that presentation. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to add the Fire Presentation to the Agenda due to the need for consideration of this Item not being brought to the attention of the Planning Commission until after the posting of the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2 inclusive of the modifications to Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINES,~ 3 Harveston Workshop - Traffic/Circulation This Agenda Item was considered after Agenda Item No. 5, and subsequent to the Fire Department presentation; see page 11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM,~ 4 Plannin.q Application 00-0213 (Development Plan) to design and construct a 116,375 square foot retail center, on an 18 acre site located within the Re.q onal Cente~ Specific Plan on the west side of Mar.qar ta Road, between North General Kearm,~ Road and Overland Drive - Saied Naaseh - Proiect Planner IV- continued fro,,, January 3, 2001. RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minutes/013101 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A t16,376 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN 18 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-090-63, 71, 72 AND 78 AND LOTS 7, 5t, 52, 53 AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28530. Project Planner Naaseh provided a detailed overview of the staff report (of record), noting that this Item was continued from the January 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with staff to modify the site design, and the amhitecture of the buildings; presented the major revisions, as follows: 1) in the area of the kiosks, the pedestrian area has been expanded to include a plaza, noting that staff was recommending that the driveway be closed to vehicles in this area, relaying that a driveway would be added to separate Building K and the kiosks, 2) provided additional · information regarding the redesigned parking plan, noting that the parking in front of the buildings would be angled-parking, relaying that to eliminate the parking in this area completely would reduce the parking by approximately 60 spaces which could cause a negative impact due to the proposed restaurant uses, 3) in the area of the access link road, noted that this drive aisle has been eliminated subject to the approval of Rancho Water District and the Fire Department, 4) with respect to fire access behind Buildings F, G, H, and I, noted that based on discussions with the Fire Department a connection in this area was not necessary for fire access to the buildings, 5) with respect to the berming and screening of the parking lots from the perimeter of the project, relayed the plan to install a 3-foot high berm (measured from the pad elevations) and the installation of shrubs on top of the berm which would address this issue; noted that along North General Kearny Road, the loop road, and the access link road, the 3-foot berm was not feasible in this area due to inadequate space, relaying that the applicant would provide cross sections of these areas, noting that there would be a 2-to-1 slope with shrubs at the top of the slope to screen the parking lot, 6) with respect to the pedestrian connections, specified the area proximate to the creek, noting that the applicant proposed to improve the 15-foot access road to a Decomposed Granite (DG) trail and would maintain this area, relaying that this path would connect to the mall access link road sidewalk and the sidewalk from Margarita Road to the project; relayed that the pedestrian connections to Margarita Road have been widened to a ten-foot width, noting that these connections would be further defined with landscaping and pedestrian lighting, 7) with respect to the sidewalk on the loop road, noted the revised condition to require that the sidewalk be installed adjacent to the curb which would address the screening of the parking lot, 8) with respect to the architecture of the rear of the buildings, relayed that the applicant has added enhancements inclusive of the use of tiles, false windows, and detailing around the amhes and the doora, 9) with respect to the signage visible from Margarita Road, noted that halo lighting with backlit channel letters would be utilized, relaying that the number of colors permitted have been limited R: PlanComm/minutes/013101 3 with the exception of national tenants who would be permitted to utilized additional colors, and 10) a condition has been added to require the applicant to add landscaping within the creek inclusive of trees and shrubs, noting that the bottom of the channel would remain natural due to maintenance issues. Project Planner Naaseh relayed that staff has received elevations for the proposed Macaroni Grill Restaurant use which will be located proximate to North General Kearny and Margarita Roads, recommending that approval of this particular proposal be continued in order for staff to review the data; and in light of Commissioner Mathewson's absence, advised that per discussions with Commissioner Mathewson it had been requested that his concerns and recommendations be relayed to the Commission, listed, as follows: 1) the recommendation to add false windows at the rear of Building F (It was clarified at a later point in the meeting that Building F was a one-story building), 2) the recommendation to eliminate a portion of parking spaces which has been accomplished with the applicant's revised site plan, and 3) noted his support of the site design. For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh presented the exhibits which revealed the proposed articulation at the rear of the buildings; with respect to the DG trial, relayed that the Planning Commission could specify that the polymer be a natural color; in response to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the landscape plan for the slope on the south side of the creek bed adjacent to Margarita Road, noted that this area was outside of the project perimeters, relaying that the adjacent project would be landscaping this area. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's queries regarding the proposal to landscape the sides of the creek bed, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the hydrology issues would be investigated prior to planting in this area. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the slope planting of the creek was required to be re-vegetated to the natural species, recommending that this plan be reviewed with the Resource Agencies prior to conditioning this applicant; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that this applicant would be responsible for the maintenance of one side of the creek. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that the proposal to enclose the pedestrian walkway would limit the access to the buildings behind this area, advising that there would be negative impacts if the tenants in this area were automobile-oriented uses (i.e., video rental, cleaners); and confirmed that it was staff's recommendation that the plan to have angled parking should be revised to be 90- degree angled parking spaces, noting that there would be no significant negative impacts regarding the 90-degree angled parking. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that staff supported the applicant's revised parking plan with the exception of the angled parking, which staff recommended to be 90-degree angled parking spaces. Commissioner Telesio relayed that since this drive aisle provided for two ways of traffic, that the purpose of the diagonal parking would be defeated, concurring that the parking should be at a 90- degree angle. R: PlanCom rr~minutes/013101 4 With respect to the planting on the creek, Commissioner Telesio recommended that this condition be subject to further analysis of the hydrology study. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that there would be no compact parking spaces included in this project; for Chairman Guerriero, with respect to the landscaping in front of the buildings, noted that the applicant has added additional landscaping, advising that since staff was of the opinion that this plan may not be adequate there was a condition allowing staff to request additional landscaping; relayed that there had been no discussions with the applicant regarding widening the sidewalk and adding a treescape (in front of the buildings), advising that if it was the Commission's desire, a few parking spaces could be eliminated in this area in order to add additional landscaped fingers. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he was concerned with the proposal to have parking located in front of the buildings (whether angled or 90-degree angled) due to safety issues. Proiect Planner Naaseh specified the modifications to the conditions (per supplemental a.qenda material), as follows' With respect to Condition No. 27q., (regarding berming along Margarita Road), noted that a 3-foot berm would not be feasible in this area, and therefore there would be a 2-to-1 slopes with shrubs on top of the slope; With respect to Condition No. 27 aa., (regarding landscaping of the channel), relayed that language has been added requiring landscaping the sides of the entire channel with shrub and trees, in addition to the grass; With respect to Condition No. 27 h., the phrase decorative paving has been added regarding the plazas surrounding Building K; With respect to Condition No. 33, relayed that this condition would address the channel landscaping and trail maintenance; With respect to Condition No. 41a., (referencing the sign program) relayed that this condition stated that national chains could modify the types of signs placed on the rear of the buildings on Margarita Road; With respect to Condition No. 43, relayed that this condition was added to require Rancho Water District to conduct a study for the well site, noting that originally this project was conditioned to prohibit the issuance of building permits until the study was completed; and advised that due to the lengthy time schedule of conducting the study (approximately one year), the Fire Department relayed that there would be direct contact with the Water District regarding the study in order to not hold up this project for the completion of the study; and With respect to Condition No. 49c. (regarding the timing of the construction of the plaza proximate to Building K) noted that this condition ensured that the plaza and Building K would be constructed with Building F, G, H, or I dependent upon which building was constructed first. In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the elimination of the cut-out on the Cosco road, Project Planner Naaseh noted that this proposal was represented in an exhibit in the staff report along with staff's alternate recommendations, relaying that staff would ensure that this issue was included in the conditions; advised that the applicant had relayed that the alternate cut-outs were required by the Water District while Commissioner Webster had advised that access would be adequate with the alternate driveway; and clarified that the applicant has revised the site plan to eliminate this cut- out. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the project was 50 spaces over-parked, noting that after additional revisions this number would change; and relayed that the elimination of all of the angled parking spaces would encompass approximately 50 spaces. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that Condition No. 23 addressed the condition to close the driveway on the Iccp road. .The pphcant s representabves presented the followinq informatio.: Ms. Vandana Kelkar, representing the applicant, relayed the process of negotiating with Macaroni Grill as a tenant, noting the parking needs for this use; relayed the revisions of the building layout, noting the pedestrian links, the expended plaza area, the DG path, the reduced parking, the improved circulation, and the increased landscaping; relayed that the applicant was in favor of 90-degree angled parking at the front of the retail buildings; advised that the driveway width could be increased to 28-feet in response to Chairman Guerriero's concerns; noted that to attract restaurants to a retail complex, parking was a vital issue; relayed that the rear of the buildings have been fully articulated, noting that berms and landscaping will be located along the rear elevation, and the mall link road; advised that the applicant agreed to clos~ the third mall link access; specified the access routes; with respect to Commissioner Webster's recommendation to include passive solar design elements, noted that this issue would be addressed via building orientation, abundance of landscape, water features, shading devices, and locations and types of windows used with variant building materials and installations; and relayed that the width of the sidewalks in front of the buildings would be between 15-20 feet, noting the landscape planters, and landscaped fingers located approximately every 10 parking spaces. Mr. Mike Levin, representing the applicant, via overheads, presented a series of seven cross sections of the project, noting the berming, the planting proposed adjacent to the curb line, the grade differentiation, the elimination of parking spaces in order to pull the parking 32 feet away from the curb, and the screening of the well site; specified that the material sprayed on the DG path would be clear; concurred with the issues restricting landscaping in the channel; noted the connection linkages, and additional pedestrian paths; clarified that the applicant was not in opposition to closing an access point to the well site, if the Water District was agreeable; and with respect to the concept of closing the access Iccp, relayed concern regarding Fire access. Mr. Reid Cooper, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the revised sign plan, highlighting the standard to solely allow halo lit letters at the rear of Buildings A-G which back up to Margarita Road, noting the exception for regional and national chains due to their established sign programs; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's R: PlanComm/rninutes/013101 6 comments regarding pedestrian-oriented signage, noted that language has been added requiring the tenants to have one of two types of pedestrian-oriented signs; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the pedestrian-oriented signage would not preclude the tenants from having an illuminated sign, clarifying that with respect to the pedestrian signage, the intent was for the tenant to have one type of sign, relaying that the tenant would not be prohibited from having both types of pedestrian signage as long as the signage was within a maximum footage limit. The applicant's represented the Planning Commission's concerns and comments, ac follows: Referencing the cross-section data, Commissioner Webster noted that there was no bench area at the top of the slope in Sections 1, 4, and 5, querying the manner in which the parking lot would be screened. In response, Mr. Levin noted that there was two-foot planting area behind the curb before the slope drops; and relayed that in the parking lot there were no proposed wheel stops. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the pedestrian path from Building N to the five-foot sidewalk along the north mall access link road, Ms. Kelkar relayed that an additional pathway could be provided. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Levin relayed that it was his understanding that reclaimed water would not be available in this area for the landscaping. In response, Commissioner Webster noted that at Margarita Road/North General Kearny Road there was a reclaimed water access line. For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Kelkar relayed that the proposed Macaroni Grill use was requesting 120 parking spaces. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Levin noted that the entire berm would be landscaped. In light of the Commission's concern regarding landscaping between the front of the buildings that back up to Margarita Road, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether the applicant would be willing to install grated tree wells along the edge of the sidewalk, in front of the cars in order to provide landscape shading. In response, Ms. Kelkar noted that there would be six-foot planters along the building, advising that their landscape architect had relayed that if the trees were located proximate to the vehicles that the vehicles would consistently hit the trees, restricting growth. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the trees could be planted far enough back so as to prevent a vehicle from being able to hit it, noting that a few parking stalls could be removed in order to install landscaped fingers with walkways, noting the desire to prevent a visual appearance of a large mass of asphalt. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Kelkar noted that the landscape plan could be revised. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Kelkar noted that Buildings B and F were one-story buildings. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Levin relayed that the applicant was not in agreement with Condition 27aa., regarding landscaping the sides of the channel. R: PlanComrn/minutes/013101 7 Chairman Guerriero noted his concurrence with Commissioner Chiniaeff's recommendation to landscape the sidewalk area. Mr. Levin reiterated that the creation of access from the link road to Buildings M and N would be feasible. Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the Fire Department was in agreement with staffs circulation modification (closing off the access at the front of the buildings). For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Fire Marehall Norris provided an overview of the access that the Fire Department would utilize. The Commission relayed ciosin,q comments, as follow~- With respect to Fire access, Commissioner Telesio relayed that it would appear to be a distinct advantage if there was no access at the rear of the building, acknowledging that this was a Fire Department determination; and with respect to parking, recommended that the parking in front of the buildings be eliminated, suggesting that if it was imperative that some parking remain at this location that there be handicapped parking provisions, noting that this front parking area would have negative impacts with respect to pedestrian, traffic, and circulation issues. Commissioner Webster recommended installation of a walkway to the parking lot from the mall access link road to Building N; with respect to the south elevation of Building N, recommended some container landscaped elements similar to the remainder of the project to soften the exterior of this building; with respect to the top of the sloped landscaping along the loop road and North Generel Kearny Road, recommended that this be a minimum of three feet in width at the top of the slope, recommending installation of wheel stops along this edge; with respect to landscaping within the creek area, concurred with the applicant that there should be no landscaping in this area; referencing the Specific Plan for the Regional Center, noted the requirement to utilize reclaimed water, if available, advising that reclaimed water was available, relaying that State Law now essentially requires the use of reclaimed water for landscaping these types of sites, recommending that a condition be added regarding this issue; with respect to the parking layout and the pedestrian plaza area, noted that he was not in complete agreement with closing this access and creating this plaza area, relaying that there were benefits to having this access read included in the plan, advising that the issue that was of greater importance was the recommendation to delete the parking stalls in front of the buildings, concurring with the previous recommendation to widen the sidewalk and to add landscaping to this front area when the parking stalls are removed; and with respect to the configuration of Buildings A, B, and C, recommended that staff work with the applicant to finalize the layout in order to maximize the parking in this area. Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the previous Planning Commission comments, specifically with respect to removing the requirement to landscape the creek, and to install a defined access from the mall access road inclusive of paving treatments to define the walkway; with respect to the plaza area, recommended compromising regarding this issue and keeping the plaza open to treffic, removing some of the parking in front of the buildings, designating certain areas (at this location) for handicapped parking, and adding trees; with respect to the reclaimed water issue, advised that it was his underetanding that there was no reclaimed water use at the mall site, noting that the sole available line was located on Margarita Road; and noted that the applicant had made improvements in the revisions presented at this meeting, while relaying that it R: PlanComrn/minutes/013101 8 would have been his preference for there to be a deeper driveway access off of North General Kearny Road prior to the island area. Chairman Guerriero noted the vision of the Planning Commission to have a pedestrian- oriented plaza concept throughout the entire project; and relayed that while he was in favor of opening up the pedestrian plaza area, he was more opposed to the parking in front of the buildings due to safety issues, recommending installation of wider sidewalks with an additional offset treescape in this area. Mr. Levin relayed that the applicant was willing to reduce the parking in front of the buildings and to add additional landscaped areas, noting that in place of the removed parking stalls the pedestrian path could be widened, recommending that the parking stalls be 90-degree angled spaces; and noted that the applicant would be willing to move the handicapped to this area but would desire to have some standard parking spaces. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Planning EIR Notice of Exemption and determination of consistency; and to adopt PC Resolution No. 2001-003, subject to the following modifications: Add- That the project be subject to the modifications to the conditions as presented in the supplemental agenda material (denoted on page 5 of the minutes) with the exception of Condition No. 27aa. (regarding landscaping the side of the creek) which should be deleted. That a condition be added requiring the installation of an access path from the mall access road to Building N along the southeasterly portion of the property with defined accent paving. That trees and grates be added in front of Buildings B, C, F, G, H, and I near the edge of the parking area. That 30 of the parking spaces be removed from the parking area along the front of the buildings between Buildings B, C, F, G, H, and I, and that handicapped parking be provided in this area with some standard parking spaces, with the widening of the walkways between the buildings and the parking, where the parking stalls have been removed. That there be some utilization of reclaimed water on site. That there be a three-foot wide (in lieu of the proposed two-foot wide) landscaped area on top of the slope at North General Kearny Road, if feasible, and That the approval of the Macaroni Grill use be continued to a later date. (Ultimately this motion was seconded; see page t 0.) Commissioner Telesio relayed a desire to have solely handicapped parking in the area proximate to the buildings. For Project Planner Naaseh, Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that the motion did include closing the area between Building G, H, I, and K; and noted that the parking would be 90-degree angled. For Director of Planning Ubnoske, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the motion included deleting Condition No. 27aa. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh reiterated Commissioner Mathewson's comments, which had been addressed. For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Chiniaeff specified that the motion included reducing the parking stalls in front of the buildings by 30 spaces, which would leave approximately 30 spaces. Commissioner Webster relayed that he would second the motion if solely handicapped parking was permitted in front of the buildings with the exception of Building A where standard parking could be located. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that limited parking could be located in this area (i.e., 5-minute parking). For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Kelkar relayed that 14 handicapped spaces were required, Commissioner Chiniaeff noting that there would be approximately 16 additional standard parking spaces spread across 600 feet. The motion was seconded by Chairman Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Commissioner Webster who voted no. At 7:32 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:44 P.M. 5 Planninq Application 00-0257(Conditional Use Permit) to design, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless communication facility located at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site located at 41520 Marqarit~ Road - Rolfe Preisendanzl Assistant Planner - continued from January 171 2001 RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Continue to February 7, 2001 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this item to the February 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Commissioner Webster who abstained. At this time the Commission heard the Fire Department presentation. Fire Department Presentation Fire Captain McBride provided an overview of data regarding the implementation of narrow roads; noted the numerous causes of fires; relayed that disaster fires were solely caused by one or more of three major causes, listed as follows: access, water, and Code compliance issues, specifying the cause of specific disaster fires historically; noted that while residential rires represented only twenty-one pement (21%) of all rites, that they account for eighty-two percent (82%) of afl fire fatalities, relaying the rationale for efforts regarding fire prevention issues in residential areas; with respect to the issue of narrow R: PlanComm/minutes/013101 1 0 roads, provided an overview of the importance of access; with respect to the proposed Harveston project, specified the negative impacts associated with the installation of narrow streets and the curb chokers; noted the street width standards Countywide; relayed that safety issues should have priority over aesthetic matters, while efforts could be made to address both elements; addressed speed bumps which slow the response time, turf blacking, and angled curbs; via overheads, noted the access restrictions with a twenty-four foot (24') roadway, noting that with this street width there could be no on- street parking; presented a thirty-six foot (36') roadway inclusive of adequate turning radius provisions; via overheads, reviewed the Harveston Tract Map, noting the plethora of red curbing necessitated in this area; presented photographs of existing thirty-six foot (36') roadways in the City with Fire vehicles parked on the street; presented a video which revealed the negative impacts associated with inadequate access dudng the Oakland residential fire which claimed the lives of 25 individuals and caused vast destruction of structures; and noted that during this particular fire red tile roofs also caught fire. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Fire Captain McBride relayed that there had been no discussions with the Fire Department of Irvine regarding fire issues in the Woodbridge Development, noting that staff would staff would address this issue with the Fire Department of Irvine; and noted that there have been discussions with the Los Angeles Fire Department, relaying that standards would be becoming more stringent in the neighborhood areas. In response to Commissioner Webster, Fire Captain McBride noted that thirty-six foot (36') street widths would not be permitted in commercial areas, relaying that this street width was allowed in residential areas providing that there were adequate turning radius provisions; and provided additional information regarding the minimum standards in the Code for sideyard setbacks. Chairman Guerriero noted that in the data soliciting implementation of narrow streets, there was no reference to Fire Department data. In response, Fire Captain McBride relayed that this was probably due to Fire Department not being in favor of narrow streets. At this time the Commission heard Agenda Item No. 3. 3 Harveston Workshop - Traffic/Circulation Mr. Bill Storm, representing the applicant, relayed that there would be a 20-minute project presentation; and with respect to the Fire Department presentation data, noted the desire to work with the Fire Department on this development plan, advising that it was positive that the Fire Department was endorsing the thirty-six foot (36') street width. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation, noting that the General Plan was utilized as a guide to formulate the cimulation component of the Harveston Specific Plan; highlighted the applicant's vision for the project; and provided a historical overview of the site and the surrounding area, noting the previous road improvements to this area. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Jana Morgan, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the off-site circulation imprevements, relaying that there would be 10 intereections requiring improvements to maintain acceptable Levels of Service, clarifying that all of these intersections would need to be improved with or without the Harveston Project; specified the improvements of the intersections (the numbers associated with the intersections correspond with the supplemental agenda material designations), as follows: 1) the Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue imprevements with a project share of cost at sixteen percent (16%), 2) the Winchester Road and the southbound 1-15 ramps improvements with a project share of cost at twenty-three percent (23%), 4) the Winchester/Ynez Roads improvements with a project share of cost at sixty-two percent (62%), 18) the Overland Drive/Jefferson Avenue improvements with a project share of cost at fourteen percent (14%), 19) the Overland Drive/Ynez Road improvements with a project share of cost at twenty-seven percent (27%), 26) the Overland Drive/Margarita Road improvements with a project share of cost at one hundred percent (100%), 10) the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Jeffereon Avenue imprevements with a project share of cost at four percent (4%), 12) the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Alta Murrieta Drive imprevements with a project share of cost at twenty- one percent (21%), and 13) the Murrieta Hot Springs Road/Margarita Road improvements with a project share of cost at forty-three percent (43%). For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the assignment of value was conducted during the EIR, noting that the avenues for funding had not been determined at this point; clarified that the intersections that were identified denoted areas that would go below LOS D with this project, noting that these improvements would mitigate the impacts; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that to the best of his knowledge the City of Murrieta had not participated in improvements to mitigate their traffic impacts to the City of Temecula. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Morgan provided an overview of the on-site circulation improvements, highlighting the signals which would be installed, the Margarita Road improvements, the Ynez Road Realignment Extensions, the Date Street Extension, the Industrial Collector, the Entry and Residential Collectors, the sidewalks, and the multi-use trails; relayed the four phases of the project; and provided additional information regarding the right-of-ways being set aside for a Date Street or Cherry Street alignment; noted the proposed Class II bicycle trails within and outside the project, and the transit plan. At this time the Commission heard public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Jim Miller, representing the City of Murrieta, referenced a copy of the data provided to the Planning Commission outlining his concerns; noted that the City of Murrieta supports the Harveston project plan; relayed that there were three issues that the City of Murrieta recommended be addressed in the Specific Plan for this project, listed as follows: 1) the Date Street Interchange, 2) the Retail Commereial Zoning, and 3) the project's fair share for the construction of the regional facilities; advised that the City of Murrieta was of the opinion that the Date Street alignment could not be constructed at the alternative Cherry Street location per discussions with the Army Corps of Engineere and Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, requesting that the alignment remain at Date Street; requested that the Retail Commercial Zoning be zoned R: PlanComm/minutes/013101 12 as Industrial; requested that the development pay their fair share of the costs of the regional facilities; relayed that as soon as he receives a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers, stating that the Cherry Street extension will not be permitted to go through the proposed restoration retention basin, he would forward the letter to the City of Temecula; with respect to the Retail Commercial Center Zoning for approximately 110 acres, relayed that this zoning would generate between 40,000-50,000 Average Daily Trips (ADTs), noting that the project would not be able to mitigate these impacts, relaying that this retail commercial zoning would seriously jeopardize the construction of the Warm Springs Creek Bridge; noted that approximately six months ago, the City of Murrieta passed a special traffic/freeway/interchange DIF component, relaying that if this project was being developed in the City of Murrieta it would pay from $6-8 million in additional fees; with respect to the tracts off of Margarita Road that are in the City of Murrieta, noted that a fee of $1200 per home was being assessed in order to be applied to projects such as the Warm Springs Creek Bridge; and reiterated that the City of Murrieta supports this residential development, was opposed to the Retail Commercial Zoning, and was of the opinion that the Date StreetNVestern Bypass should be aligned with the existing Date Street right-of-way at the 1-15 Freeway. Commissioner Webster relayed that there have been traffic impacts from the City of Murrieta to the City of Temecula that have not mitigated; advised that as this project is reviewed, the past regional projects should be taken into consideration; noted that per the City of Murrieta's adopted Circulation Plan, the Ynez Road and Diaz Road connections would not be constructed in the City of Murrieta until the Split Diamond is completed, advising that this caused a significant negative impact to traffic in this area; relayed that in conjunction with the request for this development project to have revisions, the City of Temecula would desire to investigate the construction of the previously-mentioned connections which would serve to aid the citizens of Murrieta as they travel back and forth from the City of Temecula to the City of Murrieta. In response, Mr. Miller relayed the priority circulation projects for the City of Murrieta, clarifying that the rationale for not constructing the previously mentioned connections at an earlier date was due to funding issues. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Miller relayed that the City of Murrieta's Circulation Element denoted the alignment south of Cherry Street, providing clarification for the alignment to be constructed at Date Street. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this project would have been funded in 1990 if the City of Murrieta had not stated their desire to not have traffic coming from the City of Temecula going into the City of Murrieta; and recommended that Murrieta's General Plan be revised prior to requesting that the connection not be at Cherry Street. In response, Mr. Miller provided additional information regarding past discussed plans for circulation in this area. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there was existing public right-of-way on Cherry Street; confirmed that the Army Corps of Engineers does have a plan that denotes this area as a detention basin; advised that originally when the Date Street alignment was proposed, the City of Murrieta opposed this project, ergo, the Cherry Street relocation; and relayed that at this time there was no plan to revise this alignment. R: PianComrn/minutes~13101 13 Dr. Robert Wheeler, 29090 Camino Avenue, Murrieta, urged the Planning Commission to consider all projects within the context of the entire area; commented on the Eastern Bypass proposal; recommended that the City of Murrieta establish connections at Madison and Adams Avenues down to a Date Street Interchange to create improved traffic flow; implored the Cities of Temecula and Murdeta to work together to address the traffic impacts; relayed his opposition to extending Ynez Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road due to the location of the riparian quarter at Warm Springs Creek; with respect to the commercial zoning on the west side of the Harveston Project, noted his opinion that this area should be zoned for Neighborhood Commercial; relayed that he was impressed with the design of the Harveston Project, advising that he would recommend higher densities, noting the shortage of this type of housing; and in response to the Fire Department presentation, for informational purposes, noted that there was a Fire Safe Council in Southwest County which was formed approximately two years ago. Mr. Ed Burke, 30944 Wellington Circle, representing Channel Corporation which was located adjacent to the Harveston Project, relayed concern regarding the following issues: traffic and overall circulation, the location of the project adjacent to a Commercial/Industrial area due to the associated traffic and safety issues, southbound Ynez Road access from existing businesses, queried the traffic modeling, the manner in which the planned signals would affect traffic flow, street parking, the realignment of Ynez Road and the proximity to the Channel Corporation facility, southbound egress traffic from the Channel Corporation facility, traffic cutting through residential areas; relayed anticipation of coordinating with the Harveston developer's to address these issues; and noted a desire for a copy of the presentation presented at this meeting. In response to comments regarding the Fire Safe Council, Fire Captain McBride provided additional information, noting that the Fire Safe Council's concepts were being implemented in residential planning areas. The Commission relayed the following closing comment,~: Commissioner Webster noted that he had met with the applicant to discuss issues related to the traffic plan, referencing the slide presentation, relayed the following remarks: With respect to Intersection No. la (Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue), queried whether included in the CIP was an extension of this lane. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that this was part of the proposal, noting that the improvement plans had not yet been designed at this time, relaying that the project would be completed at one designated time period. With respect to Intersection No. lc (Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue), noted that the photograph did not denote a recently installed driveway on the west side of Jefferson Avenue, recommending that the two driveways represented on the right side of the photograph (on both sides of Jefferson Avenue) have left turn movements prohibited, as well as prohibiting left-turn movements into the first driveway (traveling northbound on Jefferson Avenue). R: PlanComnt/minutes/013101 14 With respect to Intersection No. 2a (VVinchester Road/Southbound 1-15 Ramps), noted the knob element (where the southbound offramp exits the freeway), recommending that the knob be removed, and that on the alternate side of the intersection (on westbound Winchester Road), that there be an additional through lane. With respect to Intersection No. 2b (Winchester Road/Southbound 1-15 Ramps) queried whether these improvements were needed, noting the City's proposed project to widen the Santa Gertrudis Bridge which could be delayed if the Cherry Street Interchange was built. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the denoted improvements would need to be coordinated with the Split Diamond Interchange Project, relaying that the Split Diamond Interchange would most likely not be constructed for 10-15 years, noting that the construction may be phased; provided additional information regarding additional investigation regarding the Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening Project; relayed efforts with Caltrans to investigate installing a dedicated offramp in this area in lieu of widening the bridge. Commissioner Webster recommended that the improvements to Intersection No. 2b be inclusive of additional signage and striping placed farther back on the freeway ramp. With respect to improvements on Winchester Road (denoted on the slide presentation at Intersection Nos. 4a, 4c, 5a, and 5b), noted the area of the encroachment into the 25-foot transportation easement, referencing the General Plan and the Regional Mail Specific Plan, relayed that the transportation easement was for future transit or for Travel Demand Management (TDM) plans; and queried how the addition of lanes in this area qualified in meeting this criteria. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Mr. Fagan referenced the General Plan which stated the designation of Winchester Road (east of Jefferson Avenue) as an access restricted urban arterial with special added easements reserved for future transit or Transport Demand Management use, noting the review of the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance; relayed that Travel Demand Management was the same as Transportation Demand Management (TDM), as defined in the General Plan; advised that within the Facilities section of the Ordinance, local Transportation System Management (TSM) and road improvements were addressed, noting that the TSM which was recommended under the TDM addressed specific recommendations (i.e., additional turn lanes, restricting turning movement during peak traffic periods at congested intersections, widening of intersections, approaches to accommodate additional through movement lanes, or to improve visibility); reiterated that the General Plan references TDM, noting that the TDM of the City references TSM which encourages additional lanes and improvements at approaches; noted that per discussions with staff, that a precedent of utilizing a portion of the Transportation Corridor Easement as roadway has been established on the south side for the deceleration lanes of the Mall. With respect to Intersection No. 4b (VVinchester/Ynez Roads), regarding the onramp for northbound I-15, queried whether this area could be re-striped at this time to add two turn lanes onto the freeway. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that it was his understanding that the City was processing a plan with Caltrans to install these particular lanes. Commissioner Webster noted R: PlanComm/minutes/013101 1 5 that the most significant negative impact in this area (between Ynez Road and the freeway) was on westbound Winchester Road Where vehicles were turning right into the commercial center, relaying that since there was an existing designated Park and Ride facility on this site, and since this commemial site was causing a significant traffic impact, it was his recommendation that the City consider purchasing the center in order to construct one large Park and Ride/Transit facility at this location which would relieve the traffic impacts, and address the Mall's Mitigation Measures. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would take this matter under consideration. With respect to the Overland Drive Improvements (denoted in the slide presentation as Nos. 18, 19, and 26), noted that in the improvement project represented in No. 19 was the installation of a right-turn lane from Overland Drive to Ynez Road, queried why the Cosco use was not required to provide this turn lane. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that there was no nexus with the Cosco Project that would justify the requirement. Commissioner Webster relayed that it was his opinion that the Harveston Project should not be responsible for funding the improvements to Intersection Nos. 18, 19, and 26. With respect to Intersection No. 26 (Overland Drive/Margarita Road), relayed that Margarita Road has been improved to its fullest section at this point, noting that in the General Plan and the General Plan EIR, that Margarita Road (between Overland Drive and Solana Way) was projected to be at Level of Service (LOS) F at buildout; recommended at this intersection in lieu of the proposal, that the project be inclusive of installing two dedicated left-turn lanes, and two dedicated through lanes; and queried whether the City was investigating obtaining additional right-of- way for additional lanes at a future point in time. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the developer's traffic engineer has identified areas that need to be addressed in the City whether or not this project is developed, advising that the City's traffic engineer has reviewed the data, and agreed that the proposed projects could relieve the impacts in the City over the next five years, noting that the nexus with this project was based on the developer not being required to extend Ynez Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, or to improve the Intemhange. Commissioner Webster queried why there would be ultimate improvements in place that are not satisfying traffic conditions projected at buildout, and subsequently why this developer was being required to complete this improvement project, noting that he did not see the connection between the improvements on Overland Drive and this project. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that this project's analysis identified these areas as impacted areas in the EIR, advising that professionally trained staff have reviewed and concurred with the data. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that this issue would be better addressed with the EIR consultant, or the traffic engineer who prepared the traffic study. Ms. Morgan relayed that this particular intersection (No. 26) was one of four intersections, which would go below LOS D prior to the anticipated project traffic being added. Mr. Bob Davis, traffic consultant for the applicant, provided additional information regarding the modeling analysis, noting that the distribution at this intersection changed, relaying that the projected project traffic would increase traffic at this intersection; advised that the formula utilized for determining a project's fair share was to analyze the total growth in traffic above existing volumes at all approaches and to determine what proportion of the increase was generated from the project, noting that in this case it represented nearly all the increase, acknowledging that the intersection fails without the project's traffic; relayed that the proposed improvements would not be the final long-range solution, providing additional information regarding potential future improvements; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that the road could solely be widened to the west in this location; with respect to alternate intersections on Overland Drive, relayed that the background traffic increases to a point whereas all the reserve capacity at the intersections would be utilized by the year 2005, noting that the addition of the project's traffic necessitated additional improvements; for Commissioner Webster, confirmed that if North General Kearny Road was extended to Nicolas Road that the MargaritaNVinchester Roads intersection would benefit most dramatically, and that it would improve the traffic in this area on Winchester and Margarita Roads; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that background traffic was a significant factor, noting that in the future the increases in traffic would almost completely be generated from sources outside the City. Chairman Guerriero noted his past recommendation to create a toll road on Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In response, Mr. Davis advised that if Highway 79 could be re-designated that this recommendation could be feasible. With respect to the Murrieta Hot Springs Road Improvement (denoted in the slide presentation as Nos. 10, 12, and 13) noted that it was his recommendation that there be no contribution for these improvements until the Diaz Road and Ynez Road connections are constructed. With respect to the trail plan, recommended that there be a crossing over the Santa Gertrudis Creek from Margarita Road to the high school site. Chairman Guerriero thanked the applicant for the presentation. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that if workshop data was lengthy that in the future the information be provided in written .form rather than utilizing meeting time to review detailed material. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Storm relayed that the Harveston Project would most likely be presented to the Planning Commission in March. R: PlanComm/rninutes~013101 17 For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Senior Planner Hazen had a meeting with the Cosco representatives last week, noting that a timeline for the issues needing to be addressed was being developed and that staff would be receiving the information in written form which would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Guerriero noted the significant negative parking impacts at the mall site where the restaurants are located, querying whether a plan could be developed to revise the loop road to alleviate this impact. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff would address this matter while addressing other issues with Forest City. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that shirts would be provided to the Planning Commissioners. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the agenda packets for the February 7, 2001 meeting had been prepared, requesting the Planning Commissioners to take their packets home this evening. ADJOURNMENT At 9:52 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next re.qular meetinfl to be held on Wednesday, February 7, 200t at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. R(~ Gu'errF~r~ Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning