Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120792 PC AgendaCALt, TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 7, 1992 ~:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Chairman Fahey Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff, Fahey A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the COmmissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda Minutes 2. 2.1 Approval of minutes of October 19, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. NON-PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Planner: Proposal: Recommendation: Transportation Demand Management/Air QnaHty Ordinance City of Temecula City Wide Tim Serlet Adopt the Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Ordinance That the Planning Commission Recommend the City Coucil Adopt the Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Ordinance PUBLIC HEARING 4. Case No: Applicant: Location: Planner: Proposal: General Plan City of Temecula City Wide John Meyer The Planning Commission will consider the following Element of the proposed Draft General Plan on this date: Next meeting: December 21, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, October 19, 1992, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Linda Fahey. PRESENT: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Gall Ziglet. PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of AGenda It was moved by Commissioner H0agland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to approve the agenda as presented. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Minutes of Seetember 21, 1992 Planninq Commission Meeting Debbie Ubnoske asked the Commission for clarification of the recommendation made regarding grading, Page 9, last paragraph. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that it was his recommendation that trees be planted on the slopes at the time of rough grading. Commissioner Ford requested his comments on Page 7, after the motion, be amended to read, ".....issues could be mitigated and prior to making a decision based on the material that was provided, further studies are needed for clarification." PCMIN 10/19~92 * 1 - 11/30/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 19, 1992 Robert Righetti, Plan Check Engineer, amended Page 6, fourth paragraph as follows, "...Ynez Road and Santiago Road will be conditioned for 88 + foot right-of-way." It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the minutes of September 21, 1992 as amended. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS m Public Use Permit No. 5 - Denial Resolution It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve Resolution No. 92-036 denying Public Use Permit No. 5, amending the Resolution with an additional finding under D-1 to read, "Due to the large concentration of churches/public uses in the immediate area". Commissioner Ford stated that D-1 -a, is not supported by statistical data and therefore should be deleted. Commissioner Ford added that when a property is considered for a church use it requires a public use permit, Finding (D-2), "that the zoning does not allow churches", would restrict any church from applying for a public use permit. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford PUBLIC 4. PCMIN 1 O/19/92 HEARING ITEMS Gengral Plan Gary Thornhill provided a brief introduction of the General Plan document. Karen Gulley, The Planning Center, provided an overview of the phases of the General Plan process as follows: * Project kick-off * Data collection, research, analysis Issue/Opportunity area analysis -2- 11130192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 19, 1992 * Alternative plans, policies and implementation measures * Preparation of Draft General Plan and elements * Draft Zoning Ordinance * Public Hearings and Approvals John Meyer presented the staff report on the elements as follows: DRAFT PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. Richard Moriki, 40445 Carmelita Circle, Temecula, asked the Commission to address acceptable levels of exhaust and noise pollution in terms of automobiles. John Meyer suggested that the issue of automobile exhaust and noise pollution be addressed under the Air Quality Element. Commissioner Ford questioned the need for specific areas to be listed under Dam Inundation. Karen Gulley suggested staff review the detailed maps and compile more explicit data. Commissioner Hoagland stated that Item 2, Page 7-11, Railroad Canyon Dam, would have no impacts on the City of Temecula and should be deleted. A straw vote was taken and the Commission unanimously approved enhanced descriptions of flood zones subject to dam inundation and the deletion of Item No. 2, Page 7-11. DRAFT NOISE ELEMENT Richard Moriki, 40445 Carmelita Circle, Temecula, requested clarification of the acceptable levels of noise in a residential area, and what is unacceptable if a major development were to move into or near a residential area. John Dedovich, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, Temecula, expressed concern that the draft general plan document reveals Winchester Road is currently the second highest noise generating project and many residential areas will be greatly impacted when Winchester Road is improved to a six lane highway. Maria Hetzner, 40657 Carmelita Circle, Temecula, expressed concern that Meadowview will lose it's rural atmosphere if North General Kearney is improved to a four lane roadway. PCMINlO/19192 -3- 11130192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 19, 1992 John Meyer advised that the policy states acceptable noise level standards as 45 CNELointerior and 65 CNEL-exterior for residential uses. John Meyer added that Goal 4 - "Minimize Noise Impacts From Transportation Noise Sources" o addresses the concerns expressed regarding increased noise impacts resulting from improvements to infrastructures. Gary Thornhill added that the City will have to look at aceas where roads do not exist today because the County did not previously address circulation issues. Greg Treadway, 40550 Calle Madero, Temecula, stated that noise, public safety and traffic, air quality and community design are all issues that are concerns of the Meadowview homeowners. A straw vote was taken and the Commission unanimously approved the Draft Noise Element as presented. DRAFT AIR QUALITY ELEMENT Gary Thornhill advised that whatever is done in the area of air quality, the City must follow the South Coast Air Quality Management District's plan. A straw vote was taken and the Commission unanimously approved the Draft Air Quality Element as presented. DRAFT COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Commissioner Ford suggested that Goal 4.4 be amended to require the citywide street tree and median/slope planting program include a diversity of species. John Dedovich, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, Temecula, expressed concern that Issue 6. (c.), page 10-16, did not provide adequate detail or explanation. Jane Vernon, 30268 Mercey Court, Temecula, expressed concern that there is no Goal to establish a requirement for water retention. John Meyer advised that staff received a letter from Melvin and Beverly Southward, Meadowview homeowners, expressing concern for adequate buffering of their rural horse property and the proposed Campos Verde development which will be adjacent to their property. In their letter the Southwards state that the developer has proposed a 40' buffer zone between the two developments which the Southwards feel is unacceptable, They proposed a minimum 100' buffer with a better transition of rural horse property to residential. PCMtN 10119/92 -4- 11130192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 19,1992 Maria Hetzner, 40657 Carmelita Circle, Temecula, questioned how the City plans to maintain the rural environment of Meadowview with the City's plan to place a four lane highway through open fields. Marty Andrews, Meadowview homeowner, stated that the residents of Meadowview want to keep the rural environment in Meadowview and throughout the City. Chairman Fahey clarified that land use was not a part Of the agenda. Gary Thornhill advised that the City Council is currently working on a Temporary Sign Ordinance which is designed to be more specific than the sign elements of the General Plan. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that additional language be inserted on Page 10-9 (A), addressing the transition between the various types of residential areas (i.e. multiple and single family houses). Commissioner Hoegland suggested under Implementation, Item E - Art in public places, should not be included in the General Plan due to the level of controversy which it could bring about. Commissioner Chiniaeff and Chairman Fahey concurred. A straw vote was taken and the majority vote was to delete Item E, under Implementation. AYES: 3 NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Hoagland, Fahey Blair, Ford Chairman Fahey expressed concern about the lack of specificity in the language addressing the transition from each one of the housing and business development. John Meyer stated that staff could provide firmer direction in the General Plan policy. It was the overall consensus of the Commission to direct staff to provide more specific language to address the transition from one type of development to another, primarily rural residential to higher density residential. A straw vote was taken and the overall consensus of the Commission was to approve the Draft Community Design Element, deleting Implementation Item E. and providing more specific language to address the transition from one development to another. Chairman Fahey declared a recess at 7:50 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:00 P.M. PCMIN10/19/92 -5- 1113OI92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 1992 DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that under Policy 6.4, the reference to "art in public places" should be deleted as stated under the Community Design Element. Jim Meyler, 29930 Santiago Road, Temecula, advised that he has requested that the City should take credit for the fact they have made a substantial contribution to the arts and the performing arts in the community and there should be encouragement of the development of performing arts facilities in the community. Mr. Meyter added that another concern would be the maintenance of some of the outstanding residential areas within the community such as Meadowview and Los Ranchitos. Richard Moriki, 40445 Carmelita Circle, Temecula, questioned if the City had any projected limits in the terms of "no growth". John Meyer addressed Mr. Meyler's comments advising that under Goal 6, policy 6.4 was added which states "Enhance the City's image through the development of cultural facilities including performing arts and museums". Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern regarding Item 7 on Page 11-11, regarding attracting a minor league baseball team. Commissioner .Hoagland suggested that more appropriate language might be "commercial" or "franchise" sports. A straw vote was taken and the overall consensus of the Commission to approve the Draft Economic Development Element amending Implementation Item 7 to address sports in general. DRAFT GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed his concern with regard to developments being required to set-aside land for religious institutions, C - (3) under implementation. John Meyer suggested amending Sections C - (3) with the word "designation" to replace "set-aside". Frank Klein, 30180 Santiago Road, Temecula, expressed concern that with the continued growth of the City, stating there will be an increase in crime and therefore need for increased law enforcement resources, especially in those areas designated as high density. Lettie Boggs, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, requested the following modifications to Goal 4 and policies: PCMINIOI19/92 -6- 11130/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 19, 1992 4.1 Delete the words "with information". 4.2 Amend to read '"Coordinate the phasing of project...". She also requested the Commission review policy 4.3 which does not have provisions which address a facility that is deemed inadequate. It was proposed by Commissioner Blair that the Commission agree to amend the Goals and Policies at the request of the school district. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland Commissioner .Hoagland stated that he was not clear on the responsibility of the City relative to drainage facilities. Karen Gulley stated that the intent is to take steps toward providing a Master Drainage Plan for Temecula Creek. The overall consensus of the Commission was to amend Goal 7 - Policy 7.2 to read "Facilitate the preparation of a City of Temecula Master Drainage Plan....". Karen Gulley explained that the levels of service are not specifically defined in the draft document at this time, however, part of the growth management strategy discusses the importance of establishing level of service standards. The policy recommends that the standards for police, fire and paramedic service be stated in response times and the personnel ratio. Chairman Fahey recommended that the second paragraph, last sentence under B. Police Protedtion Services, be corrected by replacing "this high level of service..." with "a high level of service...". Karen Gulley suggested that it could read "adopted level of service...". Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that Goal 2, policy 2.1, details, should be provided under "Implementation" on the Growth Management Program. Commissioner Blair questioned if the statement on Page 6-7 regarding response times and personnel ratios was strong enough to direct the City in the matter of response times for police, because the City is currently very far away from that response time. Commissioner Blair added that she feels the Goal appears to indicate the City is satisfied with the current levels of service and she feels the City is not satisfied with the current standards. Mike Gray stated that when negotiating contracts with City's, the Fire Department uses the Fire Protection Master Plan which has a number of criteria used for setting PCMIN10/19/92 -7- 11130192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19o 1992 response times. He suggested that the Fire Protection Master Plan be included in the General Plan as the standard setting document. It was the majority consensus of the Commission that staff work with the Fire and Sheriff's Departments and define the standards for establishing emergency response times as part of the implementation program. A straw vote was taken and the overall consensus of the Commission to approve the goals and policies under the Draft Growth Management/Public Facilities Element which were not amended. DRAFT OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT Commissioner .Ford suggested amending page 5-1, third paragraph as follows "but maintains viable agricultural land outside of the city" to read "encourage viable ....... ". Commissioner Ford expressed concern that Conservation of Resources language is very specific and restrictive in nature and not the general consensus. Leah Klotsas, 30650 Del Rey Road, Temecula, Meadowview homeowner, expressed concern that a trail is proposed on the MWD easement. These trails will go through private property and private backyards and in some areas the trail is very steep and dangerous. Fred Buss, City of Murrieta Planning Department, 26442 Beckman Court, Murrieta, expressed the City of Murrieta's concern that the City of Temecula has a number of designations planned for an area which is in the sphere of influence of the City of Murrieta's General Plan. Mike Beal, 30010 Del Rey Road, Temecula, expressed concern that adding traffic along North General Kearney will create a potential for people driving across the bike trails. George Coriarty, 30535 Avenida Estrada, Temecula, expressed concern that a trail system traveling through Meadowview will cause an increase in noise, crime, trash, loss.of privacy, increased liability, etc. Marty Andrew stated that he feels bringing public equestrian trails through Meadowview will have a negative impact on property values. Connie Coriarty, 30535 Avenida Estrada, Temecula, suggested that the City should look at the Buie Development as an area for equestrian trails and park and not infringe on the Meadowview homeowners. PCMIN 1 O/19~92 -8- 11130192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'OCTOBER 19, 1992 Maria Hetzner, 40657 Carmelita Circle, Temecula, stated that the Meadowview homeowners do not want a public trail system, a four lane road and 8' buffer walls. John Meyer advised that staff received written letters opposing the trail system through Meadowview from Beverly and Mel Southward and Leroy and Peggy Starausley. Bill Campbell, 40620 Calle Madero, Temecula, stated that he feels the trail and four lane road will present safety problems in Meadowview. Commissioner Hoagland stated that he would support Section B. Establishment of Riding, Hiking, and Bicycle Trails, with the deletion of the last paragraph on Page 5-11 and the map that it refers to. Commissioner Ford suggested designating the trails on the map with the for bicycle and hiking with equestrian trails separated into compatible uses. Commissioner Hoegland reflected that he feels there has been no show of support for the trail system through Meadowview. Robert Righetti advised that if the City does not demonstrate how they can incorporate a circulation system, which decreases the amount of drive time, the City will eventually pay a very high price, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that a more appropriate location for equestrian trails might be along the aqueducts. Lorraine Show, 40702 La Colline, Temecula, stated that she did not feel that the issue of whether or not a trail system should run through Meadowview should be discussed by the Commission because it is private property. It was the overall consensus of the Commission that staff provide language stating that trails do not have to be multi-purpose, but can be where feasible; that the maps not be specific in their presentation of the possible trail systems bu~ reflect existing trails and support the Parks and Recreation Commission's design of the equestrian, bike and hiking trails. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he felt many of the issues under Conservati.on of Resources were regional issues. Commissioner Ford expressed many concerns as well. Commissioner Hoagland recommended that the Consen;ation of Resources be re- written to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. Commissioner Hoagland's recommendation was unanimously approved by the Commission. Chairman Fahey continued the public hearing to November 2, 1992. PCMINIO/19~92 -9- 11/30192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'OCTOBER 19. 1992 PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Gary Thornhill reported that staff held a meeting with the Old Town Steering Committee and discussed a preferred land use alternative for the downtown area and circulation issues. Mr. Thornhill advised that staff will present an update to the Council and offered a presentation to the Commission. The Commission expressed their desire to see the presentation. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held November 2, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Linda Fahey Secretary PCMIN 1 O/19/92 - 10- 11 I;30192 ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 7, 1992 Case No.: Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Ordinance Prepared By: ,/~Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the attached Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Ordinance and consider establishment of a corresponding review fee not to exceed ,$250. DISCUSSION: At the November 16, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission suggested several modifications/clarifications to the text of the Ordinance. Those changes have been made and are hi0hlighted in the attached Ordinance. Additionally, some members of the Commission requested that Staff estimate some reasonable fee to be associated with reviewing and monitoring the TDM Plans. Staff feels that since all the calculations involving trip reductions will be based on the traffic analysis that is submitted prior to conditional approval of the project, a maximum fee of $250 should be sufficient to recover 100% of the cost associated with reviewing and monitoring the individual plans. Attachment: 1. Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Ordinance - Blue Page 3 pwO1\plencomm\agende\92\1207\trnsdmd.rpt 1202e ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/AIR QUALITY ORDINANCE 2 pwOl\plancomm~agenda\92\1207~tmsdmd,rpt 1202e ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RELATING TO MOBHJE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION IH~X}UCTION THROUGH I~Rr. UCING EMPLOYlV~-NT- RELATRD MOTOR VEHICLE TRIPS AND EMPLOYMENT- RELATED MOTOR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as "follows: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby makes the following findings: residents. The City is committed to protecting the health, welfare and safety of our B. Poor air quality and ~ is detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety. C. g~...~ contribute significantly to the poor air quality in the 'City/County. D. The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan calls for Cities/Counties to reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips. E. The County and every City in the County is required by state law to adopt and implement a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which complies with standards and requirements established within the County's Congestion Management Program (CMP). F. Riverside County Transportation Commission, as Congestion Management Agency for Riverside County, has established requirements for new developments which could employ 100 or more persons. Section 2. Intent. A. This Ordinance is intended to protect the public health, welfare and safety by reducing air pollution and congestion caused by vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Section 3. Definitions. A. "Alternate Work Schedules" means a variation from the traditional 5 day/40-hour work week to a 4 day/40-hour, 9 day/B~hO~i;i~k'::i~ ~ ~~~i B. "Applicable Development" means any new or existing development that meets or exceed the employment threshold identified in Section 4. pwO1~plancomm\agenda\92H207\trnsdmd,rpt 1202a C. "Flex-time" means allowing employees to determine thei~ own starting and quitting times by either extending the work day in the morning, or evening, or both. D. "Parking Management" means an action taken to alter the supply, operation and/or demand of parking facilities to force a shift from the single-occupant vehicle to carpool, vanpool, or other transportation mode. E. "Rideshare" means a transportation mode with multiple occupants per vehicle. F. "Telecommuting" means the employee forgoes a trip to the normal work site and instead, works from home or from a satellite office near home. Section 4. New Development. A. Applicability: This Ordinance is applicable to new employment generating developments that could employ 100 or more persons based upon the following methodology: LAND USE CATEGORY Retail Commercial Office/Professional Industrial/Manufacturing Warehouse Hotel/Motel Hospital GROSS SOUARE FEET/EMPLOYEE 500 Square Feet/Employee 300 Square Feet/Employee 500 Square Feet/Employee 1,000 Square Feet/Employee .5 Employees/Guest Room 300 Square Feet/Employee For mixed-use developments, the project employment factor shall be based upon the proportion of the development devoted to each land use. B. Standards: All applicable developments shall incorporate 'facilities and/or programs in their development plans sufficient to attain a twelve percent (12 %) work-related trip reduction from the expected number of trips related to the project as indicated in the Trip Generation Handbook published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Trip reductions shall be calculated in accordance with standards established by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and/or the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). C. Facilities. Facilities provided in accordance with the provisions of this Section may include, but are not limited to: 1. Preferential parking for carpool vehicles; 2. Bicycle parking and shower facilities; 2 pwO1\plancomm\agenda~92\1207\trnsdmd.rpt 1202e 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Information center for transportation alternatives; Rideshare vehicle loading areas; Vanpool vehicle accessibility; Bus Stop improvements; On-site child care facilities; Local TSM and road improvements; Facilities to encourage telecommuting; Contributions to support regional facilities designed to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled; and 11. On-Site amenities such as cafeterias and restaurants, automated teller machines, and other services that would eliminate the need for additional trips. D. Trip Reduction Plan Option: Proponents for new development proposals shall submit Trip Reduction Plans and/or design futures specified in Section 5 of this Ordinance to achieve trip reduction requirements of this Section. Said plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Agreements to secure implementation of such plans shall become a condition of development and shall .be recorded with the Deed of Trust for the property. Section 5. Existing Development. A. Applicability: This Ordinance is applicable to all employers that employ lO0 or more persons at one site. B. Trip Reduction Plans: All applicable developments or businesses shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan to reduce work-related vehicle trips by twelve percent (12%). Said plan shall be submitted within 120 days from the issuance and/or renewal of the business license. C. Trip Reduction Methods: Any combination of the following methods may be utilized to achieve the required vehicle trip reduction: 1. Alternate Work Schedules/Flex-Time a. Office/Professional, Industrial, Manufacturing, Warehouse (1) Incorporate alternate work schedules and flex-time programs. (Adoption of 9/80 work schedule for all employees would account for a ten percent (10%) reduction in vehicle trips.) 3 pwO1\plancomm\sgende\92\1207\trnedmd.rpt 12028 .b. Hospital (1) Incorporat~ alternate work schedules and flex-time programs for employees that normally work between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 2. Telecommuting a. Office/Professional (1) Office facilities 25,000 square feet or larger may preserve five percent (5%) of the gross floor area for telecommuting purposes to allow tenants with multiple facilities to establish satellite work centers. (2) Establish teleeommuting or work-at-home programs to allow employees to work at a home or a satellite work center either one day per week or one day every two weeks. (3) Through the telecommuting or work-at-home program, provide incentives or offset employee costs in acquiring the needed equipment and supplies for telecommuting. b. All Other Uses (1) Establish telecommuting or work-at-home programs for selected employees (i.e., certain clerical or administrative employees). (2) Through the telecommuting or work-at-home program, provide incentives or offset employee costs in acquiring the needed equipment and supplies for telecommuting. 3. Bicycle Facilities a. All Uses (1) Provide bicycle parking facilities equivalent to five percent (5%) of the total required automobile parking spaces. (2) Preserve two percent (2%) of the gross floor area for employee locker and shower facilities. 4. Parking Management a. All Uses 4 pwO1~plancomm~agenda%92\1207Rmsdrnd.ll)t ;1202a (1) Designate, with signsin lieu of painted pavement, employee parking area based upon the following percentage of the required parking as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance: required parking (a) (c) Office/Professional: 75 % of required parking Commercial Retail: 30% of required parking Industrial/Manufacturing/Warehouse: 80% of (d) Hospital: 70% of required parking (2) Designate with signs, in lieu of painted pavement, twenty- five percent (25%) of employee parking for carpools and vanpools. (3) Offer financial or other incentives to employees who participate in ridesharing or an alternative mode of transportation other than the single occupant vehicle. (4) Establish a parking surcharge on the single occupant vehicle. Mass Transit Facility Usage a. All Uses (1) Provide incentives to employees to use Mass Transit Facilities. Incentives could include provision of a bus pass, additional pay, flex-time or any other incentive which encourages employees to use mass transit in lieu of the single occupant vehicle. 6. Truck Dispatching, Rescheduling and Re-Routing a. Commercial and Industrial Uses (1) Establish delivery schedules and truck routing to avoid congested areas and minimize peak hour travel. D. Other Measures: Any other method or measure which can exhibit a reduction in vehicle trips shall be credited toward attaining the requirements of this Ordinance. E. Enforcement: Upon approval of the applicable Trip Reduction Plan, if there is future noncompliance with this Ordinance, or exhibited failure to implement the Trip Reduction Plan, one or more of the following provisions shall apply: 5 pwO 1 ~plancomm\egenda\92\1207Rrnsdmd.~t '1202e property. 1. Exercise a lien, based upon the terms of the agreement, on the subject 2. A monetary penalty compounded on a monthly basis upon the length of time of noncompliance equal to the business license renewal fee. Section 6. Fee. A. A trip reduction plan review fee payable at the time of initial submittal or annual review shall be required. This fee shall be used to defray the costs of processing and reviewing each individual trip reduction plan. The fee will not apply to voluntary programs. Section 7. Compliance with AOMD Reg XV. A. Trip Reduction Hans approved by the AQMD in accordance with provisions of Regulation XV may be submitted to the City in lieu of plans required under the provisions of this Ordinance. AQMD approved Regulation XV Trip Reduction Plans approved by the City shall be deemed to comply with trip reduction plan requirements of this Ordinance. Section 8. Voluntary Plans and Program. A. Employers which employ fewer than 100 people will be encouraged by the City to submit Trip Reduction Plans on a voluntary basis to achieve an overall trip reduction within the City of twelve percent (12%). B. The City Manager or his representative shall be responsible for developing effective incentive programs which promote voluntary programs to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled. Section 9. Effective Date. A. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted and published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED, this __ day of 1992. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 6 pwOl~plancommXagendeX92\1207\trnsdmd.rpt 1202a STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92- was duly introduced and placed upon its fffst reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of ,1992, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __. day of ,1992, by the following roll call vote: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 pwOl~plancomm\egende\92\1207\trnsdrnd.rpt 1202a ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 7, 1992 Case No.: Draft General Plan Prepared By: John Meyer RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMEND Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of the Draft General Plan to the City Council. BACKGROUND On October 19, 1992, November 2 and 23, 1992, the Planning Commission held Public Hearings on the Draft General Plan. To date, the Commission has tentatively approved the Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, Economic Development, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Open Space and Conservation, Housing, and Circulation Elements. The Commission has begun discussing the Land Use Element and will continue this discussion on December 7, 1992. A subsequent meeting to discuss EIR, and receive final comments is scheduled for December 21, 1992 DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT Background The purpose of the land use element is to address the issue of the distribution and location of land for housing, business, industry, open space, public, and agricultural uses. The land use element is expected to: (1) identify the intensity of land use; and (2) to specify how private land may be used and developed. DRAFT LAND USE PLAN Staff has received numerous requests from property owners to amend the land use designation on their property. To facilitate the review of these requests, staff has developed the attached Parcel Specific Land Use Request Matrix. The matrix contains the applicant, a location or parcel number, the proposed land use designation, the requested land use designation, and a staff recommendation and response. Each request is numerically keyed on an accompanying exhibit. The order of the letters is chronological. Letters received for a single parcel were all assigned the same map number. Because some letters include requests for various parcels, decimal places were used to separate the requests. The applicants' letters of request, stating their positions have also been attached and numbered for the Commission's review. R:%S~GENPLAN%DRAFTGP. M4P Staff recommends the Commission review the requests in geographical groupings, in order to consider the requests in context of an area, as well as on their individual merits. To facilitate this, staff has divided the requests into 6 area groups. The following table indicates in which group the individual requests are located: I Hwy. 79 South 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, 28, 29, II Chaparral Ill Urban Core IV V VI Westside Foothills Nicolas Valley Meadowview/Winchester 32, 36, 37, 40, 45 and 52 4, 11, 14, 17, 18,.19,24,25,26and38 5, 6, 13, 20, 30, 31, 33, 42.2, 42.3, 42.4, 42.5, 42.6, 42.7, 42.8, 42.9, 47, 48, 49 and 50 15, 39, 42.1', 43, 44, 46 and 51 8, 16, 23, 27 and 35 12, 41, 53.1 and 53.2 During the public testimony, the Chairperson may wish to consider hearing the speakers by area group. In order to allow applicants to present their case before the Commission, staff recommends that each request be heard individually. Staff further.recommends that the Commission continue to consider the parcel specific land use requests and, if time allows, consider the Goals and Policies of the Land Use Element. In order to continue this 'process in a timely manner, staff recommends the Commission not reconsider additional requests on property already discussed at the previous meeting. In regards to textual changes directed by the Commission, staff will present the revisions from all the Elements at a final wrap-up meeting prior to formal Commission action on the Draft General Plan. Staff has not included any of the land use material previously distributed to the Commission. If any of this information is needed, please contact staff. Attachment: 1. Applicant's letters of request received since last meeting - blue page 3 R:%S\GENPLAN~DRAFTGP. M4P ATTACHMENT NO. 1 APPLICANT'S LETTERS R:%S\GENPLAN\DRAFTGP. M4P 3 23 November 1992 Mr John Meyer - The City of Teme~Ul~' Planning Departmenl~TiL-:: 43174 Bus ine~ ParK' D~i~ Temecula, CA 925903., Dear Mr. Meyer: During the process. of preparing a General Plan for Temecula. your department has asked for comments from concerned citizens. I and several other land owners in the Hidden Hills area have raised a concern about the designation of the area for very tow density housing. While our requests to change the land use from very low to low density hOuSing has not received staff support I understand that the area is now in a special study area.- . .o After' addending the last two public hearings on the general plan I noticed that my request appeared in the "Requests Matrix" as number 23. Actually, I own two a joining parcels, 914-480'-010 and 914-480-010. If possible~ ! would Ilke these numbers to be reflected in any updated lists. I also have few additional thoughts that t would to add. - HIdden HIlls and the neighboring Meadowview area sh~re [he same proposed very low density land use designation and similar topography of rolllng hlIls. Tl~e two areas have developed quite differently. Meadowview consists primarily of residences with lots typically one half acre in size and a common area "Open space" of hundreds'Of acres while Hidden H'i lls lots ar~~:, typically five acres, many of which are vacant or currently occupied by .... ~.. ~moble homes. Including the open space in Meadowview, and average would contain approximately I 1/4 acres. Imposing a 2.5 acre minimum lot size will have virtually no affect on Meadowview since the land has atready been subdivided. (generallv into much smaller lots). On the other hand, _ Hidden HIlls parcels would most likely be further subdivided Into 2.5 acre lots since no provision has been made to provide a common open space ~- ~.: '- during its development. I cannot see how single residences on 2.5 acres can be compared t6 open space since it it quite clear that it would be private' property, unavailable for hiking, horseback riding or other activities. It is · very expensive [o properly landscape and maintain lots of this size. Currently the area ls best described by an area of mobile homes Surrounded by weeds. This area and the CI[y cer[atnly deserve be[~er Reducing the land use designation to low density will result in smaller lots that ace based on topography as in Headowview. Indeed, the very low designation does not fit Headowview since including the open space the lots would average slightly over one acre. The smaller lots would spur the development of custom homes such as those in Headowview. It Is feasible to maintain landscaping on lots of this size. Confined to 2.5 acre minimum lot size the area will develop only slowly. I and several other homeowners do not want our neighborhood to remain an area of weed-filled lots occupied by moblie homes. I ask the planning staff how they expect this area to develop and wl~y the very low designation i-s desireable. I believe we need flexible land use based on tooograpny. Lots could vary from half to two acres with an average of about o~qe acre as in Meadowvmw. We should also investigate the possibility of developing an open space. The area in the flood plain of the Gertrudis creek is certainiy one possibility since extensive flood control would be necessary to develop residences on even 2.5 acre lots. Finally, many of the tots In the Hidden HIlls area are owned by non- residents, most of which have been totally left out of the General Plan development process since they generally do not read local papers. I think that they should be notified of this proposed land use designation since they deserve to be involved with a procedure that may result in a lasting change that will affect their future. look forward to the next public meeting on the General Plan. Dennis Fitz 39910 Jeffrey Heights Road Temecula, CA 92591 December 1992 Mr. John Meyer The City of Temecula Planning Departm~nl: 43174 Business Park Drive · ~meeula, CA 925~0 RECEIVEt D? :,: 3 1992 Ans'd ......... -,. Ncv,/n.r=:Qoss."r Dear Mr. J. Meyer W~ have ree~ntly read an article' in the Californian newspaper eonc~e~ning future plans for the city of T~m~ula. To date we have never received any correspoudenc~ from your n£fice or for tha~ matter from any office concernAng our property. we liv~ tn the so called Hidden Hillo urea o~ Temecula on ~.09 lcr~ nf land. Parcel # 914-300-045-8. Wc £~el tha~ ~he prOpnard zoning calling for homes on each 2 1/2 Acre pa~ns] ie unJun~ifjod and unfair. The area we 1Ave in is surrounded on three sides by ~ract homes with los~ ~/A Acre o~ land. We recommend that %h~ ~on~ng be chang0d to lo~s of 1/2 TO 1 Acre of land ~heroDy Xncreaein~ revenues for the oi~y which hopefully would d~creass our present tax burden. We look a~ our yearly tax hill and reads Jjk~ a menu, W~ mr, mr look towards ~he future growth of Temecula with ever ~neroa=ing population and the area we live in i~ be~Cr suites ~or thls growth. look £orward to the meeting on December 7~h, to the Geaeral Plan, Sincerely yours, ...... 31547 Eufteld Lane Trimcoals, CA 92~91 FAX: (809) 694-0979