Private drives on public thoroughfares
Kelly Seyarto intended to propose an advisory ballot item to remove the gate that is currently blocking Hayes at Kalmia. He decided against it when some (2) residents of that neighborhood discussed it further with him, so he let sleeping dogs lie. His reasoning for the change was a little questionable however. He cited a couple named Cooperman along this street who had purchased their home with the belief that the street would remain blocked forever. If they open it now, then they bought their property under false pretenses.
As a result of this gate, traffic flow in Murrieta is further and permanently impaired.
I don’t get the distinction between the people who have had zoning changes with civil works that have required them to adjust for the good of the many, and these people who have somehow managed to get a public thoroughfare blocked for their own benefit. Could someone please explain this to me?
As a result of this gate, traffic flow in Murrieta is further and permanently impaired.
I don’t get the distinction between the people who have had zoning changes with civil works that have required them to adjust for the good of the many, and these people who have somehow managed to get a public thoroughfare blocked for their own benefit. Could someone please explain this to me?
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
14 Comments:
It is very unfortunate that Kelly Seyarto likes to PIT neighbor against neighbor. His only reason to bring this up was to stir the neighborhood emotions that had already been put to sleep.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 02, 2005 8:17:00 AM
I believe if K.Seyarto wants to re-open Hayes because it is a public street, he must also insist to open the road closure at Calle Estancia. That gate remained closed since construction . The reasons for approval were based on occasional flooding on Kalmia, which could have been fixed years ago and is a lame excuse. It also remained closed because of "anticipated school traffic" that might occur if the gate was opened. The residents fought it because they did not want the cut-thru traffic and got it approved without any real traffic studies,any real data. Of course, Kassen Klein lives there!
How about the roadclosure at Adams/Magnolia? Nobody ( City staff and K. Seyarto himself when asked), has any idea why that road was closed with a double rod iron gate and landscaping, cutting off access to continue to Nutmeg. There is no reason to close the road, the few houses closed off all have block walls and do not face the street. Where is the resolution, approval, paper work, who paid for that gate and why? Now drivers have to cut thru annother neighborhood (country gate) or go to Washington, already overloaded, to get to Nutmeg. It makes no sense at all, no traffic count or studies were ever required. What a double standard. Adams is a public road also and just like Calle Estancia, adds traffic to the congested main roads. Did I mention Kelly Seyarto lives in that neighborhood?
The closure of Nighthawk and Hayes is so justified, you have no idea how dangerous and bad it got, those folks gave dynamic presentations based on much research, data and statistic and were able to prove how they were set-up because of poor circulation planning. I watched the progress and I stopped using their residential street for my convienience, the city gave approval to the Murrieta Rancho developer to connect Hayes and turn it into a through street. That was a bad decision and poor planning. With 1200 more homes under conctruction affecting Hayes, it should have never been approved. K. Seyarto has no problem expecting those residents to absorb all that excess traffic! Yet he approved others for lesser reasons than the Hayes closure. The same standard should apply to all road closures, they should all share in absorbing some of that traffic or they should all remain closed. Residential neighborhoods should be safe no matter where they are located, especially with many children walking and biking to school.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 02, 2005 11:11:00 AM
I would like to point out that it is premature and judgemental for anyone, incl. Kelly S. to suggest that the traffic around MVHS is worse due to the Hayes/Nutmeg roadclosure! A blanket statement with no facts to support it.
The City hired an independant conulting firm and spent $ 10K to study the traffic flow in the area as well as the impact the road closure would have. The agency filed their report with the city and stated that the road closure would have NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on the traffic around the schools, if traffic improvements outlined in the report were followed!
Council approved measures for traffic improvements. But they are not completed. We are waiting for the signal at Washington/Nutmeg and at Washington/Fullerton and for the widening of Washington. With those final improvements and with education of drivers to use altenate routes, instead of turning on Nighthawk, the traffic flow will be much easier, give it a chance to work! Far safer to use properly built roads to handle that volume, than a residential neighborhood.
The city should not set up neighborhoods to be transportation routes to public places. Approval was given to Curtis Development to open Hayes Ave, that was a big mistake by City Council. Closing the street to keep residents and hundreds of children safe, was the responsible thing to do. Closing a street for safety reasons and then opening it because it is an inconvienience to outside communities is irresponsible. Any neighborhood that matches the high car volume, hundreds of children walking to school and 65% cut thru traffic,should have their road closed too, no matter how close they live to a school or shopping center and no matter how much outlying communities do not want to give up a cut thru convenience!According to our General Plan, safety and qualiy of life shall apply to all our citizens, that includes people living close to schools!!!!
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 02, 2005 10:59:00 PM
Though the closure proponents can assemble a telling dynamic presentation, and despite the fact that it was a complete failure on the part of the city planner's, has anyone actually thought of a work-around? Hayes should not stop there just because of one neighborhood. I personally don't see why Hayes was to cross back over Murrieta creek in the first place. It's fairly obvious to me that Hayes must be graded to bypass this neighborhood and become a through street again.
The statement I made about Murrieta's traffic flow was made based on current conditions, not those in place at the time of this study. I remember that street when it was closed to vehicular AND foot traffic. My kids had to walk or pedal down to crowded Washington St. and face much more dangerous conditions to get to school. Though the pedestrian way is now open, a look at the neighborhood involved shows a row of houses down one side of the street, and I have to wonder how many children are we protecting? And once the children have grown, can we have our street back?
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, February 03, 2005 12:16:00 PM
Does someone care to comment on the phrase "neighbor against neighbor?". I don't think Mr. Seyarto gets his jollies that way.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Thursday, February 03, 2005 12:19:00 PM
Oops, I clicked on the "anonymous" button by mistake.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Thursday, February 03, 2005 12:38:00 PM
I am new to Murrieta, but there is an obvious need for a light at Calle de OsoOro and Washington. I know of several other intersections that are close behind, but this one seems to be way overdue.
I read in a local paper some time ago that the city was waiting for a developer that is eyeing the S.E. corner to pay for the light.
Why doesn't the city council step up to the plate and pay for the light now, and get reimbursed later, which is in the residents best interest.
It seems that with city sales tax receipts up, there should be money available to make it happen.
This city council seems to makes moves in slow motion, in a city that is moving at a fast pace. Clean House!!
By
Anonymous, at Monday, February 07, 2005 9:59:00 AM
Mr. Seyarto states: "That corner was originally zoned for residential development. When the church went in, it created an odd sized parcel that made residential development not very feasible. It also had alot of interest for it's potential as a commercial property."
Since when does the shape of a lot make a residential development "not very feasible?"
There have been plenty of developments throughout the city having just as "unique" shapes, locations, and configurations.
For whatever reason, Mr. Seyarto has been determined to get his Henry's Marketplace located on this particular parcel... even when a very large and vocal local community expressed zero interest in another commercial development.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:13:00 PM
Mr. Seyarto said:
"Although there was a very vocal group of citizens that protested this move I'll lay odds that if the community voted on it, the Henry's marketplace concept would be far more popular than more houses."
But isn't that usually the case. I've heard Mr. McAllister say essentially the same thing when he says "I make decisions for the good of the entire community."
The problem with claiming the support of an entire community to make a change within a particular neighborhood is that the neighborhood is always greatly outnumbered. Zoning decisions for individual parcels should not be made on the basis of speculation about what an entire community would decide. The entire community does not have to daily live with the result.
In fact, if one were to go through the zone changes and ask whether the larger community would approve the changes, it is likely that the Council would be sustained. But, at the end of the day, the Council would be faced with a coalition of determined neighborhoods each claiming that their individual interests were sacrificed on the alter of the greatest good for the greatest number. Sound familiar?
So what's the solution? A general plan adopted when the entire community's interest is up for determination at one time. This is the only way to legislate land utilization while minimizing the struggle of individual property usage against an overwhelming larger community vote.
If 100% of the directly affected residents of the Nutmeg-Washington corner are opposed to a Henry's, and if they number 300 to 400 or so, their interest has no chance against a council who claims that they are imposing a zone change on behalf of 80,000 residents. That's the problem.
Edward Faunce
Murrieta Resident
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, February 12, 2005 9:50:00 AM
Mr. Seyarto, you said:
"I'm sorry Mr. Faunce, but if we made daily decisions based entirely on what the most directly affected people would like us to do, this community would be in a far bigger world of hurt than you ever imagined it to be in now."
But that is not what I said. I specifically said that the answer to the problem was to make a general plan and stick with it. My point about the "most directly affected people" was to demonstrate the fallacy of counting noses and saying that the greater community good was being served. That is far different than saying that decisions should only be to satisfy those most directly affected.
The issue addressed was whether appealing to the community's alleged interest should be sufficient to overcome a unanimous, or near unanimous, neighborhood opposition.
You also said:
"I know that the Nutmeg/Washington corner wasn't previously zoned for commercial so it isn't exactly the same. However, there is an existing commercial center not 300 yards down from the neighborhood in question. So living near a commercial center cannot be that big of a deal to the people that live there. They already live near a neighborhood commercial center."
But that's exactly the problem that was raised by the neighborhood. There was already a shopping center directly across the street. Putting a Henry's at the corner would burden an already over-burdened intersection and streets.
Don't forget that while the schools are in session, that area of the City experiences traffic paralysis twice daily. And it's not likely to get any better anytime soon.
This brings up another point which you have made, i.e., that people who bought near schools, etc. should not complain. But you forgot to mention that MVHS is at near double capacity. A lot of people who purchased homes in the area were unaware that the schools were operating at double capacity. So the traffic is much worse than one would naturally expect.
One last point about the Henry's project is that it is not a neighborhood market. To be successful, it would have to pull traffic from a wide radius. I believe the developer mentioned that they intended to pull customers from a 6 mile radius.
If my math is correct that would be pulling from an approximate 120 square mile area. The streets on the west side are not designed to carry that kind of traffic load, especially considering the problems that exist already.
Another comment from the Council that stuck in my mind regarding the Henry's market proposal was that more commercial development was needed on the west side. But the General Plan had been "tweaked" some years earlier by substituting homes for commercial zoning. So now, its payback time, i.e., we've got to tweak the Plan again to make up for the last tweak.
My understanding of General Plans is that there are seven elements which are required to be in balance -- at all times. So when the GP was tweaked, on the west side removing commercial, the GP should have been revisited to rebalance all seven elements at that time. I question whether it is lawful to simply "tweak" the plan after the fact without going through the rebalancing process.
There does seem to be a dynamic tension between maintaining a GP and the need to re-evaluate the GP. Some emphasize stability by saying that the GP should be very hard to change. Others emphasize the organic nature of a growing City and say that the GP must give way to market forces. But, if the GP is only changed by rebalancing all seven required elements, both interests would be well served.
Rebalancing all seven elements would make changing the GP very difficult, but not impossible. Essentially, in GPs there is no "tweaking allowed" only rebalancing. The advantage is that rebalancing the GP would keep the community moving in a balanced and responsible growth direction.
Anyway, just some thoughts in response.
Edward Faunce
Murrieta Resident
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, February 12, 2005 8:50:00 PM
I just have a small comment about the Henry's market and commercial development on the corner of washington and nutmeg. I moved from a city that just rec'd a Henry's on a very busy intersection, especially in the morning commute to the freeway. I cant say we saw any increase in traffic problems. The street was improved and people dont typically go shopping during "commuter" times. It is a nice market and it would be nice to have another place to shop besides Ralphs (nothing against Ralph's. More homes would mean more cars on a permanent basis and during the morning and afternoon commute. I dont think that happens with commercial business. Just my opinion though.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, February 19, 2005 12:08:00 PM
For all of you who dont agree with or understand the safety issue of having Hayes closed at Nighthawk, come on over around 2:30 and sit for an hour and watch the hundreds of kids that walk and ride their bikes home from the schools. OH, but maybe since they're not your kids it isn't as important? The whole thing is just rediculous. This is a small neighborhood, the street was designated to be closed when the homes were built, so I dont want to hear anymore "you knew it was there when you bought"! Why should small residential neighborhoods be turned into commuter pathways... they shouldnt and that it why the street should remained closed. Can people just let it go and move on!!!
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, February 19, 2005 12:21:00 PM
The issue of Hayes being closed is bigger than just the blocked street. Sure, the residents who bought there should have known the school was there... of course they knew! The issue here is why did the City ever plan to have Hayes go through the residential neighborhood? Why was the development designed to leave no room for sidewalks opposite the schools on Nighthawk Way? Why are the City Planners or approval groups of new developments not anticipating what appears to be fairly straight-forward and recognizable problems in design? It seems the City leaders are so bent on getting the developments; they are not actually visualizing the reality some of these designs create. For example, there is no way anyone can say the "attached homes" across from the high school on Washington are wonderfully designed. Sure, they will provide "homes" for someone, but why not hold the developer to a higher standard than a single dead-end street that is essentially a fire lane? The point is not just a street closure – but the approval of designs that don’t realistically blend or meet the needs of the existing situations.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:43:00 PM
I totally agree with the comments of the previous Anonymous writer. So often it appears the plans are not adequately reviewed before approval. Other times, it seems strange designs are approved which really don't make sense in terms of traffic flow or practical circulation. Nighthawk Way should extend to the future Vineyard project, especially with the closure of Hayes at Nighthawk Way. The Ralph's shopping center on the west side of town should have access from Calle De Oso Oro. Adams should be a through street, as should Jefferson to Clinton Keith. Los Alamos Road should extend to Hwy 79, as should Clinton Keith. Madison should extend through to Temecula as should Ynez. It would be nice if our City leaders would work with our neighbors to the North and South instead of being in such obvious competition to display the most growth! I can't help but wonder how different our town would be if the regional mall hadn't decided to move south when Murrieta had all those tax dollars pending... only to lose it. Some new leadership could be just what this city needs.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, February 20, 2005 7:28:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home