HomeMy WebLinkAbout080702 PC Agenda
..
IS)
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the
City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
August 7,2002 - 6:00 P.M.
********
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2002-026
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
RollCall:
Commissioner Mathewson
Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 7, 2002
R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2002\OB-07 -02.doc
2 Director's Hearinq Case Update -RECEIVE AND FILE 5-0
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update For July 2002
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before
a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to
the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the
projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences
delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Continued from July 31, 2002
3 Planninq Application No. PAOO-0507-Hampton Inn. for the desiqn and construction of a
70-room four stOry hotel buildinq on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located to the adiacent
west of the Winchester freewav off ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the
Rancho Temecula Plaza. - Michael McCov. Proiect Planner II
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
New Items
4 Planninq Application No. PA01-01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan)-
Appeal. An Appeal of the Planninq Director's decision to denv Planninq Application PA01-
0601 a proposal for a Cinqular Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility consistinq of
replacinq two existinq wood poles with two identical metal poles (painted a wood qrain finish
to match existinq poles) and a 10' x 20' BTS equipment enclosure. The proposed metal
poles will internallv house 6 antennas, located on the northeast corner of Rancho California
Road and Marqarita Road in Temeku Hills Golf Course. - Rolfe Preisendanz. Assistant
Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0601
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0120 - A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT I DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN UNMANNED
CELLULAR ANTENNA FACILITY LOCATED ON THE
R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2002\OB-07 -D2.doc
2
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
APN 953-340-015.
5 Planninq Application No. Pa 02-0252 (Development Plan) - to desiqn, construct. and
operate a 61.200 square foot expansion to the existinq 132.883 square feet Milqard
Windows buildinq located at the southwest corner of Diaz Road and Dendv Parkwav - Rick
Rush. Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0252 (Development
Plan);
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 02-0252, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN,
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 61,200 SQUARE FOOT
EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING 132,883 SQUARE FOOT
MILGARD WINDOWS BUILDING ON 15.83 ACRES,
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DIAZ ROAD
AND DENDY PARKWAY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 909-370-031
6 Planninq Application No. PA01-0383 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan). To
desiqn, construct and operate a thirtv-five foot hiqh-unmanned wireless telecommunication
facilitv desiqned as a flaqpole and the installation of a one hundred forty four square foot
equipment shelter located on the south side of Hiqhwav 79 South and west of Redhawk
Parkwav at the existinq McDonalds site at 31853 Hiqhwav 79 South - Rick Rush, Associate
Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0383 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-027
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0383, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITI DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THIRTY-FIVE FOOT
HIGH UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
DESIGNED AS A FLAGPOLE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF A
ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT
SHELTER LOCATED AT THE MCDONALDS SITE AT 31853
R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2002\OB-07 -02.doc
3
HIGHWAY SEVENTY-NINE SOUTH AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 961-080-007
7 Planninq Application No. PA01-0572 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan). To
desiqn. construct and operate a twenty-six foot hiqh, fourteen- foot wide unmanned wireless
telecommunication facilitv housinq six antennas and associated equipment. located at
27215 Nicolas Road (Chaparral Hiqh School Campus - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0572 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-028
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0572, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT! DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TWENTY-
SIX FOOT HIGH, FOURTEEN FOOT WIDE UNMANNED
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY HOUSING SIX
ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON
THE CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS AT 27215
NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.
911-760-007
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: August 21, 2002 - Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2002\OB-07-02.doc .
4
ITEM #2
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE: August21,2002
SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for July 2002
Date
Case No.
Proposal
July 25, 2002
Applicant
PA01-0553 Request to subdivide approximately 81.3- Lowry &
acres of undeveloped land into 14 Associates
retail/commerciallots totaling 13.35-acres
and three remainder parcels.
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO\2002\July 2002.memo.doc
Action
R:\DIRHEAR\MEM0\2002\July 2002.memo.doc
ATTACHMENT NO.1
ACTION AGENDAS
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
July 25, 2002 1 :30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning
Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Item No.1:
Proposal:
Planning Application PA01-0553 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30180)
Lowry & Associates
Southeast & southwest corners of State Highway 79 South and Pala
Road (APN's 961-010-001, 002, 003, 004 & 005).
A requestto subdivide approximately 81.3 acres of undeveloped land
into 14 retail/commercial lots totaling 13.35 acres and three
remainder parcels. (Continued from the June 27, 2002, meeting)
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program
per the California Environmental Quality Act.
Matthew Harris
CONTINUED TO AUGUST 15, 2002
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
ACTION:
R:\DIRHEAR\Agendas\2002\07-25-o2 ACfIoN AGENDA.doc
ITEM #3
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 5, 2002
Planning Application No. 00-0507
(Development Plan)
Hampton Inn Suites
Prepared By: Michael McCoy, Project Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission continue Planning
Application No. 00-0507 for redesign.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Dinesh Patel, 916 Erie Street Oakland, CA 94610.
PROPOSAL: Design and construction of a 42,000 square foot 70-room, 4-
story hotel building on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel.
LOCATION: Approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and
approximately 200-feet north of Winchester Road to the
. adjacent south of the Comfort Inn motel (APN 910-282-007).
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
EXISTING ZONING: HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Hotel
Vacant
Freeway
Commercial Shopping Center
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Lot Area:
Total Building Area:
Building Footprint:
Landscape Area:
Parking Required:
58,925 square feet
42,000 square feet
11,400 square feet
12,750 square feet
(1.35 gross acres)
.71 FAR
19%
20% net coverage
74 spaces. plus 3 motorcycle & 4 bicycle spaces
R:ID PI2OO0'D0-0507 Hampton Inn SuftesIRevised PC STF REP recommending Redesign w-o COA's.doc
Parking Provided:
77 spaces, including 4 handicap, plus 5 motorcycle and 4
bicycle spaces
Building Height:
50-feet maximum (4-story)
BACKGROUND
The proposed project was originally submitted in May 2000 as a Pre-Application Review. During
review of the Pre-Application, staff expressed concern about the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
exceeding the target FAR of .30 and requested that the FAR be brought into compliance with the
Development Code standards. On October 10, 2000, Larry Markham, the project representative,
sent a letter to staff (reference attached letter Exhibit L) acknowledging that he advised the applicant
that a landscape plan exceeding the minimum code requirements would be required in order to
obtain staff support of the increased FAR. In this letter, Mr. Markham indicated that the proposed
plan should provide an extensive number of mature specimen box size trees with high quality shrubs
and groundcover to meet this FAR approval criterion.
A Development Plan application was submitted on December 11 , 2000 and the plans were largely
unchanged from the pre-application plan exhibits. A Development Review Committee (DRC)
meeting was held on January 11, 2001. Between the DRC meeting date and the application
completeness date of March 2002, the applicant being out of the country delayed the processing of
the application, and several iterations of plans were reviewed, but could not be deemed complete.
Plans were resubmitted in March 2001 that addressed some but not all of the application
completeness and design review comments. The application was ultimately deemed complete for
public hearing scheduling in March 2002. The applicant then requested that staff postpone the
public hearing date until June 5th due to scheduling conflicts.
The plans being submitted for Planning Commission review do not address staff's primary concerns
of FAR increase, landscaping, building architecture, and pedestrian accessibility. However, the
applicant has requested that the plans be forwarded to public hearing as submitted.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed four-story 70-room hotel building will be centered within the triangular shaped 1.35-
acre lot located in the rear.of the Rancho Temecula Plaza commercial center, adjacent and south of
the existing three-story Comfort Inn motel. The parcel is to the adjacent west of the Winchester
Road 1-15 off-ramp. Access to the site will be provided by three 24-foot wide driveways, two at each
front corner and one in the center of the parcel. Pedestrian access is provided by a 4-foot wide
striped pathway for ADA and pedestrian access, connecting from Jefferson Avenue and the
adjacent commercial center into the project site will be required. The pedestrian access pathway
shown on the plan is not approved by the Building and Safety Department for ADA access
compliance. The parking lot provides 77 vehicle-parking stalls distributed on each side of the
building. Two 10-foot x 25-foot loading spaces are located in front of the concrete masonry trash
enclosure at the northeast corner of the property.
Landscaping will be provided with planters adjacent to all sides of the building and around the
perimeter of the project site. The building specific and foundation landscaping contains a variety of
24-inch and 36-lnch box trees and 1-gallon and 5-gallon shrubs around the building perimeter.
Landscape coverage for the project site is listed at a total of 20 percent net, which excludes a 2-foot
parking lot landscape overhang into the planters fronting the building.
I
I
I
R:\O P\2000\OlHl507 Hampton Inn SUttesIRevlsed PC STF REP recommending Redesign w-o COA'..doc
2
The building architecture is a contemporary raised vertical style that maximizes its footprint on the
lot. The main hotel lobby entrance is facing west, directly in line with the center driveway off
Jefferson Avenue. The front center section of the building will be the only visible part of the building
from Jefferson Avenue. The front entrance is highlighted by a 20-foot high by 34-foot wide cornice-
capped porte-cochere extending outward from the lobby entrance. A secondary entrance is
provided on the east side (rear) of the building, accented with a smaller porte-cochere structure as
requested by Staff. The west (front) wall plane of the building is broken up by four vertical relief
elements that project from the wall surface, from 1-14 feet to 5-Ul feet. The building's east side wall
plane is also broken up by three similar vertical relief elements, ranging from 3 }2 feet to 7 }2 feet
deep. The two end sections of the building are framed by 2-foot deep vertical insets with a hallway
window on each floor to break up the wall plane and provide natural light in the building corridors.
The cornice capped vertical elements vary the parapet roofline to provide a varied building height.
Metal louver air conditioning vent covers painted to match the building wall colors will be installed
below the guest room windows. The guest room windows are inset within the openings of the wall
relief elements. The building colors are a combination of tan, brown, and white stucco. Tan colored
canvas awnings that match the tan eifs building base will accent the guest room windows.
The Development Code specifies a target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .30 for the Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT) zoning district. This project is requesting an FAR of .71, exceeding the target FAR
by 0.41. Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must
be met to justify an increase over the target FAR.
1. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city
with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community; or
2. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which
reflect an attractive Image and character to the city; or
3. The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
ANALYSIS
The key issues of concern with this application are the increased Floor Area Ratio; the proposed
landscape design; the building architecture; and the pedestrian and disabled access to the hotel
building from the west side parking lot and the adjacent commercial properties.
Floor Area Ratio
The proposed project exceeds the target FAR by .41. The target floor area ratio for the Highway
Tourist (HT) Zone Is .30. The Development Code offers incentives to increase the target FAR if the
applicant can meet at least one of the FAR Increase criteria in Section 17.08.050 of the
Development Code. Staff cannot make the findings for approval for the proposed FAR increase.
Since the Pre-Application review of the proposed project, Staff has had concems regarding the FAR
Increase based on the approval criteria. From the findings of Table 1 below, it is evident that the
proposed project has a higher FAR than any of the other hotel projects in the City. Moreover, the
proposed FAR will result in a corresponding reduction of landscape coverage for the site.
R:\O P\2000'00-0507 Hampton Inn Sultes\Revised PC STF REP recommending Redesign w-o COA's.doc
3
Table 1
FAR Number of Guest Lot Size (Acres)
Rooms
Embassy Suites .12 176 6.85
Temecula Valley Inn .38 90 2.61
, Best Western Country Inn .46 61 1,45
, Comfort Inn .50 60 1.08
I Extended Stay America .57 106 1.86
I
Proposed Hampton Inn .71 70 1.35
Staff recommends that the landscaping be enhanced for the site, as the architectural design alone,
does not warrant an FAR increase as required by the Development Code criteria for approval. In
order to achieve parity with the recently approved Extended Stay America hotel, the Floor Area Ratio
would have to be reduced by 8,481-square feet, with a smaller building footprint to allow for
additional landscape coverage.
landscaping
The project proposes to landscape 11 ,822-sq. feet or 20% of the site, which meets the minimum
requirement for the HT (Highway Tourist) zone. The City's landscape consultant has given approval
of the conceptual plan based on minimum standards per the Development Code. However, staff
has emphasized to the applicant the importance of substantially exceeding the minimum landscape
coverage reqUirements and creating a visual statement with the landscape plan, in order to meet
one criteria for approval of an FAR increase. Increasing the landscape coverage and enhancing the
landscape plan to meet this criterion will require a reduction of the building footprint and a revised
site design.
Staff has concerns about the view of the east side of the property from the 1-15 off-ramp, since the
proposed trees and shrubs do not provide a significant tree buffer behind the existing Eucalyptus
trees within the CalTrans right-of-way slope area. Staff is hesitant to consider the Eucalyptus trees
as a long-term buffer,(i.e. tree health) and believes that the proposed on-site landscaping should be
able to "stand alone" and should be substantially improved by making the following revisions to the
conceptual landscape plan:
1. Widen the east perimeter landscape planter to allow staggered tree locations and
accommodate larger specimen trees to better screen the property from the 1-15 off-ramp.
2. Enlarging the 36-inch box Deodar Cedar trees to 48-inch box size specimen trees,
3. Enlarging the 24-inch box Fem Pine and Red Crepe Myrtle trees to 36-inch box size.
4, Enlarging the 15-gallon Chinese Pistache trees to 24-inch box size.
5. Adding additional taller growing evergreen trees within the perimeter landscape planters and
against each side of the building.
6. Enlarging all 5-gallon shrubs to 15-gallon size, particularly along the east and north
perimeter planters to provide a better landscape buffer along adjacent property lines.
R:\D PI2OOOVJ0-0507 Hampton Inn sune.IRevised PC STF REP recommending Redeslgn,w-o COA's.doc
4
7. Clustering 48-inch and 36-inch box trees within wider sections of perimeter planters and
planters within the building envelop.
8. Create a landscaped entry statement at the building's west facing frontage near the porte-
cochere with a decorative raised flowering planter or water fountain with a shaded seating
area. An alternative could be to provide a water fountain and paved seating/gathering area
fronting the building's south elevation to further enhance the exterior aesthetics and help
mitigate some of the vehicle noise pollution from the freeway off-ramp to the adjacent east.
Building Architecture
The Development Code Commercial Performance Standards recommend that large buildings be
designed to avoid excessive bulk and mass through exterior offsets and wall relief, stepping back
the building's upper stories, and varying the roof heights. Although the proposed building design
provides some vertical offsetting and roof height variation, it gives the appearance of considerable
bulk and vertical wall mass through its vertical design. The building windows appear flat against the
wall surface and don't give a recessed effect to help break up the wall plane. In addition, the north
and south elevations appear inconsistent with the articulation of the west and east elevations and
appear flat and unarticulated with a blank wall view of nearly 35-feet. Staff has previously requested
that the applicant make some exterior design enhancements, but the applicant has chosen to
maintain the proposed design other than a few minor changes. Staff believes that the requested
building design enhancements are important in justifying its support for an FAR increase and in
achieving the objectives of the Commercial Performance Design Standards for architectural quality.
Staff has also recommended to the applicant that the color palette be revised to accentuate the
primary relief column sections on all sides with complementary accent colors to give more definition
to these relief sections. Staff also expressed concern to the applicant about the horizontally scored
stucco base around the building. Staff has recommended that the elevations be revised to provide a
slate tile, flagstone, or stone veneer element around the building's base and up a portion of the
vertical columns to visually break up the flat wall planes and create more four-sided architectural
interest.
One of staff's key concerns regarding the building design is the visual appearance of the exterior air
conditioning vent covers about 4-ft. wide and 2-ft. high that will extend across the base of each
window frame of the guest rooms. Chapter Three of the Commercial Design Guidelines for hotels
and motels requires that air conditioning units should not be visible from public streets, The a/c vent
covers would potentially be visible from Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road, and from the 1-15 off-
ramp, and do not appear flush or screened from view. Staff has requested that an altemative
design be provided that would not be noticeable on the building exterior. Internalizing the ventilation
system would be the preferable design option to completely eliminate the exterior a/c vent covers,
but the applicant has stated that this option is not feasible due to the building's structural design. An
altemative option could be to reduce the vent cover length and width and recess them further into
the wall surface. A third option might be to provide a view obscuring decorative false wrought iron
balcony in front of the vent cover surface area to mitigate its potentially negative visual impact, The
applicant has indicated that the vent covers will be painted to blend in with the wall colors, but
experience has shown that matching paint does not effectively mask the appearance of this type of
louvered vent cover.
The applicant has made some design improvements in the architecture and landscape design at
staff's request since the first plan submittal. For example, the smaller porte-cochere at the rear
entrance was added when staff requested that this entrance be enhanced as viewed from the 1-15
Winchester Road off-ramp. A 200-sq. ft. enclosed outdoor patio area was also added to.the east
R:\D P\2OOO'()Q-Q507 Hamplon Inn SuitesIRevlsed pc STF REP recommending Redesign WoO COA's.doc
5
rear elevation at staff's request. The applicant has also revised the conceptual landscape plan to
provide some additional shade trees and taller growing shade trees within the parking lot and
adjacent to the building within the landscaped planters. Overall however, the building design does
not fully comply with the City's Design Guidelines, nor justify the FAR increase.
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Staff has expressed concem to the applicant that the west side parking row does not have an
interior concrete walking path for pedestrian access to the main lobby entrance, but forces visitors
and guests to walk through the parking lot until arriving at the concrete sidewalk past the parking
row near the lobby entrance. The Commercial Design Guidelines Circulation policies require
separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems to be provided if possible. Staff believes that
a sidewalk should be provided on the inside of this parking row to the concrete walkway that
accesses the main entrance. In addition, the Deputy Building Official has requested that the
applicant redesign the pedestrian access path of travel from the Jefferson Avenue public right-of-
way through the commercial center to the main entrance. They have requested that the site plan
show a separate path from traffic with either a curb and rail, truncated domes, or to relocate the
access path out of the 24-foot wide drive aisle that parallels the projecfs west side frontage. The
Deputy Building Official has previously met with the applicant at the project site to discuss the
compliance problems of the proposed design. However, the applicant has not responded with a
revised access path design that meets the Building and Safety Department requirements to issue
conditions of approval.
The City Traffic Engineer has stated that a traffic study is not required for this size and type of
project, because the use is consistent with General Plan EIR land use assumptions; has no direct
frontage on Jefferson Avenue; and a less than significant peak hour traffic will be generated. He
added that the project is not large enough to require any road improvements, such as road widening
or intersection modification.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Based
upon staffs review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32-ln Fill Projects)
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons:
. The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
. The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area.
. The site has no value as a habitat for endangered. rare, or threatened species.
. The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services.
. The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is consistent with the zoning and general plan
designations for the site.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The proposed project is consistent with the Highwayrr ourist Commercial (HTC) General Plan land
use designation goals and objectives and with the Highwayrrourist Commercial (HT) zoning district
development standards as a permitted use.
R:\D P\2OOQ\DD-0507 Hampton Inn SulteslRevlsed PC STF REP recommending Redesign w-o CoA's.doc
6
.,
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff has summarized the primary issues of concern on this proposed project, such as the FAR
increase, landscape design, architecture design, and pedestrian and disabled accessibility. Most of
these issues center on the primary issue of supporting the requested FAR increase to satisfy one of
the criteria for approving a target FAR increase pursuantto Section 17.08.050 of the Development
Code. With the plans as submitted, staff cannot make the findings for approval and recommends
that the application be continued for design revisions.
1. Attachments - Blue Page 8
Colored Elevation Plan reduction
Proposed Project Statement of Operations
FAR Target Exceedance Letter dated 5.30-02
Project Representative letter to staff October 10, 2000
Rancho California Water District Letter dated January 3, 2001
County Department of Environmental Health Letter dated January 2, 2001
Colors and Materials Sample Board reduction
2. Exhibits - Blue Page 9
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan land Use Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevation Plans E-1 and E-2
F. Conceptual landscape Plan
"
RID P\2000IOO-DS07 Hampton Inn SuitesIR.vlsed PC STF REP recommending Redesign W-<I COA's.doc
7
ATTACHMENT DOCUMENTS NO.1
R:\D PI2OOO\D().()507 Hampton Inn Su~..lRevised PC STF REP recommending Redesign w-o COA's.doc
8
5591439-2222
559/439-2298 FAX
'.
LEE GAGE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
.7636 N. INGRAM.. SUITE 107
FRESNO, CAUFORNIA '93711-6200
September 6, 2000.
Re: Hampton Inri
4 StOry I 73 Room Hotel
JeffersonAve. .' .
APN: 910-282~007-1
OPERATIONAL STATEMENT .'
The normal business hours will be 24 hOUrs per day, 7.daysper weeK.
Maximum number of employees at one time' is 5;
83 parking stalls required.. .
No hazardous materials will be utilized. In this project. .
/
\
temec:ula.op1
architecture
engineering
planning
M -lVIQ
roJrf @ rf U W ~m
tJll MAY 3 0 2G02 W
MAAKHM1 DEVELOPMENf MAWlGCMENf GROUP, INC.
May 30, 2002
Chairperson Dennis Chiniaeff
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park: Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
By
Subject:
P A 00-0507
FAR Target Exceedance
Justification
Patel #1037
Dear Chair Chiniaeff,
Initially let me state that all of the hoteVmotel projects approved by the City ofTemecula
after the adoption of the Development Code have required a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
target exceedance, with the only exception being the Temecula Creek Inn, which is a part
of a larger golf course project.
The Development Code did not adequately address or anticipate two land uses with
regard to FAR, hotels/motels and mini-storage facilities. Those land uses are inherently a
higher FAR by their design nature and are not economically viable at the target FAR.
This particular project is on an infill parcel that was created before Cityhood and before
the Development Code adoption. This parcel is bounded by reciprocal ingress/egress
easements, with a single point of access and with an extremely irregular geometric shape.
The requested FAR is 0.71, which is within the range of 0.30 to 1.00. The City Engineer
has not expressed any concern relative to traffic or utilities.
The applicant is required to meet at least one of the following criteria (see attached).
1. The hotel project will generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) -8%)
which the City of Temecula will receive 100%. Additionally, the project
will provide employment and added sales tax to the surrounding
restaurants, service stations and other service businesses.
2. The applicant has revised the architecture with extensive cornice detailing,
building mass offsets, window awnings and decorative grilles over the
HV AC units. The landscaping provides for 35 of the 50 trees to be 24" or
36" box trees and total shrub planting of 891 plants with 525 being 5
gallon size. The applicant feels that this is exceptional quality and meets
41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 8 the design guidelines and the landscape code 20% requirement.
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
(909) 296-3466
Fax: (909) 296-3476
www.maI1d1amdmg.com
3. The applicant had originally proposed the use of a community meeting
room, but based on the most recent Extended Stay America approval, staff
declined. The other examples are not available to this type ofland use, or
not in a proximity to be able to provide that type of amenities.
Any decreases in the FAR could only be accomplished by reductions in rooms in groups
of2l4/6/8 or 4/8/12116 for one end, and/or both ends of the building.
The building geometry of width is set by room dimensions and the length by the number
of rooms per floor. The reduction of8 or 16 rooms (i.e., one/two building ends) would
only yield 832 or 1664 SF of additional landscape area with a reduction on FAR from
0.71 to 0.60.
Based on these facts, the applicant requests the Commissioners concurrence on the FAR
request and to provide the applicant with specific guidance relative to the architecture.
cc: D. Patel
L. Gage, Lee Gage & Associates
V. DiDonato, Alhambra Group
.
A.
CommerciaVOfficellndustriallncentives . Increases in the Roor Area Ratio. As a part of the
process of reviewing and approving an application for a development plan or conditional
use permit, the approval authority may consider an increase in the maximum allowable
intensity as indicated in Tables 17.08.040.A and B. The amount of the increased intensity
shall not exceed the maximum of the density range or floor area ratio stated for the specific
land use designation. The requested increase may not be approved if the city engineer
determines that the increased intensity would create an unmitigatable impact upon traffic
circulation or would overburden any utilities serving the area. To be eligible for an increase
in the floor area ratio, the applicant must meet at least one of the following criteria.
,
1, The project includes use(s) which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to
the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the
community. Examples include: the provision of affordable housing that Is easily
accessible to and within close proximity to convenient shopping and employment.
accessibWty.to mass transit facilities, and creative mixtures of land uses, housing
types and densities.
2. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscape design amenities
which reflect an attractive image and character for the city. Examples include:
. extraordinary architectural design and landscaped entry features (may be within the
public right-of-way), public trail systems, public plazas or gathering spaces, and
recreational features in excess of what is required by this code.
3. "The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond
those required mitigation impact measures. Examples indude: the provision of
community meeting centers, enhanced transportation improvements, police or fire
stations, public recreation facilities, and common parking areas or structures to
serve the community.
B. Entertainment Establishments Providing Dancing, Music and Similar Activities.
1. Noise levels shall not exceed the standards set forth in the noise element of the
general. plan or the environmental performance standards of this development code
(Section 17.08.070).
2. Dancing. music, and similar entertainment uses shall be limited to between the
hours of six p.m. and two a.m.
3. The city may apply additional requirements or limitations depending on the location,
surrounding uses and other considerations.
C. Arcades. In cOnsideration of a request for an arcade. the following criteria wiu be considered
and appliCation material requested.
1. The planning.;commission shall Consider. but not be limited to, the need for adult
supervision, hours of operation. proximity to schools and other community uses,
compatibility with the surrounding neighborh9Od and businesses, noise attenuation,
bicycle facilities. and interior waiting areas.
2. The applicant shall submit with his application, three sets of typed gummed labels,
listing the name and address of all businesses within a shopping center and all
landowners within a three-hundred-foot radius of the shopping center or arcade.
Indudes-Amendments as of November 1.1999
~""nt....1." nA _ 1.'"
)
....
)
MDMG, Inc.
Markham Development Management Group, Inc.
October 10, 2000
1[D)~@~Dw~m
UU OCT 1 2 2000 @/
By
Denice Thoma$
City ofTemecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92593-9033
Subject:
Pre-Application Comments #00-0011
Patel # 1037
Dear Denice,
Thank you for your review of our revised elevations and site plan addressing the issues
that you and Ms. Ubnoske raised at our meeting.
I have advised the applicant that the staff support of the project, and more specifically the
floor area ratio exceeding the target, will be conditional on the submittal of a landscaping
plan that exceeds the Development Code requirements. This plan shall provide for
extensive use of mature specimen box tree plantings and high quality shrubs and ground
cover that will elicit staff support of the project in total.
ment Management Group, Inc.
cc: D. Patel
L. Gage
D. Ubnoske
41750 Wmchester Road, Suite N . Temecula, California 92590-4898 . (909) 296-3466 . Fax: (909) 296-3476
@
IanchD
later
Boat-d ut DiRctol'll
Douc1u V. KuIboq
""""'".
Georco M. WoodII
Sr. Vke Preaidsnt
Ralph R Dally
lba D. Herman
c.at. F. Ko
8coU A. Mclntyrv
.k8lrey 1.. Minkler
om"",
JobnF. HennI&ar
"""""-
Pbillip L. Fome.
DiNctor of FD:umce-
............
&P. "Bob"Le~
DIrectorof~
Keanotb C. Dealy
DIrec:toro{()peratiOll8
...u.;........._
Perry R. ......,.
""'''''''"'
, ')
t
January 3, 2001
Michael McCoy, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO.7 OF PARCEL MAP NO. ~1670
APN 910-282-007
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. P AOO-OS07
Dear Mr. McCoy:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore,. would be ayailable upon completion of financial anangements between
RCWD and the property owner. .
Iffire protection is required, the customer will need to contact )lCWD for fees and
requirements.
UndaM._
==""'""""""- Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
c. MkhaeICowel. Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
Best. Best.. Krlecer IU
"'-l CwDooI
If you should have any questions, please contact an E~neering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
~e~
Steve Brannon, P .E.
Development Engineering. Manager
01 \SB:atO03\FOJ 2-T6\FCF
RanclIo CaliCornla Wilier Dhtriet
421S5WlnehetrterRoad. . Po.tOfllceBo19017 . Temecula.Californi.92589-9017 . (909)296-6900' FAX(909)296-6S60
~~
'..-)
.~ '
. j \
C NTY OF RIVERSIDE. HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
January 2, 200 I
RE: Plot Plan No. P AOO-0507
City of Temecula Planning Department
. P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
Dear Michael McCoy:
I. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. P AOO-0507 and has no objections.
Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITIAL for health clearance, the following items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) Three complete 'sets of plans for each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be
submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure
compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please
contact Food Facility Plan eXaminers at (909) 600-6330).
nmental Health Specialist
NOTE: Any cwrent additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
Cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
SUn:lardJb(ay}.doc
~
LocaJ Eaforce_ "seney' P.O. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 . (909) 955-S9ll2 . FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4080 Lemon Strnet, 9th Roor, Rivmlde, CA 92501
l..andV-andWater~eamg.p'o.Box 1206,Riverside.CA92502-1206.I909)955-8980.FAXlQOQIQt;,~.A(\Qnl ___<:,,,-_,, "_..1......___..... _ ._. ...... ...............~
-
ATTACHMENT NO.2
EXHIBITS
R:\D P\2OOO\o()'()507 Hampton Inn SulteslAevised PC STF REP recommending Redesign woo COA's.doc
9
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. OQ.0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 5, 2002
VICINITY MAP
R:\D P\2OOO\OO-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Revised PC STF REP recommending Redesign woo COA's.doc
10
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - HT HIGHWAY TOURIST/COMMERCIAL
ZONING MAP
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - HTC HIGHWAY TOURIST/COMMERCIAL
GENERAL PLAN_
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 5, 2002
R:\D P\20001OO-0507 Hampton Inn SulteslRevised PC SlF REP recommending Redesign YHJ COA's.doc
11
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ .;.~. ..
-)-
PF
~~G
1.~~p.
~
...
-...
""....
-...
.."""',
/
,
"fIII.4t'
.I;l~
.......-.
.,.~_.
:.~-:~",
ItOl'fI
...-.
-.....
_w
-,
=-.:
...
.....-
_rrYP'
'.-
.4..,
-.
..........
,...-
,~
~~
. 0....
",,,.
~'t
~~
%
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 5, 2002
SITE PLAN
R:ID PI2OOOIOO-0507 Hampton Inn Suitos\Revls.d PC STF REP recommending Redesign w-o COA's.doc
12
CITY OF TEMECULA
f
rn
o
c
J!
~
-
B
I
j
am : I . I
~. I
. I!P 'Ii I n;
JJ
0 11.1 II'
; I It I 0
JJ II "
. ~ U II i
m
r- q II I '"
m
< f II I (!l
)> . 1 I ~
-i
0 8 ~ illll ill ~
z ~ Ii'
en
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E-l
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 5, 2002
.-:*i
ELEVATIONS
R:\D P\2000'00-0507 Hampton Inn SulteslRevised PC STF REP recommending Redesign woo COA's.doc
13
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ ~ l ! I a It
~ ~
I ..
..
'"
..
.. . ~
9<>
H
!l .
~
.
i
.
i
~
~
z I
g
.... -
:I: -
1
,1 ~ I I
I
am II'I a;s Illi
~ II! I I ! II
; IP ii II ;D
:D
0 !: u II 2
:D . ~ II I ' ~
m I ,Ii I ~
.
m }} J II
< Ii ill! Ii II
> ~
-l II i I
0 .
Z ~
(fJ ~
'PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E-2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 5, 2002
ELEVATIONS
.
R:\D 1'\2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn SuitesIRevi.ed PC STF REP recommending Redesign w-o COA's.doc
'4
m j @ @ o 00 I
00 .. 00
H'IHl "I mql
i-' ~m I ~ I" I
I I III II IIIII
I Iii I, 1'111
I I
I I
I ! III1 II Iii' I
I " Ull
i
, . .... .- ,. It I
I J "" " HI!
. I
s . .',. '1 t11....
, I!W H IW I
I ..
. 1ml II ml
~
I I ! II
I !Oi
- "'Ji.
J IIr
I r I
! '" '
I
I
crrv OF TEMECULA
i
I
.
-
!I
II
-I
I.
JI
! ap ~ ... ." m
! ,I i ~~ ~ l'~
!I!dllll
i!!llllr,
~ HI
UB! l!l
.. . · -.,
"11 I 'I@ .n H Ilhl
~ ; II
, ,~ .. IJ Il"
z n I ! I
"
~ J
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - June 5, 2002
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:\D Pl2000100-D507 Hamplon Inn SulteslRevised PC STF REP recommending Redesign woo COA's.doc
..
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 7,2002
Planning Application No. 01-0601
(Minor Conditional Use Permit 1 Development Plan)
Prepared By: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-
0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) per the
California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects
Which Are Disapproved).
2. ADOPT a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0120 - A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT / DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN UNMANNED
CELLULAR ANTENNA FACILITY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
APN 953-340-015.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT
Marc Meyers
Cingular Wireless
6170 Cornerstone Court
San Diego CA 92121
Temeku Hills Golf LLC
2727 Hoover Street
National City CA 91950
OWNER:
R:\Appeals\01-0601 AppeallStaff Report.doc
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
An Appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny
Planning Application PA01-0601 a proposal for a Cingular
Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility consisting
of replacing two existing wood poles with two identical
metal poles (painted a wood grain finish to match existing
poles) and a 10' x 20' BTS equipment enclosure. The
proposed metal poles will internally house 6 antennas.
Located on the northeast corner of Rancho California
Road and Margarita Road in Temeku Hills Golf Course.
OS (Open Space/ Recreation)
SP-3 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
North: SP-3 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
South: SP-3 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
East: SP-3 (Margarita Village Specific Plan)
West: CC (Community Commercial
Golf Course
North: Single family detached dwellings
South: Post Office
East: Single family detached dwellings
West: Commercial Retail Shopping Center
This project is an appeal of Director's Hearing decision to deny Planning Application PA01-
0601. Planning Application PA01-0601, denied by the Planning Director, is a proposal for a
Cingular unmanned wireless telecommunication facility consisting of replacing two existing
wood poles with two identical metal poles (painted a wood grain finish to match existing poles)
and a 10' x 20' BTS equipment enclosure. The proposed metal poles will internally house the
proposed 6 antennas.
ANALYSIS:
At the Director's Hearing meeting on May 9, 2002 a number of homeowners, who resided in
Temeku Hills spoke against the project. The main concerns raised by the homeowners were
related to the incompatibility of the project with the Golf Course in terms of use and view
impacts. The property owners emphasized that alternative sites should be considered that
would be more compatible. Considering the concerns expressed by the homeowners and the
purpose of the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance Chapter 17.40, adopted to:
Protect and promote public health, safety and welfare of the citizen's of Temecula; and
R:\AppealsI01-0601 AppeallSlaff Report.doc
2
Protect the visual character of the City from the potential adverse effects of the
telecommunication facility development and antenna installation by maintaining
architectural and structural integrity and preventing unsightly facilities;
the Hearing Officer continued the project to the May 30, 2002 Director's Hearing, requesting that
the applicant provide the foll,?wing additional information:
1. A cross section detail, which shows how the homes closest to the proposed site will be
impacted by this future development.
2. A digital photo simulation, which shows the landscaping, proposed to screen the
equipment enclosure.
3. A detailed landscape plan, which identifies the specific plant material being proposed.
4. A sample of the material being proposed for the poles. The sample should identify the
color and texture of the poles.
Prior to the ensuing Director's Hearing on May 30, 2002 staff received a number of letters
(attached) from various homeowners expressing opposition to the project. Again, the main
concerns expressed by the homeowners related to the incompatibility of the proposed project
with the Golf Course. At the May 30'h Director's Hearing, three homeowners, who reside in
Temeku Hills, spoke against the project raising the following concerns:
5. The proposed project does not belong in a master planned golf community.
6. The proposed project would impair premium lot views with an array of cell towers.
7. Since a considerable amount of money was paid by the homeowner for view lots, the
project would be a breach of contract between the homeowners and the developer,
After closing the public hearing and discussing the application, the Hearing Officer denied
Planning Application PA01-0601 for the following basic reasons:
8. The applicant did not provide sufficient justification for the location.
9. The applicant did not thoroughly explore all alternative site possibilities as required by
the City's Telecommunication Ordinance.
10. The Hearing Officer was not convinced that alternative "non-residential" sites were not
possible.
In denying the application, the following findings could not be made:
Minor Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 17.04.01 0.E.1)
11. The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general plan and the
development code.
The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has
determined that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within
R:\Appeals\01-0601 Appea~Staff Report.doc
3
the general plan and within the Development Code Chapter 17.4.110.A. Antenna
Ordinance which states,
No telecommunication facility or antenna that is readily visible from off-site shall
be installed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication
facilities or other public or quasi-public uses unless it blends with the surrounding
existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner so as to be
effectively unnoticeable or technical evidence acceptable to the approval
authority is submitted showing a clear need for this facility and the infeasibility of
co-locating it on another antenna or establishing a multi-user site.
12. The proposed minor conditional use is not compatible with the nature, .condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
Although the proposed antennas will replace two existing wood poles and will receive
sufficient camouflaging, the cellular site is not compatible with the nature, condition and
development of the Temeku Hills Golf Course in that the proposed use will encroach into
a residential area and insufficient analysis has been given to alternative sites.
13. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community in that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies
contained within Goal 3, Policy 3.3 of the General plan which requires that the City,
"Protect single -family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses."
14. The decision to deny application for a minor conditional use permit is based on
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or
City Council on appeal.
This application has been brought before the Director of Planning at a Public Hearing
where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before
the Director renders her/his decision.
Development Plan (Chapter 17.05.01O.F)
15. The proposed use is not in conformance with the General Plan for T emecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within Goal 3, Policy
3.3 of the General plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect single -family residential
areas from encroachment by commercial uses." Additionally, the development plan for
the site is not consistent with the City's applicable sections of the Development Code
(Chapter 17.40 Antenna Ordinance) in that the applicant has not shown, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, that there is a clear need for this site and that it is
infeasible to co-locate on another existing cellular site. (Chapter 17.40.010 General
Requirements-Location and Facility Separation).
R:\AppealsI01-0601 AppeallSlaff Report.doc
4
16. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The overall development of the site has not been designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare in that the homeowners within the Temeku Hills
subdivision have expressed that the development of the unmanned cellular site is not
consistent with the intent of a recreational facility in which they live and will deter from
the quality of life expected from their investment in the community.
APPEAL
Subsequently, the applicant filed an Appeal (attached), listing the following issues, which the
appellant alleges was wrongly determined:
17. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
18. The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses.
19. The proposed project is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community.
20. The decision to deny the application was not based or supported by substantial
evidence.
21. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and
the City's Telecommunication Ordinance.
22. The proposed project is designed for the protection of public health, safety and welfare.
Staff believes that although the applicant has provided reasons to overturn the Planning
Director's decision to deny PA01-0601 they have offered no substantial evidence of justification.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Director's decision to deny PA01-0601. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve
the appeal, staff recommends that the project be continued to the next Planning Commission
meeting in order to prepare the appropriate findings and resolutions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PC Resolution-Blue Page 7
2. Exhibits-Blue Page 12
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
R:\AppealsIOl-0601 AppeallStaff Report.doc
5
D. Site Plan
3. Appeal Application-Blue Page 16
4. Appellants Cover Letter-Blue Page 17
5. Letters from Homeowners-Blue Page 18
6. Supplemental Information from the Appellant-Blue Page 19
7. Director's Hearing Staff Report May 30, 2002-Blue Page 20
8. Director's Hearing Minutes May 30, 2002.Blue Page 21
R:\AppealsIOl-0601 AppeallStaff Report.doc
6
RESOLUTION NO. 02-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0120 - A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT / DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN UNMANNED
CELLULAR ANTENNA FACILITY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
APN 953-340-015.
WHEREAS, Compass Telecom Services, filed Planning Application No. 01-0601, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0601 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and
WHEREAS, the application was processed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director held a duly noticed public hearing on May 9, 2002 and
May 30, 2002, to consider the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director considered Planning Application No. 01-0601 on May
9, 2002 and May 30, 2002 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time
the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in
opposition to this matter; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's Hearing and after due consideration of
the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Director denied Planning Application No. 01-
0601; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application
PA01-0601 was properly filed by Compass Telecom Services on June 11, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal, staff report, Planning
Director Minutes, and the complete public record at a duly noticed public hearing on August 7,
2002; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Planning Director's findings
were consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all
other applicable state and local laws; and
WHEREAS, the appeal application failed to adequately present a '1air argument" and
lacked sufficient evidence to overturn the Planning Director's decision;
R:\AppealsI01-0601 Appeal\Staff Report.doc
7
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in denying the appeal of the
Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application No. 01-0601 hereby makes the
following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 and Section 17.05.01O.F of the Temecula
Municipal Code:
The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general plan and the development code.
The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has
determined that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within
the general plan and within the Development Code Chapter 17.4. 11 a.A. Antenna
Ordinance which states,
No telecommunication facility or antenna that is readily visible from off-site shall
be installed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication
facilities or other public or quasi-public uses unless it blends with the surrounding
existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner so as to be
effectively unnoticeable or technical evidence acceptable to the approval
authority is submitted showing a clear need for this facility and the infeasibility of
co-locating it on another antenna or establishing a multi-user site.
A. The proposed minor conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition
and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional
use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
Although the proposed antennas will replace two existing wood poles and will receive
sufficient camouflaging, the cellular site is not compatible with the nature, condition and
development of the Temeku Hills Golf Course in that the proposed use will encroach into
a residential area and insufficient analysis has been given to alternative sites.
B. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of the community.
The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community in that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies
contained within Goal 3, Policy 3.3 of the General plan which requires that the City,
"Protect single -family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses. "
C. The decision to deny application for a minor conditional use permit is based on
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City
Council on appeal.
R:\AppealsI01-0601 Appea~Staff Report.doc
8
This application has been brought before the Director of Planning at a Public Hearing
where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before
the Director renders her/his decision.
Development Plan (Chapter 17.05.010.F)
D. The proposed use is not in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within Goal 3, Policy
3.3 of the General plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect single -family residential
areas from encroachment by commercial uses." Additionally, the development plan for
the site is not consistent with the Citys applicable sections of the Development Code
(Chapter 17.40 Antenna Ordinance) in that the applicant has not shown, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director, that there is a clear need for this site and that it is
infeasible to co-locate on another existing cellular site. (Chapter 17.40.010 General
Requirements-Location and Facility Separation).
E. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
The overall development of the site has not been designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare in that the homeowners within the Temeku Hills
subdivision have expressed that the development of the unmanned cellular site is not
consistent with the intent of a recreational facility in which they live and will deter from
the quality of life expected from their investment in the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. 01-0601 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines,
Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapprovec/). This section applies when a public agency
rejects or disapproves the proposed project
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 7'" day of August 2002.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
R:\AppealslOl -0601 AppeallStaff Report.doc
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 02-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7'h day of August, 2002, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\AppealsIOl-0601 AppeallStaff Report.doc
10
ATTACHMENT NO.8
DIRECTOR'S HEARING MINUTES
MAY 30, 2002
R:\AppealsI01-0601 AppeallStaff Report.doc
20
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
May 30, 2002
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Director of Planning was called to order on Thursday,
May 30, 2002 at 1 :30 PM, at the City of Ternecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner, Don Hazen presiding.
Also present was Minute Clerk, Lisa Kau.
Senior Planner, Don Hazen called the meeting to order at 1 :30 PM.
Item NO.1: Planninq Application No. PA01-0601 Application for a Cinqular Unmanned
Wireless Telecommunication Facilitv consistina of replacina two existina wood.
poles with two identical metal poles (painted a wood qrain finish to match existina
poles) and a 10' x 20' BTS eauipment enclosure. The proposed metal poles will
internallv house 6 antennas. Continued from the Mav 9, 2002. meetinq.
Project Planner Rolfe Preisendanz presented the staff report, and recommended that this item
be continued, because staff did not feel that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated whether
the paint on the new metal poles would match the current wood poles. Senior Planner Don
Hazen opened the public hearing at 1 :35 PM. The applicant, Mr. Mark Myers, who represented
Cingular Wireless, 17870 Sky Park Circle Suite 102, Irvine, CA, described every1hing that was
requested from him at the last meeting on May 9, 2002, which were a pole sample with paint
chip, a digital simulation from the homeowner's perspective, and a more detailed landscape
plan to show adequate buffering of the wall. In addition to what was required, Mr. Myers also
included a grading plan, irrigation plan, and a letter from the pole manufacturer, which states
how the pole would be made and painted.
Mr. James Herman, represented McMillan Companies and Temeku Hill Golf Club, 2727 Hoover
Avenue, National City, CA, informed the residents that he extensively looked over this project,
found this site to be the least offensive, and that they are trying to provide cellular service for the
people. Mr. Herman admitted that they would make a profit on this, but that all of the money
made will be put back into the golf course for beautification purposes. Cingular will have a lease
with McMillan Companies for approximately 25 years with options if this project is approved.
Mr. William Miller, 30743 Links Court, Temecula, CA, is opposed of this project, because he
does not believe that it is an appropriate location since this site is a master planned golf
community not a business and commercial area. Mr. Miller offered alternate locations for this
project, which included the Palomar Village Shopping Center, behind the US Post Office, or
several easements nearby that already have telephone poles on them. A picture was also
brought, which showed a view from Mr. Miller's house, and he said that this project would be
"like adding a pimple to a pretty face that cannot be covered up".
Mr. Harold Ritter, 30725 Links Court, Temecula, CA, read a letter from Ms. Susan McKay, who
is a fellow homeowner that could not attend the hearing. The letter stated that this project is
shameful as homeowners with decent views paid considerable amounts of money for their
views, and that the city should have intelligent guidelines so that it does not become an array of
towers.
R:IDIRHEARIMINUTES\2002105-30-02 minutes.doc
Mr. John Shablow, 30791 Links Court, Temecula, CA, paid a considerable amount of money for
his view, and sees this addition as a breach of contract by changing what they paid for. The
homeowners have discussed buying the golf course in the future, and they would be committed
to agreements made before buying the site; however, the homeowner's association does not
currently own the golf course. Mr. Shablow does not believe that this is the best location for this
telecommunication site, and recommended that they choose another location.
During the applicant's rebuttal, Mr. Myers assured the homeowners that even if they could see
the site, the extent of visibility is negligible. In terms of alternative properties, Cingular Wireless
has investigated other possible locations and they determined that this location is the best as far
as where coverage is needed and what is available. This site has a landowner that is willing to
work with them, the correct zoning, approval from the city, is constructible, and meets the
coverage objectives. In order to find another location, they would need all of the items
previously mentioned. Senior Planner Don Hazen closed the public hearing at 2:11 PM.
Senior Planner Don Hazen denied PA01-0601 due to the lack of justification of the location, and
believes that the applicant did not thoroughly explore all alternate site possibilities as is required
by the City's Telecommunication Ordinance. This is the first instance of such facilities being
sited within a master-planned residential community, and he is not convinced that alternative
"non-residential" sites are not possible. Senior Planner Don Hazen informed the public of its
appeal rights and adjourned the meeting at 2:17 PM.
Don Hazen, Senior Planner
R:\DI RHEARIMINUTES\2002\05-30-02 minutes.doc
2
ITEM #5
+STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August7,2002
Planning Application No. 02-0252 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0252 (Development Plan);
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0252, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 61,200 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE
EXISTING 132,883 SQUARE FOOT MILGARD WINDOWS BUILDIN
ON 15.83 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
DIAZ ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-370-031
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Milgard Windows, James Bux10n
PROPOSAL: Planning Application to design, construct, and operate a
61,200 square foot expansion to the existing 132,883 square
feet Milgard Windows building
LOCATION: Located at the southwest corner of Diaz Road and Dendy
Parkway
EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (L1)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Public Institution (PI)
South: Light Industrial (L1)
East: Light Industrial (L1)
West: Light Industrial (L1)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE: Industrial Building
SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Scott's Manufacturing
R:\D P\2002\02-o252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Repon.doc
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Lot area (gross):
Lot area (net)
689,554 (15.83 acres)
610,275 (14.01 acres)
Building addition square footage:
61,200 square feet
Existing building square footage:
132,883 square feet
Building height:
30'-0"
Landscaped area:
56,821 square feet (20%)
Parking required:
317 vehicular, 8 handicapped, 20 bicycle, and 21
motorcycle
Parking provided:
364 vehicular, 8 handicapped, 20 bicycle, and 21
motorcycle
Lot coverage:
26%
Floor area ratio:
.28
BACKGROUND
Based on the creation of jobs and overall fiscal benefit to the City of Temecula, this application
qualified for "Fast-Track" status. The applicant submitted the fast track application for review on
May 13, 2002. A meeting was held on May 23,2002, to develop a fast track schedule and contract
for Milgard Windows Expansion. As a result it was determined that the project would be scheduled
for the August 7,2002 Planning Commission meeting. Since the May 23,2002 meeting, staff and
the applicant have met several times to discuss the proposed projects architecture and landscaping.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. 02-0252 (Development Plan) is a request for the construction of a 61 ,200
square foot expansion to the existing 132,883 square foot Milgard Windows building located on a
15.83-acre site. The project is located at the southwest corner of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway
and the underlying zoning for the site is Light Industrial.
Access to the site is taken from three driveway entrances along Dendy Parkway and one driveway
entrance off of Diaz Road. The additional parking added as a part of the Development Plan has
been added along the south property line and to the west of the building expansion.
The building will be constructed utilizing concrete tilt-up panels. The applicant is proposing to
continue the existing architecture, including the matching of the existing paint colors and patterns.
The proposed expansion will be located directly to the west of the existing building. A temporary
staging area has been added directly to the west of the expansion and is clearly delineated on the
site plan. The existing trash enclosure has been moved and will now be located within the staging
area.
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
2
The proposed project is providing 56,821 square feet of additional landscaping to the site. Included
in the proposed landscaping the applicant is proposing to continue the existing planting palettes
along Dendy Parkway and the south property line. The rear slope of the proposed project has been
partially planted as a result of the development of the industrial building to the west. The proposed
project will complete the planting on the slope, using consistent planting materials. Along the north
building elevation the applicant has provided two planting areas that serve to screen the building
and the staging area.
ANALYSIS
Staff can make the required findings necessary to approve the expansion to the existing Milgard
Windows building located in the Light Industrial zoning district. The proposed site planning and
circulation is consistent with the industrial development performance standards in the Development
Code. The proposed site plan provides excellent circulation for the tractor-trailer trucks that will be
utilizing the site as well as emergency vehicles. The location of parking field for the site has been
setback from public view from Dendy Parkway. A landscape berm and drive aisle separates the
parking field from the public view.
The proposed architecture is consistent with the existing architecture approved as a part of Planning
Application No. 98-0462. The Development Code states that where the character or scale is
identifiable, new development should be designed to maintain the character and to be compatible
with that scale. In staff's review it was determined thatthe expansion to the building should continue
the previous architecture style. It is staff's intention to have the existing building and the addition to
look as if they were both built at the same time, although we would have preferred that the original
portion have greater architectural styling.
The Code states that separate buildings or accessory structures should be designed as an integral
part of the primary building by using complementary materials, common architectural elements, and
special landscape design techniques. The following is a list of architectural elements utilized on both
the existing building and the proposed expansion: solid canopies over each of the loadin9 doors
alon9 the north and south elevations, scoring and reveals, and a color scheme which utilizes
alternating bands of color and painted vertical stripes to present the illusion of columns.
In reviewing the proposed project, staff was concerned with the north building elevation that is
visible from Dendy Parkway. Staff had specific concerns with the new bay door closest to the
existing building and its alignment with the center driveway. Staff recommended either
relocatin9 the bay door or eliminating the driveway. The applicant explained that neither of the
two options would meet their operational requirements. The applicant has agreed to add
additional five-gallon photina shrubs to be planted to form a hedge along the entire north
landscape planter to be maintained at a minimum five-foot hei9ht on the existing berm, which
will serve to screen the remainin9 bay doors from the public view. Staff has conditioned the
project (COA # 26) to provide a landscape maintenance plan that will insure that the landscaping
will be maintained at heights sufficient to screen bay doors visible from the public right of way. It is
the opinion of staff that the combination of berming and hedge will serve to screen the
remainder of the bay doors to include the existing bay doors from view of the public right of
way.
Staff has concerns with the undeveloped area on the west portion of the site, specifically the non-
irrigated flower mix being proposed. Staff has conditioned the applicant (COA #5) to revise the rear
undeveloped portion of the site to provide a combination of drought tolerant landscaping materials
that will able to be maintained year round. While it is the intent of staff to not have this area require
R:\D P\2002\02-o252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Repon.doc
3
permanent irrigation, the applicant will be required to provide sufficient water to maintain a healthy
planting area.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project and accompanies this staff report. The project will
have no potential significant environmental impacts and staff is recommending adoption of a
Negative Declaration.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances,
standards, guidelines, and policies. It is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with
surrounding developments in terms of design and quality.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Business
Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed
the proposed use, light manufacturing as a typical use in the Business Park designation.
Also, approval of this type of project will meet the intent of Policy 1.5 of the Land Use
Element in supporting the development of light industrial and manufacturing uses to diversify
the City of Temecula's economic base. The proposed project is consistent with the use
regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Light Industrial zoning district. The
project has been conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to
comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in table
17.08.040B of the City of Temecula's Development Code. The proposed architecture and
site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the Industrial Development
Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the
performance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. - 02-_ - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
2. Initial Environmental Study . Blue Page 20
3. Exhibits, Blue Page 21
B. Vicinity Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Zoning Map
E. Site Plan
F. Grading Plan
G. Building Elevations
R:\D P\2002\02..Q252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
4
H. Floor Plan
I. Landscape Plan
J. Color and Material Board
R:\D P\2002\02-Q252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-
0252, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 61,200 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION .TO THE
EXISTING 132,883 SQUARE FOOT MILGARD WINDOWS BUILDIN
ON 15.83 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
DIAZ ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-370-031.
WHEREAS, Milgard Windows, filed Planning Application No. 02-0252 (Development Plan
Application), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the
time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on
August 7,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon
the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 176.0S.01 OF of the Temecula Municipal Code:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Business
Park (BP) development in the City of T emecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed
the proposed use, light manufacturing as a typical use in the Business Park designation.
Also, approval of this type of project will meet the intent of Policy 1.5 of the Land Use
Element in supporting the development of light industrial and manufacturing uses to diversify
the City of Temecula's economic base. The proposed project is consistent with the use
regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Light Industrial zoning district. The
project has been conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to
comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes.
R:\D P\2002\02-Q252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
7
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health.
safety, and general welfare.
The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in table
17.08.0408 of the City of T emecula 's Development Code. The proposed architecture and
site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the Industrial Development
Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the
performance standards in regards to circulation; architectural design and site plan design.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has prepared and
adopted by the Planning Commission. Whereas, no further environmental review if required for the
proposed project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request to construct 61 ,200 square foot expansion to the
existing Milgard Windows building set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein
by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 7'h day of August 2002.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 02- _was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7'h day of August, 2002, by the following vote of
the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
02-0252 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to design, construct and
operate a 61,200 square foot expansion to the
existing Milgard Manufacturing located on 15.83
vacant acres
DIF Category:
Business Park/Industrial
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-370-031
August 7,2002
August7,2004
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Fourteen Dollars ($1 ,314.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and
Fifty Dollar ($1 ,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the
Sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources
Code Section 211 08(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said
forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
2. All outdoor staging areas shall be fully enclosed behind screen walls and shall be fully
screened from public view.
3. The applicant shall submit a revised Exhibit E (Site Plan) that delineates the specific
locations for all outdoor staging proposed, all materials to be stored outdoors, and the
method that will be used to store materials outside.
4. No outdoor staging/storage of any kind shall be permitted outside of the delineated staging
area.
5. The rear unused portion of the site shall be revised to incorporate a combination of drought
tolerant landscaping materials and shall be maintained year round.
6. Five-gallon photina shrubs shall be planted along Dendy Parkway forming a hedge and shall
be planted at the top of the slope to provide adequate screening for bay doors along the
north building elevation.
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
10
7. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards,
judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary
damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of
the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or
legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application.
8. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or
proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to
be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
9. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
Development Plan.
10. All conditions of approval for Planning Application 98-0462 shall apply unless superseded by
these conditions of approval.
11 . The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this development plan.
12. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
13. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits E
(Site Plan), F (Grading Plan), G (Building Elevation), H (Floor Plan), I (Landscape Plan), and
J (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department
- Planning Division.
14. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to
bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
15. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view from Dendy
Parkway by being placed below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall.
16. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with Exhibit "J" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community .
Development Department - Planning Division.
Concrete (walls) - Main Body Parker 5401 (Turtle Dove)
Concrete (walls) - Top Painted Sand Parker 5403M (Otter)
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
11
Concrete (walls) - Middle Painted Band
Concrete (walls) - Painted Vertical Stripes
Diamond Accent Medallions - Painted Accents
Metal (roll-up doors)
Concrete Tile Roofing
Parker 5404D (Colonnade)
Parker 5403M (Otter)
Parker 5404D (Colonnade)
Parker 5401 (Turtle Dove)
U.S. Tile (Carmel Blend)
17. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
18. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
19. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color
and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "G", the colored
architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on
the photographic prints.
20. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which
meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance.
The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the
growth potential of the parking lot trees.
21. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
22. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
23. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "I", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
R:\D P\2002\02-Q252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
12
24. The Planning Director shall approve the Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans.
Prior to Building Occupancy
25. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a
landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department
for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit.
26. The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance plan that will insure that the
landscaping will be maintained at heights sufficient to screen bay doors visible from the
public right of way.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
27. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no costto any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints
and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for
further review and revision.
General Requirements
28. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
29. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
30. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
31. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary
erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property.
32. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
33. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
34. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 MOgan! Expansion\Staff Report.doc
13
35. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared bya registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify
impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the
properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required
improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
36. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
37. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
d. Building and Safety Department
e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
38. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
39. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
40. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
41. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or
money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
42. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code, which may
include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. A Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) has been filed and approved on January 26, 1999 by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, the Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) process shall be completed to include formal revisions to the FEMA map. Comply
with all FEMA requirements, which include 95% fill compaction criteria.
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Repon.doc
14
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
43. Milgard Manufacturing shall pay the cost of Dendy Parkway improvements as defined in an
agreement entered into effect as of June 12, 2001 and entitled "Agreement for Partial
Reimbursement of Costs of Construction of Certain Public Improvements (Dendy Parkway)
between City of Temecula and MS Temecula II, LLC (PA 2000-0335)." In return, the City
shall reimburse MS Temecula II, LLC the monies that it collects from Milgard. Per said
agreement, the estimate of that portion of the costs of the Dendy Parkway improvements
that are for the benefit of Milgard should be approximately One Hundred Thirty Four
Thousand Six Dollars ($134, 006) as shown on Exhibit "B" of said agreement. However,
economic conditions at the time of bidding and construction conditions could alter the
accuracy of this estimate.
44. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subjectto approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be obseNed:
a. Flow line grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance
with City Standard No. 800, 801, 802 and 803.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401and 402.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
45. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
46. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all
Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
47. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
48. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
R:\D P\2002\02..()252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
15
49. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to
new construction shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the
Director of the Department of Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
50. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California
Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at
the time of building, plan submittal.
51. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3375 GPM at
20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1400 GPM for a
total fire flow of 4775 GPM with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted
during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire
protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given
above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A)
52. Since this is a separate building all sprinkler and fire protection systems shall be separate
and stand-alone to this building. Although the systems must be stand alone, they may draw
from one source, i.e. one detector check-valve, etc.
53. All connection, indicator, and similar fire protection appliances shall be collocated with their
counterpart devices for the existing building on this site.
54. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 3 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off-
site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and
adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart, at each intersection and
shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix III-B)
55. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150
feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire
flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
56. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
57. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
16
58. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
(CFC sec 902)
59. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
60. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC
902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
61. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
62. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After
the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building
materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1)
63. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
64. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a
contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial
buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum
of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family
residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
65. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and
type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system.
Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
66. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for
monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm
system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10)
67. Since this is a separate building it shall have a separate Fire Alarm, but it shall be
interconnected with the Fire Alarm Control Panel in the existing building.
R:\D P\2002\OZ-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
17
68. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be
provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located
to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4)
69. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
70. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting
and or signs.
71. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible
stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an
automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department
access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible
stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable
National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81)
72. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant
shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the
storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both
the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions
73. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention
for approval.
74. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
75. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
BUILDING AND SAFETY
76. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
18
77. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
78. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
79. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
80. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
81. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1 , 1998)
82. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
83. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
84. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
85. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
86. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
87. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
88. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
89. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
90. Show all building setbacks.
91. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the projectthat indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday: 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
R:\D P\2002\02...()252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
19
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Conditions
92. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
93. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure
areas.
94. All parkways, landscaping and natural open space shall be maintained by the property
owner or a private maintenance association.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
95. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated March 23, 2002 from the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
96. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated May 30,2002 from Rancho Water.
97. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated May 29, 2002 from County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:\D P\2002\02-o252 Milgard Expansion\Staff Report.doc
20
ATTACHMENT NO.2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\D P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansion\StaffReport.doc
21
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title Planning Application No. 02-0252 (Development Plan) - Milgard
Windows
Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033 Ternecula, CA 92589-9033
Contact Person and Phone Number Rick Rush, Associate Planner
(909) 694-6400
Proiect Location 26879 Diaz Road, Temecula, CA 92592
Project Sponsor's Name and Address James Buxton, Milgard Windows
26879 Diaz Road Temecula, CA 92592
General Plan DesiQnation Business Park (BP)
ZoninQ Liqht Industrial (L1)
Description of Project A Development Plan Application to design, construct and operate a
61,200 square foot expansion to the existing Milgard Manufacturing
building on 15.83 acres of land, located at 26879 Diaz Road (APN
909-370-031); Submitted bv Milqard Manufacturinq
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North: Public Institution (vacant land)
East: Conservation (vacant land)
South: Light Industrial (vacant land)
West: Liaht Industrial (Existinq Industrial Buildina)
Other public agencies whose approval None
is required
Vicinit Ma
R:\D P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Mineral Resources
Aqricultural Resources Population and Housina Noise
Air Quality Population and Housing
Bioloqical Resources, Water Public Services
Cultural Resources Recreation
Geologic Problems Transportation/Traffic
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning X None
Determination
(To be completed by the. lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Julv 15, 2002
Date
Rick Rush. Associate Planner
Printed name
Citv of Temecula
For
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllni!ial Study.doc
2
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supportina Information Sources Imnact Incomorated lmnact Imnact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hiqhwav?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X
auality of the site and its surroundinqs?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
1.a. No Impact. The project will not affect a scenic vista. The project is not located in an area where there
is a scenic vista. It is located in an area with existing industrial uses. Further, the project is an
expansion of an existing industrial use. The proposed development is situated behind the existing
building, which effectively blocks it from view. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.b. No Impact. Diaz Road is not designated as a scenic resource nor is the site within the view of a state
scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to scenic resources will result from the
proposed project or the future development of the site.
1.c. Less Than Significant. The project site is located in an industrial area behind an existing industrial
building. The building is visible from Dendy Parkway with limited visibility from Diaz Road. The City's
Development Code discourages long unarticulated walls and bay doors that are visible from the public
right of way. In an attempt to provide a more aesthetically pleasing view of the building from Dendy
Parkway, the project has been conditioned to provide adequate landscaping for the project that will
serve to break up the long unarticulated wall visible from Dendy Parkway. The project has also been
conditioned to relocate one bay door, which currently lines up with the center drive aisles located on
Dendy Parkway. Additionally the project has been conditioned to provide an increased amount of five-
gallon shrubs and fifteen-gallon specimen trees along Dendy Parkway to screen the bay doors that are
visible from Dendy Parkway. The proposed expansion is consistent with the existing industrial building
that is on site and will enhance the site in terms of visual character and quality. Therefore, the project
will not have a significant adverse impact.
1.d. Less Than Significant. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this
nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent' with City Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance
Regulating Light Pollution). With this mitigation measure in place, less than significant impacts are
anticipated.
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
3
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Issues and Suooortina Information Sources
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-aaricultural use?
b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-anricultural use?
Comments:
2a.-c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past has not
been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract nor is it zoned for
agricultural uses. This property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide or local
importance as identified by the State Department of Conservation and the City of Temecula General
Plan. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result
in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related
to this issue.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SUDoortina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X
air aualitv olan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially X
to an existina or oroiected air aualitv violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed auantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X
of neonle?
R:ID P\2002102-D252 Miigard Expansionllnilial Study.doc
4
Comments:
3.a, b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed will comply with State and National ambient
air quality standards. The construction related standards found in Table 6-3 of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) indicates that
industrial projects 1,102,520 square feet or greater may significantly impact air quality. This project is
a 61,200 square feet expansion to an existing 132,883 square foot building, which is well below the
level indicated for potentially significant impact. No significant impacts related to conflicts with air
quality plans will result from the proposed project.
3.c. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item 3. a,b above, the project is within acceptable
standards as established by thresholds for impacts associated with construction of industrial
development. Table 6-2 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) identifies an
operational related standard of 276,000 square feet, which indicates that operation of an industrial
business less than that is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to air quality. Again, this is a
61,200 square foot expansion to an existing 132,883 square foot building. As a consequence a less
than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d. No Impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. The
project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in the Development Code for
industrial development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may create objectionable odors during the construction
phase of the project. These impacts will be short in duration and are not considered significant over
the long term. The project shall comply with the environmental standards as detailed in the
Development Code for industrial development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the
project.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SUDDortina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X
resident or miaratorv fish or wildlife species or with I I
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnilial Study.doc
5
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
less Than
Potentially Significant With less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supportina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nurserv sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
4.a-e No Impact. The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site.
The site is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain
wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. The site has been rough graded previously into
developable industrial pads. There is no anticipated biological impact associated with this project.
4.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a one-time mitigation fee. The SKR mitigation fee for this project has been previously paid as a
condition of approval for Parcel Map 28657-1. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SupportinQ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X
an archaeoloaical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X
resource or site or uniaue qeoloqic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
5.a-d. No Impact. Construction of the expansion building will occur on land that has been graded. Due to
previous land disturbance, it is unlikely that cultural resources remain on this site. Additionally, neither
the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report nor the City's General Plan identifies
this project site as an area of significant cultural resources.
RID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
6
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
less Than
Potentially Significant With less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SupportinQ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involvinQ:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and GeoloQV Special Publication 42.
ij) Strona seismic around shakinq? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreadinq, subsidence, Iiauefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
6.a.i, ii, iii; Less Than Significant Impact. The project may have a significant impact on people involving
seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction and subsidence of the land) and
expansive soils, and will have a less than significant impact to erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in Southern California,
an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than
significant impact and conditioned to conform to Uniform Building Code standards. Further,
preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and
recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval.
The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to
mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction and subsidence of the land), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils.
6.a.iv, No Impact. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental
Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or
mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
6.b.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The development of the site may be affected by liquefaction,
subsidence or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill, due to its location within the
liquefaction zone. Potential impacts will be mitigated by conditions of approval to comply with State of
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
7
California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance
with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development
and shall contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any
potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including
liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill
and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for
development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will
be mitigated through the use of proper compaction of the soils and landscaping.
6.d. Less Than Significant Impact. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building
construction, consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be
conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are
complied with during construction. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the
compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic
ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils.
6.e. No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project is
connected to the existing public sewer system in Diaz Road; therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Suooortino Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disoosal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
auarter mile of an existina or orooosed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workina in the oroiect area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workina in the oroiect area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation olan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
iniurv or death involvinn wildland fires, includino where
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Mil9ard Expansionllnitial Study. doc
8
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
7.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact in the creation
of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all
applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is
found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
7.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of
explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions.
The Fire Department reviewed this project according to the information provide by the applicant/tenant
and found that there should be minimal hazards if designed, built, and used according to the submitted
plans. While the tenant will have hazardous substances on the premises, both the Fire Department
and the Department of Environmental Health will regulate them. Both entities will review the project
during plan check for compliance with applicable codes and regulations and may require further
mitigation measures based on the construction drawing and internal layout. The potential impacts will
be mitigated prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant must receive clearance from the
Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. This applies to storage and use of
hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.c. No Impact. This project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
The nearest school site is over two miles away. No impact is anticipated.
7.d. No Impact. This project site is not, nor is it located near, a site that is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.e.,f. No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public or private airstrip. The nearest airport is French Valley, whose runway is approximately 5 miles
to the east. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
7.g. No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.h. No Impact. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is an industrial building for manufacturing and warehousing in an area of
similar Business Park/Light Industrial uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire
hazard area. No impacts are anticipated.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SUDDortina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
reauirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local aroundwater table level le.a., the Droduction rate I
R:\D P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
9
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water Quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures, X
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Comments:
8.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements. The project is required to comply with the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is
shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be
mitigated to a level that is less than significant. With mitigation, a less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the
quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact
on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.c.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or
flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount
of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground.
Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying
hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts
shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances are required for the project to safely
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
10
and adequately handle runoff that is created. As designed the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on the existing facilities.
8.e. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to create or contribute runoff water,
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project is conditioned to accommodate the
drainage created as a result of the development of the subject site. In addition, the project is
conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact
is associated with this project.
8.g. No Impact. This project represents a development plan for an industrial user within an area zoned for
industrial uses. No residential property is affected; no impact is associated with this project.
8.h.,i. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may expose people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
the project site is in area that is subject to severe flood hazard from Murrieta Creek. Further, the site is
located within the limits of the 100-year (Zone AH) floodplain/floodway as delineated on Panel No.
060742 0005B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the National Flood
Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
project is located within the darn inundation area identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report. Utilizing existing emergency response systems can mitigate impacts.
This project as conditioned requires the developer to pay flood mitigation fees to the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Less than significant impact is anticipated as a result
of this project because mitigation measures are in place for the site and general area of the site.
8.j. No Impact. The project site is not subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow, as these
events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
less Than
Potentially Significant With less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SupportinQ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Phvsicallv divide an established community? X
b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X
natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
9.a. No Impact. The project is an industrial building that has been designed to accommodate
manufacturing and warehousing uses within an industrial park containing similar uses. There is no
established residential community on the site nor in the vicinity. Therefore, no impacts as a result of
this project are anticipated.
9.b. No Impact. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP
(Business Park) and the zoning designation of LI (Light Industrial), which call for the development of
well designed business and employment centers. Typical uses include light manufacturing, storage,
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
11
industrial supply and wholesale businesses. The proposed development plan meets the intent of these
designations. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City
commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact
their particular agency. These agencies were given the opportunity to comment on the project and
their comments are made a part of the Conditions of Approval for the project. The project site has
been previously graded and services have been extended to the area. As a result, the project is not
anticipated to conflict with existing land uses.
9.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a one-time mitigation fee. The SKR mitigation fee for this project has been previously paid as a
condition of approval for Parcel Map 28657-1. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supportina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
Qeneral plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
1 O.a.b. No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or in the loss
of an available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified
the City of Ternecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have
the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, it
has been determined that this area contains no deposits of significant economic value based upon
available data in a report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Vallev Area, Riverside
County, California, Special Report 165, prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SupportinQ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
aQencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X
in the project vicinity above levels existinq without the
R:ID P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
12
proiect?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the proiect?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X
the project expose people residing or working in the
proiect area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
11.a.,d.Less Than Significant Impact. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the
development/construction phase (short term). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in
the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage
from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and not long-term.
Construction hours are regulated by the City Development Code, to which the applicant shall comply.
Therefore noise as a result of construction will not be considered significant.
11.b.,c.Less Than Significant Impact. The uses conducted by the project are not activities that would
expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Processes such as assembling and warehousing are typical manufacturing uses and similar to existing
uses in the Westside Business Park. While industrial development will create noise levels greater than
the currently vacant land, long-term noise generated by this project would be within the limits of the
General Plan and Development Code standards. No impacts are anticipated.
11.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient
noise levels during construction. As mentioned in response 11.a. construction machinery is capable of
producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered annoying. However, this
source of noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be
considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating
the hours of activity. A less than significant impact would be anticipated.
11.e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore,
employees working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an
airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
less Than
Potentially Significant With less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supportina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard ExpansionUnilial Study.doc
13
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
Comments:
12.a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either
directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of BP
(Business Park) and Zoning Designation of LI (Light Industrial). The proposed industrial development
could cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecula area. However, it will not induce
substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan.
12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site
is developed with an industrial use within the Light Industrial (L1) zone. Additionally, the project site is
located within an existing industrial area, which does not permit residential development. The project
will neither displace housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Government services in any of the following areas:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and SupportinQ Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X
impacts associates with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
b. Fire protection? X
c. Police protection? X
d. Schools? X
e. Parks? X
f. Other public facilities? X
Comments:
13.a.,b.,c.,e.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally
increase the need for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through City
Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Less than
significant impacts are anticipated.
13.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to
relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the
payment of applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
13.f. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered public facilities. The Rancho California Water District and the Riverside
Department of Environmental Health have been made aware of this project. A condition of approval
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
14
has been placed on this project that will require the proponent to obtain 'Will Serve" letters from all of
the public utilities agencies. Service is currently provided to the developed portion of the site so
extending service to the expansion portion is probable, which would result in less than significant
impacts as a result of the project.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing X
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facilitv would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require X
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
14.a.b. No Impact. The project is an industrial project that is relatively small in scale. The anticipated need to
increase the neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of this project is
unlikely. The project may cause some employees to relocate from existing facilities elsewhere in
Southern California to the City of Temecula and it is worth noting that the applicant shall be required to
pay Development Impact Fees, which contribute towards the provision of recreational facilities in the
City. With the design of the project and the mitigation measures in place, impacts are anticipated to be
less than significant as a result of this project.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supportina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or conqestion at intersections?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X
service standard established by the county congestion
manaqement aaencv for desianated roads or hiqhwavs?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either X
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.Q., farm eauiprnent)?
e. Result in inadeauate emeraencv access? X
f. Result in inadequate parkina capacity? X
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicvcle racks)?
R:ID P\2002\02-0252 Milgard Expansionllnilial Study.doc
15
Comments:
15.a,b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts
to the existing traffic system within the City, largely because of its ancillary nature. The project at hand
is an expansion of an existing project, which is consistent with the zoning and general plan
designations. During the preparation of the General Plan and the General Plan EIR the impacts of this
type of development were considered. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the
cumulative impacts during the approval process and has determined that the project's traffic impacts
warrant no further study or mitigations.
15.c.d.No Impact. The proposed development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns
by increasing the traffic levels in the vicinity. The site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight
overlay district. The design of the project will not pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the
people utilizing the roads in the vicinity of the project because there are no sharp curves or dangerous
intersections proposed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.e. No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses.
The project is an industrial building for manufacturing and warehousing use in an area developed with
industrial uses. The project, as designed, complies with current City standards and has adequate
emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.1. No Impact. The proposed development complies with the City's Development Code parking
requirements for industrial uses. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
15.g. No Impact. The project site is located on a road that has access to public transportation. The project
as proposed does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation. Because the project does not propose to significantly increase its employee base,
alternative transportation programs specifically designed for this project are not necessary.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supportina Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X
applicable Reaional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
R:\D P\2002102-D252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
16
f.
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the roo ect's solid waste dis osal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
re ulations related to solid waste?
x
g.
x
Comments:
16.a.,b., e.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements,
require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The
project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General
Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.c. No Impact. The Drainage Study prepared for the underlying Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657
indicated that the amount of runoff from the project is not anticipated to be any greater than what was
anticipated by construction of the site. Consequently, construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities is not anticipated.
16.d. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor
require expanded water entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing
systems. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have
indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR
further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact
wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.f.g. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any
potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation
in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
less Than
Potentially Significant With less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues and Supportinq Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively X
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
proiects, and the effects of probable future projects?
c. Does the proiect have environmental effects, which will X
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study.doc
17
Comments:
17.a. No Impact. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment on site
or in the vicinity of the project. The site lies within an existing industrial area and has been zoned to
accommodate industrial development. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat of fish or
wildlife because the majority of the site is already developed with an existing industrial business. No
historic resources are anticipated to be impacted because grading has already occurred on the site.
17.b. Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impact analysis was conducted for the project with regard
to drainage, traffic, air quality, noise and service systems. In all aspects, the proposed development is
consistent with the General Plan designation for the property, and as such, impacts generated by the
proposed development are no greater than what is anticipated at build out of the City.
17.c. Less Than Significant Impact. The project was analyzed with regard to noise, hazards and geologic
events. In all aspects, the project has been designed or conditioned to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect.
18.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in
preparing this Initial Study. The Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the City's General
Plan in July 1993. The proposed determination of this study was that the project did not have a
significant effect on the environment, prompting the preparation of a Negative Declaration.
18.b. There were no earlier impacts, which affected this project.
18.c. As conditioned, this project is anticipated to impose less than significant impacts on the environment.
As a result no mitigation measures have been incorporated as a part of this initial environmental study.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. The City of Temecula Development Code.
R:ID P\2002102-0252 Milgard Expansionllnitial Study. doc
18
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August7,2002
Planning Application No. 01-0383 (Conditional Use Permit! Development Plan)
Prepared by: Rick Rush, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0383 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0383, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITI DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THIRTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH
UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGNED
AS A FLAGPOLE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF A ONE
HUNDRED FORTY FOUR SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT SHELTER
LOCATED AT THE MCDONALDS SITE AT 31853 HIGHWAY
SEVENTY-NINE SOUTH AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NO. 961-080-007
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Cingular Wireless
REPRESENTATIVE:
Compass Telecom
PROPOSAL:
To design, construct and operate a thirty-five foot high-unmanned
wireless telecommunication facility designed as a flagpole and the
installation of a one hundred forty four square foot equipment shelter
LOCATION:
Located on the south side of Highway 79 South and west of
Redhawk Parkway at the existing McDonalds site at 31853 Highway
79 South
EXISTING ZONING:
Community Commercial (CC)
R:IC U P\2001\01-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
1
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS
North: Professional Office (PO)
South: Community Commercial (CC)
East: Community Commercial (CC)
West: Community Commercial (CC)
Community Commercial (CC)
McDonalds Restaurant
North: Office Building
South: Commercial
East: Commercial
West: Commercial
Lot Area: 38,664 square feet (.83 Gross Acres)
Mono-flag Height: 35 feet
Equipment Shelter: 144 square feet
Equipment Shelter Height: 8' 6"
Existing Building Area: 4,133 square feet
FAR: .11
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted to the Planning Department on August 8, 2001. A Development
Review Committee meeting was held on November 8, 2001. The applicant resubmitted revised
plans on May 16, 2002. Analysis of the project was completed and the applicant was informed that
the item would be scheduled for Planning Commission upon submitting the required exhibits.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to design, construct and
operate a 35-foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility designed as a flagpole and the
installation of 144 square foot equipment shelter located on an .83-acre site. The proposed
unmanned wireless telecommunication facility will be located atthe existing McDonalds on the south
side of Highway 79 South. The intent of this facility is to provide cellular telephone coverage along
Highway 79 South and the surrounding neighborhood for Cingular Wireless customers. The
proposed site location was selected to provide specific coverage for the intersection of Highway 79
and Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway.
The project is located on Highway 79 South west of Margarita RoadlRedhawk Parkway. The project
proposes a 35-foot high flagpole with 3 antennas mounted in the interior portion of the flagpole. The
diameter of the proposed flagpole will be increased due to the mounting of the antennas within the
R:\C U P\2001\01-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpole\Staff Report.doc
2
interior of the flagpole. The proposed flagpole will replace the existing 35-foot high flagpole located
between the drive-through and the trash enclosure. The flagpole will be a painted dark brown to
match the existing parking light pole. The equipment shelter will be located to the south of the
existing trash enclosure. The exterior of the equipment shelter will be finished with stucco and
painted to match the trash enclosure. The access door will also be painted to match the trash
enclosure. The location of the equipment shelter will cause an existing planter and tree to be
removed. To mitigate the removal of the planter, the applicant has proposed to add an additional 3-
foot wide planter along the south side of the equipment shelter and relocate the removed tree to the
existing planter to the south. In addition the applicant is proposing to replace four parking lot trees
with 24" Box tress to match the existing trees.
ANALYSIS
Staff can make the required findings necessary to approve a thirty-five foot high-unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility at the proposed location. The project as proposed is consistent with the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The proposed flagpole has been designed to
replace an existing flagpole and will not exceed the height of the existing flagpole. Since there is no
increase in height, and a minimal increase in diameter staff has determined that the proposed
flagpole is compatible with the surrounding environment. The proposed location of the flagpole is
located outside of the fifteen-foot front yard setback. The design of the flagpole has been
determined by staff to be a "stealth" design, which also allows the flagpole to blend into the
surrounding environment. The internalization of the antennas in the flagpole makes them
completely invisible from view from the public right of way. The location of the equipment shelter
and the colors and materials utilized also serves to screen its view from the public right of way.
The upward facing lighting proposed for the project does not meet the Mount Palomar Lighting
Ordinance. It is the intent of the ordinance to restrict the permitted use of certain light fixtures
emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays, which have a detrimental effect in the astronomical
observation and research. The ordinance classifies this type of lighting as Class III (Decorative
Lighting) and states that it should be shielded. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed flagpole
lighting for the project does not meet the intent of the ordinance and will unnecessarily contribute to
the amount of commercial lighting along Highway 79 South. Staff has conditioned the project to
submit a revised site plan eliminated the ground mounted lighting as shown on the exterior
elevations.
Staff has determined that even with the removal of the landscape planter, the proposed project
still exceeds the twenty percent minimum landscaping required in the Community Commercial
zoning district. The replacement of the four parking lot trees adds to the overall quality of
landscaping for project.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based
on staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32-ln Fill Projects)
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons:
. The site is .83 gross acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
. The proposed project is consistent the General Plan policies, as well as the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance.
. The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare,
or threatened species.
R:IC U P\2001\01-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
3
. The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality.
. The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances,
standards, guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in
terms of design and quality, and staff is recommending approval.
FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development
code.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the
Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in
the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of
all yard and street setbacks specified in the Community Commercial zoning district. The
flagpole as proposed is replacing an existing flagpole of the same height and has been
designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The design of the support facility
has been designed to blend in with the existing building and will not be highly visible from
the public right of way.
2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as flagpole with the antennas
mounted on the interior portion of the flagpole. The proposed flagpole is thirty-five feet high
and is replacing an existing thirty-five foot flagpole. This design and height is consistent with
the existing built environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings.
3. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the perfom7ance standards delineated in the
Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections ofthe Development
Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning
requirements for projects located within the Community Commercial zoning district.
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the
public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project as designed is inaccessible
R:IC U P\2001\01.0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
4
and will not be create any concerns for the overall welfare of the community.
5. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council.
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes
and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Development Plan (17.05.010F)
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no
fish, wild life, or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife, or
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will
not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in
Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of T emecula General Plan, as well as
the development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is
therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of the proposed thirty-five foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility
designed as a flagpole.
Attachments-
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA01-0383 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 10
2. Exhibits for PA01-0383 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 15
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Landscape Plan
R:IC U P\2001\01-0383 CingularWireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
APPROVING PA01-0383
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
R:IC U P\2001\01-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpole\Staff Report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0383, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THIRTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH
UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGNED
AS A FLAGPOLE AND THE INSTALLATION OF A ONE HUNDRED
FORTY FOUR SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT SHELTER LOCATED
AT THE MCDONALDS SITE AT 31853 HIGHWAY SEVENTY-NINE
SOUTH AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 961-080-007
WHEREAS, Marc Meyers, representing Compass Telecom, filed Planning Application No.
01-0383, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0383 was processed including, but not limited to a
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. 01-0383 on August 7,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WH EREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 01-0383 subject to the conditions
after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 01-0383 conformed to the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
by reference.
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
01-0383 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.04.01O.E and Section 17.05.01O.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
A. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development
Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of all yard
and street setbacks specified in the Community Commercial zoning district. The flagpole as
proposed is replacing an existing flagpole of the same height and has been designed to blend in
with the surrounding environment. The design of the support facility has been designed to blend in
with the existing building and will not be highly visible from the public right of way.
B. As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as flagpole with the antennas
mounted on the interior portion of the flagpole. The proposed flagpole is thirty-five feet high and is
R:IC U P\2001\Ol-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
7
replacing an existing thirty-five foot flagpole. This design and height is consistent with the existing
built environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings.
C. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards
delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the
Development Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the
zoning requirements for projects located within the Community Commercial zoning district.
D. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that
the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project as designed is inaccessible and
will not be create any concerns for the overall welfare of the community.
E. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable
codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Development Plan (17.05.01 OF)
F. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
are no fish, wild life, or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife, or
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2
of the Fish and Game Code.
G. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
Community Commercial (CC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore
properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of the
proposed thirty-five foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility designed as a flagpole.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. 01-0196 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-
Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and meets the following
criteria:
. The site is .83 gross acres, which is less than the 5 acres required.
. The proposed project is consistent the General Plan policies, as well as the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance.
. The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare,
or threatened species.
. The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality.
. The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Pianning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 01-0383 (Conditional Use Permit) a request to
design, construct and operate a thirty-five foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility
designed as a flagpole and the installation of a one hundred forty four square foot equipment shelter
located at the Rancho Baptist Church site located on the south side of Highway Seventy-Nine
South and west of Redhawk Parkway and known as Assessors Parcel No. 961-080-007.
R:IC U P\2001\Ol-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
8
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 7th day of August 2002.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
I Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 01-002 was duly and regularly ado~ted by the Planning commission of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7' day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
o
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
None
o
o
None
o
None
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:IC U P\2001\01-D383 Cingular Wireiess flagpole\Staff Report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA01-0383 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:IC U P\2001101 -0383 Cingula, Wireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: 01-0383 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan)
Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to design,
construct and operate a thirty-five foot high-unmanned
wireless telecommunication facility designed as a
flagpole and the installation of a one hundred forty four
square foot equipment shelter located at the McDonalds
site at 31853 Highway 79 South
DIF Category: Exempt
Assessor's Parcel No: 961-080-007
Approval Date: August 7, 2002
Expiration Date: August 7, 2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty-four
Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has
not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all
claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters
of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167).
The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the
action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional
deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions
R:IC U P\2001\01-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
11
of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly
notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit,
the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
3. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
conditional use permit.
4. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
5. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
6. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Elevations), F (Landscaping) contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
8. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to the colors and
materials on the existing buildings located at 31853 Highway 79 South.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
9. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
10. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
11. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
12. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The
location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall show temporary
irrigation and seeding for the Phase 1 B area. The plans shall be accompanied by the
following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
R:IC U P\2001\01.0383 CingularWireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
12
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan).
13. A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease the
will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be
complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the Planning Director.
The agreement shall be in accordance with section 17.40.210 of the ordinance and comply
with all provisions set forth in this section.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
14. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
15. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor
lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
16. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
17. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
18. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
19. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1 , 1998)
20. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
21. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
22. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
23. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
24. Show all building setbacks.
R:IC U P\2001101-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelStaff Report.doc
13
25. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) o/Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday
6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday
7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
FIRE DEPARTMENT
26. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California
Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at
the time of building, plan submittal.
27. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall maintain an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
28. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and
fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
29. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
30. During building construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall
maintain approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
31. During remodeling and/or addition construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will
be maintained in working order and up to their original design and performance
specifications.
32. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
33. Provide a 2A: 1 OBC fire extinguisher inside each building or temporary structure on the site.
34. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
35. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
R:IC U PI2001\01-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelSlaff Report.doc
14
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
36. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Printed Name
Applicant Signature
R:IC U PI2001\01-0383 Cingular Wireless flagpolelSlaff Report.doc
15
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August7,2002
Planning Application No. 01-0572 (Conditional Use Permit! Development Plan)
Prepared by: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0572 pursuant to Section
15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0572, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TWENTY-SIX FOOT
HIGH, FOURTEEN FOOT WIDE UNMANNED WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY HOUSING SIX ANTENNAS AND
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON THE CHAPARRAL
HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS AT 27215 NICOLAS ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 911-760-007
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Cingular Wireless
REPRESENTATIVE: Compass Telecorn
PROPOSAL: To design, construct and operate a twenty-six foot high, fourteen-
foot wide unmanned wireless telecommunication facility housing six
antennas and associated equipment.
LOCATION: 27215 Nicolas Road (Chaparral High School Campus)
EXISTING ZONING: Public Institutional (PI)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Planned Development Overlay-3 (PDO)
South: Community Commercial (CC)
East: Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan (SP-1)
West: Harveston Specific Plan (SP-13)
GENERAL PLAN: Business Park (BP)
R:\C U P\2001\01-0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
1
EXISTING LAND USE:
Chaparral High School Campus
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Senior Housing Complex
South: Commercial
East: Commercial/Residential
West: Residential
PROJECT STATISTICS
Structure Floor Area:
196 square feet
Structure Height:
26 feet
BACKGROUND
The application was submitted to the Planning Department on November 19, 2001. Staff requested
additional application materials on December 19, 2001. The applicant's representative submitted the
requested materials on May 15, 2002. Staff requested clarifications and revisions to the materials
on June 5, 2002. The requested revisions were provided on June 19, 2002. Analysis of the project
was completed and the applicant was informed that the item would be scheduled for Planning
Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to design, construct and
operate a twenty-six foot high, fourteen foot wide unmanned wireless telecommunication facility
housing six antennas and associated equipment. The facility is proposed to be located at the
southwest corner of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road on the Chaparral High School Campus.
The intent of this facility is to provide cellular telephone coverage along Highway 79 North and the
surrounding neighborhood for Cingular Wireless customers. The proposed site location was
selected to provide specific coverage to an area that is constrained by topography. Currently this is
an area where Cingular Wireless customers drop calls due to the lack of coverage.
The six proposed antennas and associated telecommunications equipment will be fully housed
within the. structure and thus will be completely screened from public view. The interior of the
structure will be accessed via a three-foot wide door. Given the location and high visibility of the
facility from both Nicolas and Winchester Roads, the applicant is also proposing the facility serve as
a monument sign for Chaparral High School. The proposed monument sign will replace the high
school's existing freestanding pylon sign located along the school's Winchester Road frontage (see
Exhibit G for photo of existing pylon sign).
The exterior of the facility will be finished with stucco and painted to match the existing buildings on
the school campus. Facility elevations indicate that the words "Chaparral High School" will be
painted on the stucco at the top of the structure on the north, south and east sides. A multi-line
electronic marquee sign will also be incorporated into the north, south and east sides of the
structure that will be used to advertise upcoming events at the high school. In addition, the school's
mascot logo will be painted on the stucco in the middle of each of these elevations. Floodlights are
proposed at the base of the structure so as to illuminate the mascot logos.
ANALYSIS
R:\C U P\2001\01-0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
2
Facility Desiqn
An elevation has not been provided for the west side of the facility. This side of the facility will be
visible to eastbound traffic on Nicolas Road as well as the high school parking lot. While the
electronic marquee sign would not be necessary on this elevation, staff recommends that the
"Chaparral High School" sign and school motto logo also be incorporated so as to enhance the
aesthetics of this elevation. This has been made a recommended condition of approval. In an effort
to further enhance all four elevations of the facility, staff also recommends that a three inch deep
box be incorporated into each side of the structure and that the school mascot logo be located in the
middle of the box and project out three inches so as to be flush with the wall plane of the structure.
This treatment would serve to provide some additional relief and formalize the facility.
Landscapina
The finished pad grade of the facility will be six feet below the adjacent grade of Nicolas and
Winchester Roads. Therefore, the overall facility will rise twenty feet above these adjacent street
grades. To further soften the facility and enhance its aesthetics, staff recommends that landscaping
be introduced a minimum twelve feet back from the footprint of the facility. The City's landscape
architect consultant recommends the conceptual landscape plan be modified to show large
evergreen shrubs (i.e. Ligustrum Japonicum texanum, Xylosma congestum) placed continuously
around the perimeter of the base of the facility. It is further recommended the shrubs be a minimum
15 gallons in size so as to provide immediate screening.
Liahtina
The ground lighting proposed for the project does not meet the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance.
It is the intent of the ordinance to restrict the permitted use of certain light fixtures emitting into the
night sky undesirable light rays, which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and
research. The ordinance classifies this type of lighting as Class III (Decorative Lighting) and states
that it should be shielded. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed lighting for the project does not
meet the intent of the ordinance and is not supported by staff. It appears the ground lighting is only
intended to illuminate the school mascot logo. As an alternative, staff recommends that an
ornamental sconce light be placed at the top of the recommended inset box above the logo thereby
providing illumination to the logo in a downward direction rather than upward. Staff has conditioned
the project to submit a revised lighting plan that conforms with the Mount Palomar Lighting
Ordinance.
Transportation Corridor
Both sides of Winchester Road in the vicinity of the project site have been designated as a Transit
Corridor. The corridor, which is an established easement located 25 feet beyond the Winchester
road right-of-way line, is intended to provide for future mass-transit facilities along this State
Highway. The proposed telecommunication facility will be located within this existing Corridor. Staff
is unaware of any specific facilities planned to be constructed within the Corridor in the foreseeable
future. However, Corridor standards require that property owners constructing structures within the
boundary of the Corridor enter into a License Agreement for Encroachment. The Agreement
requires the property owner to remove the structure/facility upon being noticed by the City. This has
been made a recommended condition of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based
R:\C U P\2001\Ol-0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
3
on staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects)
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons:
. The proposed project is consistent the General Plan policies, as well as the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance.
. The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare,
or threatened species.
. The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality.
. The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services.
SUMMARYICONCLUSIONS
Staff believes the required findings necessary to approve a twenty-six foot high-unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility in the Public Institutional zoning district can be made. The project, as
proposed, is consistent with the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance and complies
with all applicable development standards of the Public Institutional zoning district. Staff believes the
height of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with the surrounding environment.
The internalization of the antennas in the facility structure makes them completely invisible from view
from the public right of way. The design of the facility, including colors, materials and landscaping
serves to achieve consistency with surrounding structures and land uses. The proposed Chaparral
High School monument sign is non-regulated given that the City's Development Code does not
specify sign standards within the Public Institutional zoning district.
FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development
code.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the
Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in
the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The facility shall be located
outside of all yard and street setbacks specified in the Public Institutional zoning
district. The facility, as proposed, has been designed to blend in with the surrounding
environment.
2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
As proposed, the telecommunication facility is designed so as to completely screen the
antennas and associated equipment. The proposed facility is twenty-six feet high. This
design and height is consistent with the existing built environment and will not adversely
affect the adjacent buildings.
3. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
R:\C U P\2001\01-0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
4
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the
Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development
Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning
requirements for projects located within the Public Institutional zoning district.
4. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the
public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project as designed is inaccessible
and will not create any concerns for the overall welfare of the community.
5. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council.
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes
and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Development Plan (17.05.01 OF)
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no
fish, wild life, or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife, or
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will
not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in
Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for the Public
Institutional Facilities (PI) development in the City of T emecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is
therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of the proposed twenty-six foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility.
Attachments
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA01-0572 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 10
2. Exhibits for PA01-0572 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 15
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Landscape Plan
G. Photo of Existing Chaparral High School Pylon Sign
R:\C U P\2001\01.0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
APPROVING PA01-0572
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
R:\C U P\2001\01.0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-028
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-
0572, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TWENTY-SIX FOOT
HIGH, FOURTEEN FOOT WIDE, UNMANNED WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION FACILITY HOUSING SIX ANTENNAS AND
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON THE CHAPARRAL
HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS AT 27215 NICOLAS ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 911-760-007
WHEREAS, Marc Meyers, representing Compass Telecom, filed Planning Application No.
01-0572, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0572 was processed including, but not limited to a
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. 01-0572 on August 7,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at
which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in
support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 01-0572 subject to the conditions
after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 01-0572 conformed to the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OFTEMECULADOES
HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
01-0572 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as
required by Section 17.04.01 O.E and Section 17.05.01 O.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development
code.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the
Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements as outlined in
the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The facility shall be located
outside of al/ yard and street setbacks specified in the Public Institutional zoning
district. The facility, as proposed, has been designed to blend in with the surrounding
environment.
R:\C U P\2001\01-0572 Cingufar Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
7
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
As proposed, the telecommunication facility is designed so as to completely screen the
antennas and associated equipment. The proposed facility is twenty-six feet high. This
design and height is consistent with the existing built environment and will not adversely
affect the adjacent buildings.
C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the
Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development
Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning
requirements for projects located within the Public Institutional zoning district.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the
public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project as designed is inaccessible
and will not create any concerns for the overall welfare of the community.
E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council.
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes
and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Development Plan (17.05.01 OF)
F. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no
fish, wild life, or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife, or
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will
not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in
Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
G. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for the
Public Institutional Facilities (PI) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as
the development standards outlined the City of Temecula Development Code. The site is
therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and
density of the proposed twenty-six foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility.
R:\C U P\2001\01-0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
8
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. 01-0572 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-
Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and meets the following
criteria:
. The proposed project is consistent the General Plan policies, as well as the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance.
. The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare,
or threatened species.
. The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air
quality or water quality.
. The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 01-0572 (Conditional Use Permit) a request to
design, construct and operate a twenty-six foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility
located on the southwest corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road and known as Assessors
Parcel No. 911-760-007.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 7th day of August 2002.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
PC Resolution No. 2002-028 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commission of the City
of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the yth day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Chiniaeff
None
None
None
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\C U P\2001\Ol.0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA01-0572 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
R:\C U P\2001\01-0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Statf Report.doc
10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: 01-0572 (Conditional Use Permit!Development Plan)
Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit!Development Plan to design,
construct and operate a twenty-six foot high-unmanned
wireless telecommunication facility housing six antennas
and associated equipment on the Chaparral High School
campus located at 27215 Nicolas Road.
DIF Category: Exempt
Assessor's Parcel No: 961-080-007
Approval Date: August 7, 2002
Expiration Date: August 7, 2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty-four
Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has
not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
2. The permitteelapplicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency
or instrumentality thereof, andlor any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all
claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary
damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters
of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 etseq., including but not by the way of limitations Section21152 and 21167).
The City shall promptly notify the permitteelapplicant of any claim, action, or proceeding
brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the
action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional
deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions
of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly
R:\C U P\2001\01-G572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
11
notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify,
defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit,
the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant.
3. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this
conditional use permit.
4. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
5. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit.
6. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Elevations), F (Landscaping) contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
8. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to the colors and
materials on the existing Chaparral High School Campus.
9. Additional mascot logo relief, i.e. insets and projections, shall be incorporated into all four
elevations of the facility. The modifications shall be shown on the construction drawings.
10. The "Chaparral High School" sign and school mascot logo shall be incorporated into all four
elevations of the facility. The improvements shall be shown on the construction drawings.
11. The location of the proposed telecommunications facility shall achieve a 20 ft. front yard
setback (Nicolas Road) and 15 ft street side yard setback (Winchester Road) in accordance
with Section 17.12.040 of the Development Code.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed
set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
R:\C U P\2001\01-QS72 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
12
15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted and
approved by the Community Development Department - Planning Division. These plans
shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these
conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be
shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page
shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall
show temporary irrigation and seeding for the Phase 1 B area. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
16. Landscaping construction plans shall show the continuous placement of large evergreen
shrubs around the perimeter of the base of the facility structure. Minimum 15-gallon size
shrubs shall be utilized so as to achieve immediate screening.
17. A maintenancelfacility removal agreement shall be signed by the applicant and submitted to
the Planning Director. The agreement shall be in accordance with section 17.40.210 of the
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna ordinance and shall comply with all provisions set
forth in this section.
18. A License Agreement for Encroachment shall be signed by the applicant and submitted to
the Planning Director. The agreement shall be in accordance with all provisions associated
with the existing Transportation Corridor along Winchester Road.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
19. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the
Temecula Municipal Code.
20. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans for the facility showing
compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All lighting shall be
shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside
lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or
public rights-of-way.
21. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to
the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
22. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
23. Obtain Street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
R:\C U P\2001\01.0572 CingularWireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
13
24. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
25. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior
to permit issuance.
26. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule and mechanical plan
for plan review.
27. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
28. Show all building setbacks.
29. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours
of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04,
specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one-
quarter mile of an occupied residence.
Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday: 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
FIRE DEPARTMENT
30. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California
Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at
the time of building, plan submittal.
31. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall maintain an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
32. During building construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall
maintain approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent
roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
33. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
34. Provide a 2A: 1 OBC fire extinguisher inside each building or temporary structure on the site.
35. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit.
These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per
the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
36. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
R:\C U P\2001\01-QS72 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
14
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Printed Name
Applicant Signature
R:\C U P\2001\01-0572 Cingular Wireless Telecommunications structure at Chaparral High School\Staff Report.doc
15