Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010699 PC Agenda~C~mF~ianc~w~h~A~mdC~mw~thD~bi~At~y~u~d~p~da~--e~d~nC~h~M~h ofkeofbCommunltyDevelolmwatDefm~xw~at(NOil44HO. Nc41clio~41ho~m~lMortoa~MlanaMethetltytomake masonable afrangernn~ to en~um t~---dbillty to that meeting [al GFR 3S.402.3S.t04 ADA Title II] CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1999, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Chairperson Slaven Reso Next In Order #98-050 Guerriero, Naggar, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretan/. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretan/ before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Minutes from November 4, 1998, November 18, 1998 and December 2, 1998 3. Director's Hearing Update PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Applicant: Cox Communications PCS, L.P. Location: At the Rancho Califomia Water Distdct water tank site at 3100 Rancho Califomia Road, on the north side of Rancho Califomia Road, between Butterfield Stage Road and Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way Proposal: To construct a wireless PCS facility consisting of a twelve (12) panel antenna mounted atop a 65-foot tall monopole constructed to simulate a pine tree ("monopine"), one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver station (BTS) unit and other electronic and batten/equipment. Environmental Action: Categorical Exemption, Class lb, Section 15301 Case Planner: Carole K. Donahoe Case Engineer: John Pourkazemi Recommendation: Approval CaM No: Planning Application No. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) Applicant: John Herdrig, C & H Off,ca Spedalties 1615 Fremont Ct., Ontado, CA 91761 Location: 27480 Colt Ct. south of Winchester Road, (APN 909-360-003 & 004) Proposal: To construct a 50,050 S.F. industrial (tilt-up concrete) building on a 2.7 acre lot for the manufacturing of office and school fumiture. Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Case Planner:. Thomas Thomsley Recommendation: Approval PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: January 20, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California ITEM #2 NOVEMBER 4, 1998 MINUTES MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjoumed regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 4, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerdero, Naggar*, Webster, and Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: Commissioner Soltysiak Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Planning Manager Ubnoske, Attomey Cudey, Senior Planner Fagan, Assistant Planner Anders, Project Planner DeGange, Project Planner Thomsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *Commissioner Naggar left the meeting at 6:42 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS NO comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of A~lenda MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the excel~tion of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. 2. Reuuest to Revise Marie Callender's Landscape Plan By way of overheads, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report, advising that the applicant is requesting to remove 13 trees, to reduce the size of some shrubs from five (5) gallon to one (1) gallon, and replace the groundcover along Rancho California and Ynez Roads; clarified that the approved landscape plan provided 34% of the landscaped area, and the revised plan would not change the percentage; and noted that staff is bdnging this matter to the Commission for review and direction due to the significance of the change. Mr. Ken Miskam, the applicant, clarified the rationale for the landscaping revision, specifically, that the overabundance of landscaping would: a) block the view corridor of the pond, encompassing the visual line from Rancho Califomia Road, as approaching Ynez Road, and b) cover the enhanced building articulation; further clarified that originally the project was developed and planned with the cdteda directed from the City to not block the view corridor, advising that the City's revised landscape plan, however, has added 13 24" boxed trees producing an effect that blocks this view corridor; noted that due to the prominent location of this project. the developer has vastly invested in adiculating the building, adding such features as reck adiculation and other enhancements, which will be hidden by City's revised landscape plan; reiterated that the request with regard to shrubs is to reduce the size and spacing, and would not modify the number of shrubs installed; commented that the project is 9% over the mean of landscaping for this type of project. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks dadfled, for Commissioner Webster, as to the ultimate road improvements on Ynez Road, advising that the existing trees adjacent to the Marie Callender's project will not be removed, although the trees along the parcel at the east side of Ynez Road will be removed dudng road widening improvements, but will be replaced with smaller trees, and the area of discussion will be relandscaped; and advised, for Commissioner Guerdero, that due to the size, the planned median on Ynez Road would be mainly rock. Commissioner Webster initially commented with respect to the revisions, as follows: approval of the groundcover change from sod to hydroseed; as to shrub size, recommended maintaining the five (5) gallon size shrubs; as to the trees, approved removal of all 13 trees with the exception of one, a Sycamore tree, denoted second from the right top comer on the landscape legend (per agenda material). Commissioner Guerriero expressed his initial comments as follows: he approved the change in shrub size, and the replacement of sod with hydroseed. However, with respect to the trees, Mr. Guerriero approved only removing 2 or 3 trees, and then relocating them at the rear of the building to buffer the effect of the Embassy Suites building. The applicant advised, for Commissioner Guerdero, that only 3 of the 11 trees between this project and the Embassy Suites building were requested to be removed from the plan, and this was due to the fact that within a year the trees would have to be removed due to growth. Commissioner Webster clarified that although each circle on the landscape legend represented a tree, it didn't represent the actual size of the tree, and advised that the site is overplanted. Chairwoman Slaven requested that Assistant Planner Andera provide the species-type of each tree, in order for the Commission to take into consideration the spread size of the trees, facilitating a more precise review and direction. Ms. Andere advised that she would review and obtain this specific information, regarding each tree. At this time, Chairwoman Slaven recommended proceeding with the next agenda items, and coming back to Agenda Item No. 2 when Ms. Anders had obtained further specific clarification. (See below.) 3. Director's Hea dnq Update Planning Manager Ubnoske noted, for Commissioner Guerriem, that staff was aware of his concerns regarding the Cox Communication Tower. and the gas station on Rancho Califomia Road; and advised that staff was investigating both matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Planninq Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) Request to subdivide 2.85 acres into four (4) residential parcels. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission continue the matter to December 2, 1998. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to continue the matter to the December 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. At this time the meeting continued back to Agenda Item No. 2. 2. Request to Revise Marie Callender's Landscape Plan (continued from page 3) Assistant Planner Anders presented the specifications of the tree types. For Chairwoman Slaven. the applicant addressed shrub size, noting the project would maintain the planned 257 one (1) gallon Lily of the Nile shrubs, the 189 five (5) gallon Texas Privet shrubs, the 108 five (5) gallon Vareigated Tobira shrubs, and others; clarified the request for revision was, as follows: 84 of the 144 five (5) gallon India Hawthom shrubs, be reduced to one (1) gallon size; the 41 five (5) gallon Heavenly Bamboo shrubs, be reduced to one (1) gallon size. Chairwoman Slaven advised that while addressing the concems of the applicant, the location of the landscaping would be taken into consideration. Commissioner Naggar left the meeting at this time due to illness. (6:42 P.M.) After lengthy discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to direct the revision, as follows: that the groundcover would be changed from sod to hydroseed that the shrub size revisions would be reduced from five (5) gallon to one (1) gallon that the tree landscape plan be modified, as follows: (*in order of discussion) *1st tree (Aleppo Pine) at the dght upper comer of the landscape legend, be removed *2nd tree (Eucalyptus) the next marked tree on the legend, moving toward Rancho Califomia Road, not be removed *3rd tree (Sycamore) the following marked tree on the legend, moving toward Rancho Califomia Road, be removed due to the 36" boxed Atlas Cedar tree located in that area *4th tree (Magnolia) be removed due to the location *5th and 6th trees (2 Purple Plums) be removed, and relocated on the back street (entry road) in place of the Podocarpus trees. *7th tree (Bottle Tree) located beneath the Magnolia tree, on the comer alcove, be removed *8th, 9th and 10th trees (London Plane Tree) on the left side of the legend, be removed, leaving 3 remaining London Plane Trees in that area '1 lth, 12th, and 13th trees (1 Aleppo Pine, and 2 Purple Plums) on the bottom of the legend, in the alcove, remove the Aleppo Pine and relocate the Purple Plums in the parking lot area, for additional color The applicant was agreeable to the Commission's recommendations. 3. Director's Hearing Update This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Planning Al~lHication No. PA95-0079 lTentative Parcel Mal~ No. 28257) This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 3. 5. Planning Al~l~lication No. PA98-0318 {General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) Request to change the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations of two parcels from Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC), Medium Density Residential (M), and Low Medium Density Residential (LM) to Community Commercial (CC). RECO M M ENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Project Planner DeGange presented the staff report (of record). noting that the applicant is requesting a zone change to Community Commercial (CC) creating a 19-acre commercially zoned parcel; clarified that the current zoning is Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC), Medium Density Residential (M), and Low Medium Density Residential (LM); advised that after evaluation, staft would recommend the approval of the request due to the proposed zoning facilitating a more viable commercial project rather than an isolated fragmented development; and noted, for Commissioner Webster, that page 2 of the Environmental Checklist (per agenda material) will be modified to not reflect Land Use Planning, Noise, and Water as having a "Potentially Significant Impact." Mr. Harold Carter, 33552 Corte Bonilla, requested clarification on the difference between Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) and Community Commercial (CC); and noted his pdmary concern was the potential of additional generation of traffic due to the zone change. Further elaborating on Mr. Carter's request, Planning Manager Ubnoske dadfled that the zoning change to Community Commercial (CC) would permit less intense commercial uses than what would be presently permitted on the front portion of the property specifying that the permitted uses are similar in nature, but fewer are permitted in Community Commercial (CC); and noted that any project proposed on this parcel would come back to the Planning Commission for review and public input. Mr. James Hams, 33305 Corte Yaca, representing the California Tradewinds Homeowners Association, expressed opposition to the zoning change due to the following concerns: the close proximity of school bus stops and neighboring homes, traffic, lighting, and the view lots overlooking Corona Ranch which would be negatively affected with lower properly values and standards of living by a commercial site. Mr. Jim Beaver, 43384 Via Angeles, opposed any zone change which would increase commercial uses in this area above what is currently permitted. Five petitions (totaling 87 signatures) were submitted in opposition to the zone change, and staff received two phone calls, both opposing the rezoning of the Corona Ranch. Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Guerdero, viewed the proposal as an enhancement of the use, and the surrounding property; and invited concerned public members to visit the Planning Department to view the City's Development Code and Design Guidelines. Chairwoman Slaven viewed the change to Community Commercial (CC) as a positive change due to the parcel not being segmented. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public headng; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application Nos. PA98-0318 and PA98-0449; adopt Resolution No. 98-038 recommending approval of Planning Application Nos. PA98-0318 and PA98-0449 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and approve Planning Application No.'s PA98- 1318 and PA98-0449. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 79 (SOUTH) AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-150-O01 AND 952-150-003 (PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA98-0318 AND PA98-0449) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioners Soltysiak and Naggar who were absent. 6. Plannincl Application No. PA98-0302 {Development Plan} Request to construct a 13,112 square foot industrial (tilt-up concrete) building on a .86 acre lot. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of overheads, Project Planner Thomsley presented the staff repod (per agenda material), noting that 29% of the site has been landscaped, which includes screening the parking area; commended the architect and the applicant for working diligently with the City, addressing staffs concerns due to the site being a comer lot; clarified, for Commissioner Webster, that in accordance with the Sign Ordinance, this project will require with a sign program; and noted on the renderings, for Chairwoman Slaven, the location of the roll-up doors, and the bdck (maroon) color band across the top of the building. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified Condition No. 50 (of record), for Commissioner Webster, regarding road improvements as follows: that on Diaz Road, the improvements will encompass a sidewalk; on Randno Way, a sidewalk; and furlher clarified that Section d. of Condition No. 50 will require the installation of a raised landscape on Diaz Road as pad of the General Plan for future installment; and noted, in regard to the future bddge project, possibly at Randno Way, that this development's effect on the proposed bddge wouldn't be taken into consideration due to the project being so long range into the future. For Commissioner Guemero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that staff would examine traffic on Diaz Road for future road improvements. Mr. Richard Alvarez, representing the applicant, clarified, for Commissioner Webster, that the elevations have been raised to comply with flood mitigation; and noted, for the Commission, other projects in the area they have developed. Commissioner Webster commended the applicant on the variety of trees used in the landscaping. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0302; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0302; and adopt Resolution No. 98-039 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0302 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0302 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,112 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL (TILT-UP CONCRETE) BUILDING ON A °86 ACRE LOT; LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO WAY AND DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS PARCEL 1 OF PM 13487 AND ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-040-018. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioners Soltysiak and Naggar who were absent. 7. Planninrl Application No. PA98-0354 (Development Plan) Request to construct a 15,950 square foot industrial (tilt-up concrete) building on a one- acre lot. (noted as 16,840 square foot in the resolution) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of renderings, Project Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (of record) highlighting the architecture, location of the loading facilities, parking and landscaping. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Environmental Factors checklist (per agenda material) will be modified to not reflect "water' as having a "Potentially Significant Impact." Mr. Scott Buckles, representing Dekkon Development, Inc., representing the applicant, was available for questions. Chairwoman Slaven commended the applicant on the architecture of the project, specifically the difference in the heights of the building, breaking up the massing. For Commissioner Guerdero, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Fire Department thoroughly reviews the hazardous matedal use. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to close the public headng; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0354; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0354; and adopt Resolution No. 98-040 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0354 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0354 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 16,840 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL (TILT-UP CONCRETE) BUILDING ON A ONE ACRE LOT; LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD EAST OF CALLA EMPLEADO AND WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS PARCEL 91 OF PM 21383 AND ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-310-019. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioners Soltysiak and Naggar who were absent. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted, for the Commission, that the City Manager is retiring, and that his last day will be December 24, 1998, advising that she would keep the Commission updated on any changes that occur. B. Ms. Ubnoske questioned whether each Commissioner received the New Development Code. C. For Chairwoman Slaven, Ms. Ubnoske noted that the (orange color) tower at Bostik will be covered by a structure matching the color of the building. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. For combatibility purposes, Commissioner Webster, regarding the building at Bostik, recommended that the buildings be a darker color. B. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted, for Commissioner Guerdero, that identification badges would be provided for the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 7:54 P.M. Chairwoman Slaven formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday. November 18, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager NOVEMBER 18, 1998 MINUTES MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, '1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 18, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecuta City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecuta, Calitomia. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Naggar, Webster, and Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: Commissioner Soltysiak. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Senior Engineer Alegda, Attemey Cudey, Senior Planner Fagan, Assistant Planner Anders, Prejed Planner DeGange, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Af3enda MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. 2. Fire Depament PresentaUon on *'Hazardous Materials" Mr. Howard Windsor, Chief Fire Marshall, addressed hazardous materials, advising that the disclosure as to the storage, use, and handling of such materials was the most vital issue, to ensure safety in fadlit/es; and noted that the Fire Department has developed a hazardous material disclosure packet. Mr. Doug Meyers, representing the Fire Department, presented an overview of the Fire Department's Hazardous Materials Chemical Classification and Quantification Packet developed to review the classification of hazardous materials; noted the rationale for the use of such regulations as the minimizing of:. emergency response sourees and time, property damage, exposure, injury and death, and monetap/loss; in detail, spedfled the disdoseble amounts of hazardous matedai regulated by the Fire Code; and dadfled, for Chairwoman Staven, the three differentials in amounts of hazardous materials related to disclosure, exempt, and petrn/ffed amounts. Fire Marshall Windsor advised, for Chairwoman Slaven, that although the Fire Department does curmnlJy have an annual inspection program, them is no existing permit program, noting that the Fire Department is working on implementing this program for use in approximately two years, advising that the delay is due to the laok of staff and monefaP/provision. For Commissioner Naggar, he noted that the Hazardous Material Team, interfacing with other City, State, and Federal agencies would have the capability of handling a hazardous material emergency; advised that Code Enforcement. in a joint effort with the City of Murrieta, provides hazardous matedal for the public; and noted that the most eftdent tool to apprise the business community of such materials is by way of educational programs. Commissioner Gueniem recommended a provision to apeoil'/where the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) book would be kept in each facility; and requested that staff get a copy of the SEMS policy for Commission review. Commissioner Naggar relayed to Fire Marshall Windsor his support of the Fire Departmenrs efforts with regard to hazardous materials. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend that the City Council investigate opportunities to assist the Fire Department in expediting the permitting program since it has been determined that is the most efficient tool in monitoring hazardous materials. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Application NO. PA98-0410 (DeveteDment Plan) Request to design, construct and operate of two (2) industrial buildings, 20,385 square feet and 17,720 square feet respecUvely, on prope~es zoned LI (Light Industrial). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by ~e Planning Deparf~nent ~at the Planning Commission approve ~e request. Senior Planner Fagan presented the staff report (per agenda material), highlighting access, landscaping, and amhiiectum; corn mended the applicant on their cooperative efforts with Planning Staff; noted, for Commissioner Guerriem, regarding Item No. 9 (on page 29 of the staff report), specifically, hazardous materials, that the Fire Department has reviewed the project for its impact as to hazards rendering a condition of no negative impact, advising that he would investigate further as to whether or not the Fire Depaffi'nent utilized the new Hazardous Materials Disclosure Packet for review of this pmjact; for Commissioner Naggar, noted that the pmvislen of additional information regarding the specific hazardous materia) disclosure utilized for review for buildings that are not speculative cou)d be added to the staff report; and advised, for Chairwoman Slaven, regarding Condition No. 5 (regulating the storage of material) provides for flexibility due to one of the buildings being speculative in order to allow staff to address outside storage if needed at a future point in time. Mr. Scott Buckles, rapresenting Dekkon Development. Inc., representing the applicant. complimented stafffor theirdiligent work on this project. Mr. Gary Baker, the applicant, addressed the hazardous materials issue, noting that the specircations ofthe labeling and maintenance program maintained on the facility was facilitated by CAL OSHA six years ago; and noted, for Chairwoman Slaven, that the building they will occupy will not utilize outside storage. MOTION: Commissioner Gueniem moved to dose the public heating; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0410 (Development Plan); adopt the Mitigated Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0410 (Development Plan); and adopt Resolution No. 98-041 appmving Planning Application No. PA98-0410 (Development Plan) based upon the Analysis and Findings ~ontained in be Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-04t A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA98-04t0 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, 20,375 SQUARE FEET AND t7,720 SQUARE FEET RESPECTIVELY, ON TWO (2) LOTS TOTAUNG 2.28 ACRES, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-290-033 AND g09-290-034. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote mile'ted unanimous approval with the exception of Commission Soltysiak who was absent. 4. Planning Anplication NO. PA98-0348 (Develol>ment Plan) Request to approve a Development Plan to construct and operato a 22,668 square foot industrial speculative building. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request, By way of overheads, Project Planner DeGange presented the staff report (per agenda material), noting that due to the fact that a potion of the project is visible from Diaz Road the applicant has added additional landscaping to screen the loading docks; clarified, for Chairwoman Slaven, that the applicant has addressed the flood control issue via correspondence with Riverside County Flood Control (per supplemental ageoda material); and advised that the applicant and Public Works Staff are recommending that Conditions No. 44 and 46 be deleted. For Chairwoman Slaven, Senior Engineer Alegila noted that other adjacent prepedies have not been required to install flood control easements between this project and Winchester Road. Mr. Btian Fronk, the applicant, advised that he was available for questions. Mr. Lany Markham, rapresenting the applicant, darffiad the flood control issue, for Chairwoman Slaven, advising that Flood Control owns and maintains everything in tee title from this property to Diaz Road and with regard to maintenance, noted that Flood Control is currently mowing the creek, although they are not permitted to mow the side slopes. Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect, representing the applicant, clarified, for Commissioner Naggar, regarding the screening from Diaz Road, that an additional rwe Oak Trees have been added to provide height and additional shrubs to buffer the view of the loading docks. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to dose the public headng; adopt a Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0348; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0348; and adopt Resolution No. 98-042 re:omrnending approval of Ranning Application No. PA98- 0348 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approvah RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA98-0348 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 22,56'1 SQUARE FOOT TWO- STORY SPECULATIVE OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING BUILDING WITH AS.C~)CIATED PARKING, AND lANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING '1.89 GROSS ACRES, LOCATED AT THE KNUCKLE OF THE INTERSECTION OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST AND COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET WEST OF COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 92t-480..0'15. Modify that Conditions No. 44 and 46 be deleted The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commission Soltysiak who was absent. 5. Planning Application NO. PA98-0386 (Development Plan) Request to design, construct and operato a 51,289 square foot speculative office building with associated parking and landscaping located on a parcel containing 4.01 gross acres. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Depament that ~e Planning Commission approve the request Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report (of record), advising that staff is of the opinion that this project will exhibit exemplary architecture, and commended the architect; and noted that the project far exceeds the landscaping requirements, noting that thirty-eight percent (38%) of the site has been landscaped. Mr. Dean Davidson, architect, representing the applicant, apologized for not providing the color board for the Commission, noting, for Commissbner Webster, that the primary color of the building is a softened white, advising that a sample will be submitted for Commission review; and dartfed as to Condition No. 13, for Chairwoman Slaven, that although the actual equipment has not yet been designed, there will be no roof-top mounted equipment; and addressed the Iocat/on of the lobby and luncheon area, and the height of the building, with regard to the line of vision from Rancho California Road. Commissioner Guerriero commended the architect on the unique style of architecture. M~ Roger Jaeger, 41325 Billy Joe Lane, commented that although he is not opposed to this particular project, he views traffic as a serious problem, noting that he has aftended the dmulation meetings, reviewed the Capitol Improvement Plans, discussed his concams with the Traffic Engineer, Deputy Director of Public Wonks Parks, the Senior Planner, and Councilman Steve Ford; stated he doesn't agree with be continuous building in light of the current state of traffic, and was under the opinion the City should adopt a slow-growth policy; querbd how the Commission could put its approvat on more projects, maintaining no negative impact with regard to traffic. Further elaborating on Mr. Jaeger's concerns, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that now development will provide the City with Development Impact Fees, enabling the City to improve traffK: conditions and the infrastructure in the City, noting that this project is consistent with the General Plan; dadrid that when the proposed traffic improvements are completed, there will be an improvement in traffic conditions; and darif'md the rationale with regard to the no negative impact in the studies (per agenda material), with regard to traffic, was due to the mitigating measures. Commissioner Naggar noted, for ME Jaeger, that although he concurTed with the traffic concerns, he ceuldn't justify denial on projects such as the proposed, resulting in a single development bearing the weight of the City's traffic problems. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to dose the public headng; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0386; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Ranning Application No. PA98-0386; and adopt Resolution No. 98-043 recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0386 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA98..0386 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TWO-STORY, 51,289 SQUARE FOOT SPECULATIVE OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING A 3.05 (NET) ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND RANCHO CAUFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 940-310-029. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commission Soltysiak who was absent. 6. Planning Application NO. PA98-0347 (Development Plan} Request to design, construct and operate 15 speculative industrial/manufacturing/office buildings totaling 81,885 square feet with associated parking and landscaping on two parcels consisting of 6.02 acres. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Deparb~ent that the Planning Commission approve the request, By way of overheads, Assistant Planner Andera presented the staff repod (per agenda material), highlighting site design, access, architecture and landscaping; dadfled that this project is not within the flood plain; noted that staff is opposed to the additional fenring providing outdeer secured storage areas (which was added to the project after stafi's review and after the scheduling the project for public hearing), due to the following concerns: that it would become an outside storage area which would eliminate required common parking; noted that the Depadment of Fish and Game (DFG) is requiring review and approval of the plant palette and that the planting be installed by hand, rather than using heavy equipment (per Condition 4a and 4b, of record); and noted that the City's landscape amhitect has recommended requirement of temporary irrigation on the east slope until the vegetation is thriving. For Commissioner Guerdem, Ms. Anders presented the color board. By way of renbedngs, Mr. Jack Selman, archited, representing the applicant, presented the site plan; clarified the rationale for the fencing as to separate and define the parking areas for each tenant, noting that there will be no outdoor storage; noted the type of potential tenant necessitating the provision of an additional gate for secured parking as such: civil or soil engineering companies, contradors, or caq~et cleaning companies, for the puq3ose of secudng trucks or vans. Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape amhiteet, representing the applicant, advised. for Commissioner Webster, that the planting specifications require more input from DFG (Department of Fish and Game.) For Chairwoman Slaven, Planning Manager Ubnoske dadfled, with regard to the percentage of remaining landscaping on the site plan if the landscaped slope were excluded, that the landscaping percentage would then be at foudeen percent (14%). Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, advised that the applicant has agreed to dedicate a maintenance access easement over the s~ope, noting that after the completion of the Munieta Creek Improvement that that slope area podion of the parcel would be reclaimed as part of the property; for Commissioner Guerriere, dadred that the aforementioned property is owned by the applicant, and that the applicant has offered to landscape the slope per DFG standards. In light of Commission discussion about landscaping, Mr. Jack Selman offered to add an additional five-(5) feet of landsoaping facilitated by moving the buildings back, increasing the front landscaping from twelve (12) to seventeen (17) feet. Commissioner Guerriere was in favor of the additional landscaping, but expressed his opposition to the fencing in the parking area for the following reasons: that with regard to health and safety, the fenced areas would present a problem with law enforcement and the Fire Depadment, and as to the issue of welfare, it would encourage inapprepdate storage. Commissioner Naggar soncuRed with Commissioner Guerdere's comments on the landscaping and fencing, adding that the fencing would create a loss of continuity. Commissioner Webster concurmcl with opposing the internal fencing, and recommended designated tenant parking to separate and define the parking areas. Chairwoman Slaven expressed an overall opposition to the project, as proposed, due to the following concems: that she concurred with the aforementioned opposition to the fenring, with regard to health, safety and welfare, and additionally viewed the fencing as a potential problem with Code Enforcement that the landscaping will be minimal that the project, as proposed, was not well designed, and incompatible with the surrounding uses, i.e., not meeting the standards that the City has scnght over the years Ms. Slaven recommended mod~ing the proposed project. Mr. Jack Selman darfed the rationale for this type of project; noted, for Commissioner Guerdero, the market demand for small entrapraneur ownership, advising that current simlar projects in other areas built by the developer am one hundred percent (100%) sold; dadfled that the property would be regulated by CC&R's; and advised that the applicant would prefer a denial, rather than a major radesign of the proposed site plan. Commissioner Guerriem noted that although he concurred with Chainroman Slaven's concems, due to public interest in projects such as this, he would support the project, modified as follows: additional landscaping modifie, ation of the color scheme no intemat fencing Initially, Mr. Selman commented that the applicant would be agreeable with the aforementioned modifications. After lengthy discussion, at the request of Mr. Selman, the Commissioners expressed their comments, as follows: Commissioners Guer~ero, Naggar, and Slaven noted their approval of the project with the aforementioned modifications to the landsoaping, color soherne, and internal fenring. Commissioner Websterwould approve the project, as proposed, with the removal of the intemal fencing. After additional discussion with the applicant and his raprasentatives, Mr. Jac~ Selman requested that the Planning Commission vote on the project, as proposed, specifr_.ally noting that the applicant would not be agreeabte to the removal of the intemal fencing. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; and deny Planning Application No. PA98-0347 (Development Plan). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guen'iem and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commission Soltysiak who was absent. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that due to the temporary technicaJ computer problems, the conditions for the projects would be attached, rather than incoq~oratad into the staff report. B. Ms. Ubnoske recommended having a traffc workshop with the Planning Commission, addressing the concerns of the Commissioners. C. Senior Planner Fagan noted that at the January 20, 1999, Planning Commission Meeting, staff will address the current traffic circulation report, noting that this will be the only item on the agenda, in order to allow time for the Commission to addross their traffic concams. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. With regard to specific traffic concems, Chairwoman Slaven noted that she would like to have addressed the percentage, with mcjard to traffic, in the staff report, specifically what it raferances. B. Commissioner Webster suggested, with regard to traffic, with respect to the pemenfage (per the staft repod), that the question be answered, clarifying the threshold for significant impact, and if there were signifmnt impact, do our standard mitigation measures sufrdently address that impact. C. C~mmissionerNaggarw~u~d~ikedadty~ntheC~mmissi~n~spuNiewwithmgardt~theimpact~fthetra~cissue as a whole, and specifically what leverage the Commission has without exceeding its boundaries. D. P~anningManagerUbn~skeadvisedthatsincetheCityhasahigh~yqua~iredsta~~it~simp~rtanttosupp~rtstaff~ recommendations. E. Ms. Ubnoske noted, for Commissioner Guerriero, with regard to staff reports, and his recommendation of provision of odor boards, traffic reports, and hazardous matedal reberts on the projects, that the celor boards should be provided for each project, however, the traffic and hazardous matedal reports are of such a highly technical nature, requiring qualified inteq}retation, advised that it may be more helpful if staff were more informative with the results that have been rendered. F. Commissioner Guemero, echoed by Commissioner Naggar, rocommended educating the public with regard to traffic issues, presenting the impact our City reoeives from sources we have no sontml over, i.e., surrounding cities, and the County, noting the current planned improvements which will affect a positive change; suggested apprising the community that traffic problems are being addressed in the City and that their conoems are being addressed. Due to Commission ~oncem, he advised that two of the Commissioners rogulady attend traffic meetings. G. For Chairwoman Slaven, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified the cdteria forfast-track projeds; advised that, in light of all the new growth and developments, staff would not ovedoad the agenda, thereby necessitating the Commission rushing through the review of projects coming into our City. H. Ms. Ubnoske noted, in response to Commissioner Guer~em's concams relative to the ratio between the population and new development possibly rendering a condif. jon of unoccupied buildings, that Dr. John Husing is currontJy working on a study of evaluation of all these factors in the City, and furlher investigation is being done to make a determination and present recommendations. I. Commissioner Cuemere expressed concem that at the comer of Front Street and Rancho California Road there were 16 black 55-gallon drums with no identifying labels stored outside the fenced area for one week, dari~ing that the potentially dangerous situation was resolved by notifying a motor officer. Ms. Ubnoske noted that she would pass on this information to Deputy Director of Public Works Parks. J. Assistant Planner Anders dadfled, for Commissioner Naggar, with regard to flood control correspondence, that if the presented issue were significant, staff would require the applicant to address the issue before it comes before the Commission. K. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted, for Commissioner Naggar, that the Cily would cell the Black Angus restaurant in Ternecula, addressing the northeast cemer's dry lawn and the need for additional trees. L. Commissioner Naggar repodad to the Commission that the Traffic Commission and the Sahool Distrial has agread that the crosswalk at Ma~garita Road wss a hazard (a topic of consera at Commission Meetings) and was recommending dosing the crosswalk and dosing the oben-fensed area adjacent to that crosswalk. M. Commissioner Webster expressed concem about the number of trucks parking on the dirt portion of Diaz Road. N. For clarity for staff, Attomey Cudey reiterated the rationale of the Commission for the denial of Agenda Item No.6 as the health, safety, and welfare concerns from the fencing and layout of the landscaping, and the applioant's representative's comments that the fencing was a key element, and the request to make a decision on the project, as proposed. Chairwoman Slaven confirmed Attorney Curley's recapitulation for staffs clarification. O. Attorney Cu~ey duly noted Larry Markham's protest to the aforementioned comment. ADJOURNMENT At 8:59 P.M. Chairwoman Slaven formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday. December 2, t998. at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park D~ve, Temecula. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, P~anning Manager 9 DECEMBER 2, 1998 MINUTES MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, Deeember 2, 1998, in the City Council Chambem of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Cafifomia. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriere. Naggar, Soltysiak, *Webster. and Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Depubj Director of Public Works Parks, Attomey Cudey, Senior Planner Fagan, Senior Planner Hogan, Project Planner Donahoe, Assistant Planner Andera, Project Planner DeGange, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Having to abstain with regard to Agenda Item No. 6, at 7:31 P.M. Commissioner Webster left the meeting) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1, Approval of Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motjon was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote reflected unanimous apprevaL 2. Approval of Minutes - October 7, 1998 and October 21, 1998 It was noted that t~e reference to Director of Public Works Parks should cormally indicate Deputy Director of Public Works Parks on both the October 7, and October 21, 1998 minutes. It was noted that page 2, under Item 9. should be corrected to reflect cam instead of car. Commissioner Webster would li<e the record to dearly reflect his opposilion with the general ooncensus of the Commissbn, regarding Item 7, page 6. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdem moved to approve the minutes, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. The Commission received amended minutes reflecting modifications on page 5, Item 4, to correctly indicate Resolution No. PC 98-037, and the motion being ,seconded by Commissioner Guerriem. It was noted that on the same page the word rod should be corrected to indicate wrought. It was noted that page 6, Item E, should reflect Commissioner Soltysiak's request that additional traffic control, due to the removal of the wrong delineators, be addressed at the new Lucky's Shopping Center was constructed. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Plannine ADDlicaUon No. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) Request to desig n, construct and operate a moving, storage, and warehousing business 14,560 square foot building. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Ranning Commission approve the request. By way of overheads, Project Planner DeGange presented the staff report (per agenda material), noting that the project is being pmsessed under the City's Fast Track Program; darified, for Commissioner Guerdero, with regard to his connero with the lack of visual interest in the building's architecture, that staff recommended approval due to the following: the building size (utilizing .16 FAR [Floor Area Ratio] instead of the allowable .40 FAR), the distance of the setbac~k from the street, and that at a future point in time them will be another building screening this proposed development; presented the color rendering (per Commission request); for Chairwoman Slaven, noted the location and size of the wall and the fence on the site plan; advised that the fault line should be corrected to accurately reflect the actual location of the fault zone on the final site and grading plan, pursuant to a letter from the Riverside Counby Planning Depadment dated November 24, 1998 (per supplemental agenda material). Planning Manager Ubnoske darired Fast Track Projects, for Commissioner Naggar, noting that the qualifying development meets the following criteria: provides a minimum of 25 jobs, the infrastructure is in place, adherence to an aggressive time line, the entire development team (i.e., engineer, architect, landscape architect, and applicant) will meet with staff at designated times. Commissioner Webster noted, for Chairwoman Slaven, that the material of the wall on the site plan would be block wall with a stucco covering. For Chairwoman Slaven, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that the density of traffic in this area will be less that the anticipated levels; and noted that in January when the Traffic Circulation Study will be presented to the Commission, traffic guidelines wil be addressed which will identify the criteda determining when traffic studies are deemed necessary. Chairwoman Slaven relayed her desire for the provision of a specifle lands<ape plan, identifying the specific quantity and size of the trees and shrubs, and for the provision of rcore specific traffic irapad information. Mr. Michael Reeves, representing the applicant, noted, for Commissioner Guerriero, that although the building maintains a square, fiat design, the massing has been broken up with a stepping effect with the block wall, the office building, and then the warehouse, advising that the design facilitates provision for the storage of boxes; noted that the additional building will be built when the applicant's business warrants the need for additional space; darified, for Commissioner Soltysiak, that the driveway is angled due to the existing utilities in the street; noted, for Chairwoman Slaven, that the landscape plan includes: 15 24-inch bexed bees, 34 15-galidn trees, and the chain*linked fence will be slatted and ultimately screened with vine through a combination of plant sparing and irrigation designed by the applicant's landscape architect; and noted, for Commissioner Naggar, that few of the 30 bucks owned by the applicant would be parked at the site as they w"l be used for long-distance hauling. ChainNoman Slaven recommended not slatting the fence, and increasing the number of vines planted to ensure screening of the chain-linked fence. With regard to the vines, Commissioner Webster recommended planting an evergreen-b/pe vine, rather than a dedduous shrub. Although the architecture was not visually pleasing on the site plan, Commissioner Gue~erc noted that he would support staffs recommendation since it is anticipated that the future development of the parcel to the south will ultimately screen this elevation. Commissioner Naggar concuned with Commissioner Gueniero's comments on the architecture, and Chairwoman Slaven's comments on the need for additional landscaping; noted that although he wouldn't condition the project as such, he was concemed about the negative effect this project would have on traffic conditions, relaying his desire that the staff repod contain additional information with regard to traffic. With regard to the fence, Commissioner Soltysiak reoommended conditioning the project to not allow barbed or razor wire; and with regard to the architecture, noted that the building is setback and that although the site plan doesn~ deady reflect the three dimensions, the offset from the office to the storage area will provide dimension for visual interest, MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to dose the public hearing; adopt a Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0413; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0413; and adopt Resolution No. 98-044 appreving Ranning Application No. PA98-0413 based upon the Analysis and the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditbns of Approval, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA98-0413 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A MOVING, STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING BUSINESS WITH A 14,859 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 2.'1'1 ACRES, LOCATED ON ZEVO DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1,250 FEET WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909- 936-035. Add an additional condition regarding revising the final site and grading plan to reflect the actual fault line an additional condition restriding the use of barbed or razor wire being attached to the fence an additional condition with regard to the fence, prohibiting the use of and that there be additional (evergreen-type) vines screening the fence The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commission Naggar who voted no. 4. Planning Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) Request to subdivide 2.85 acres into four (4) residential parcels RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Deparlment that the Planning Commission deny the request, Project Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (per agenda material), noting that the project has been continued three times since the September 2, 1998, Planning Commission Meeting when it was originally presented; dadfled that staffs concerns are, as follows: site constraints, drainage and access (per reoord); noted that staff has received six (6) letters in opposition to the project and one fax regarding the drainage easement on the adjacent property; dadfled, for Commissioner Soltysiak, that although there was initial progress made on the development between September 2, 1998, and October 7, 1998, the aforementioned issues of cencem have not been adequately addressed; and advised that staff is recommending denial of the project. Ms. Jeannine Paul, representing the applicant, read into the record (per supplemental agenda material) a letter from Mr. Peruchetti requesting approval of the project, and addressing drainage, grading, and lot size. For Commissioner Naggar, Mr. Keyin Peruchetti, the applicant, noted that there are no existing code violations on the property. Chairwoman Slaven dosed the public headng. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt Resolution No. 98-045 denying Planning Applicetbn No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff repod. RESOLUTION NO. PC 984)45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA97-0079 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28257) TO SUBDM DE A 2.85 ACRE INTO FOUR (4) PARCELS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD BETVVEEN LA PRIMAVERA AND SHOWALTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 945-070-006, -007, AND -0t6. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote m~eded unanimous approval. 5. Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Amendment end Zone Change) Request to amend the General Ran designation for the site from Office end Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, in accordance with Exhibit A; end to change the Zoning Map for ~e site from Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Development Oreday (PDO-t) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by ~e Planning Department ~at the Planning Commission approve the request, Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting the modifications, as follows: 1 ) to amend the General Plan designation, and 2) to modify the Zoning Map facilitating permitted uses more compatible with the area; and with regard to traffic, noted that the proposal would have no negative impact. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks dadfled, for Commissioner Webster, page 27, section B-1 (of record) that the Cimulation Element doesn't address extending Jedediah Smith Road to the area of discussion, noting that a podion of the property is currently being used for drainage fadlities and a MWD (Metropolitan Water District) easement; and advised that the existing right-of-way would not be used for access to the properties in the existing Neighborhood Commercial Zone, due to the potential use of the dght-of-way to address drainage issues. Chairwoman Slaven, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, commended Planning Staff on their effods associated with the proposal. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the owners of two of the parcels, relayed concurrence with staffs recemmendation regarding the proposed changes; requested a modification in the addition of permitted uses (of record), as follows: page 17, Animal hospitals, page 19, Carpet and rug cleaning, and page 21, Health and exemise clubs (/ess than 5,000 square feet); noted, for Commissioner Webster, with regard to Jedediah Smith Road, that the drainage channel exists pdmadly on the east half of the right-of-way; advised that the request for vacating the area is in abeyance with the City untii the ultimate resolution of the drainage issue is determined; noted that the area would be inappropriate for access to the prepe~ due to the fiat angle; for Mr. Webster, noted that the medirlcation of additional permitted uses could be conditionally permitted; and for Chairwoman Siaven, provided the rationale for the request to modify the permitted uses was to broaden the zone with compatible uses. For Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hogan noted that staff was agreeable to the requested modircation of the permitted uses. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to dose the public heating; adopt the Negative Dedaratlen for PA97-0237; and adopt Resolution No. 98-046 recommending approval of PA97-O237 (General Plan, Zoning Map, and Devdopment Code Amendments) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, amended as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING APPUCATION PA97-0237) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION VVITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-0t8, 0t9, 020, AND 032, AND ADDING SECTIONS t7.22.'100 THROUGH '17.22.'108 TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237) Add ~e following condiUonal permittad uses: page 17, Animal hospital page 19, Carpet and rug cleaning page 21, Health and exercise dubs (less than 5,000 square feet) The motion was seoonded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:24 P.M. a shod recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 7:31 P.M. 6. Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Change of Zone) and PA98-03978 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) Request to subdivide 7.3t acres into 78 single family detached dwellings and two open space/park lots within a planned development oreday disbicL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by ~e Planning Department that ~e Planning Commission approve the request. Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda Item, and therefore left the meeting at 7:31 P.M. By way of color renderings, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff rapod (per agenda material), highlighting site design, access, traffic, landscaping and architecture; commended the architect for his wod~ on the project; advised that a condition, with regard to the Change of Zone (as noted in the memorandum, dated December 2, 1998, per supplemental agenda material) be added, ant that Condition No. 39, regarding submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau, be deleted. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, relayed his concunenee with staff's recommendation, regarding the mod ifcatlon to the conditions; thanked staff for their work and efforts; for Commissioner Naggar, noted that the front fenring (constructed of wood and three or four feet in height) refieded in the renderings is an architecturel feature; dadred that the proposed access will provide for adequate stacking; and, for ChainNoman Slaven, noted that the enby will be gated, fadlitating inaccessibility ~q3m the streeL Mr. Eric C. Curson, 29976 Via Puesta Del Sol, expressed consera with regard to the potential traffK:, which could be generated by the project. Mr. Leon Lies, 29959 Via Puesta Del Sol, voiced his concems, as follows: safety, traffic, access with only one point of entrance; with regard to constrdction, relayed concern with regard to traf~, noise, and open trenches; voiced disapproval of the three existing power poles that are currently aboveground. Mr. Lies commended the reduction of units in the proposed project. Mr. Markham noted, for Mr. Lies, that the power poles will be installed underground. Commissioner Naggar commended the amhitect for his work on the project, the reduction of units in the proposed plan, and the dear and concise staff report facilitating a dear appraisal of the elevations. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted, for Commissioner Guerriero, that this projed will provide the raised median on Margadta Road, fadlitatieg safer lmffic flow, noting that the provision for a designated U-turn will most likely be installed at a signalized intersection; and noted that although Avonida Barca may be utilized for the movement, Mr. Guerdero's concern with regard to the heavily impacted signalized intersection would be relayed. Mr. Richard Kimball, reprasentjng the applicant, noted, for Commissioner Guerriero, that the stucco will maintain a semi- smooth finish with added color, noting that he woutd submit samples of the stucco, with texture, presenting each house color for the Commission's appraisal. Ms. Andera advised that staff would ensure that the actual stucco would be consistent with the color renderings. Chairwoman Slaven dosed the public headeg at this time. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks darif'~:i, for Chairwoman Slaven, that this project facilitates a reduction in the traffic count with provision of mad improvements on Margarita Road, as follows: a 110' foot right-of-way, two lanes, and a parking lane. Chairwoman Slaven, echoed by Commissioner Naggar, relayed her concom with regard to cut-through traffic in the adjacent neighborhoods without the designation of a U-rum movement at one of the left-turn pockets. Chairwoman Slaven reopened the public headng. By way of overheads, Mr. Markham presented the access and oimulation on the proposed site, specifying the left-tum pocket at Avonida Del Sol, and the turn pocket at Avonida Sonoma, advising that the raised median will extend to Moraga Road; dadr~.d that the tum movement into the project was directed by staff, noting that they would cooperate with staff's recommendation regarding access. Chairwoman Slaven suggested continuing the pmjed to the next Planning Commission Meeting in order for the Commission to get darifr,,ation from staff on the designation of the U-turn movement. With regard to traffic and cimulatjon, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted, for Ms. Slaven, that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and a registered Traffic Engineer will review and address turning motions and the location of signals when warranted, advising that it is in the City's best interest to maintain utilizing the expertise of the aforementioned Commission and TrafF¢ Engineer to apprise the droutation issues. Chairwoman Slaven reiterated her concern with regard to the potential traffic problems generated by the project advising that she would not suppod the project without the provision of additional specific traffc information singe the access of this project would create the need for the U-turn movement. Planning Manager Ubnoske darled that the turning movement designation is a separate issue, advising that it would not affect change in the design of this project. Mr. Markham, and Mr. Parks allayed Chairwoman Siaven's congem with regard to the U-tum designation by clarifying that a U-turn may be made at all left-turn pockets unless otherwise prohibited. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Deputy Director of Publio Works Parks noted that the signals would be intemonnected. Commissioner Nnggar recommended the addition of signalized intersections, viewing Margarita Road as a potentially major thoroughfare. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to dose the public hearing; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) and PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendrnent) and PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); and adopt Resolution No. 98-047 recommending to the C~ Council approval of Planning Application No. PA98- 0397 (Zoning Amendment) and PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, public testimony received at the public headng, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVES PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA98-0398 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28810) FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 7.3i ACRES INTO 78 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (INCLUDING PRODUCT REVIEW) AND TWO OPEN SPACePARK LOTS VVITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCARNG ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 7. 31 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,400 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO. 921-370-004. Modify that the following condition be added, as follows: Tentative Map 28810 (PA No. 98-03398) is subject to the approval and enforceable adoption of the Change of Zone (PA No. 98-0397). In the event that the Change of Zone (PA No. 98-0397) does not occur, the approval of Tentative Map 28810 will terminate without further adion and will have no force and effect. that Condition No. 39, regarding submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau, be deleted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the excel~tion of Commission Webster who abstained. 7. Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract MaD 28510) Request to subdivide 71.1 acres into 242 residenUal lots, t commercial lot and 1 park IoL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by ~e Ranning Deparlment ~at ~e Ranning Commission conUnue the request off calendar. Since it was noted that staff recommended continuing the matter off calendar, Mr. John Koran, 40645 La Colima Road, a public member who had requested to speak, noted that he was agreeable to coming back to the Planning Commission Meeting at a future point in time when the issue would be addressed. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to continue the matter off caJendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff is working on clarification of the language for the cdteda for a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) increase. noting that the issue will be brought before the Planning Commission. B. Ms. Ubnoske informed the Commission that the landscape information sheet is being prepared and will be brought to the Commission in FebmaW. C. It was noted that staff is in the process of creating flow charts that demonstrate the process on projects after approval, with regard to grading permits, building permits, and Cedifr~ate of Occupancy. D. Since Mr. Bob Davis wil present the Cimulation Element at the January 20, 1999, Planning Commission Meeting, Ms. Ubnoske advised that the Commissionere put their conGems in writing in order to present Mr. Davis with the information prior to the meeting. Senior Planner Fagan noted that the comprehensive packet will be provided to the Commission two weeks before the Janua~J 20, 1999, Planning Commission Meeting; and advised it might be helpful for Mr. Davis to give a brief oven/lew of the Circulation Element at the December 16, 1998, Planning Commission Meeting. Regarding the meeting addressing traffic, Attorney Curby noted, for Chairwoman Slaven, that the public comment podion of the meeting could take place at the end of the headng in order to to allow Commission Business to take place first. E. With regard to Dr. John Husing's report, it was noted that if the Commission had questions, Assistant City Manager O'Gredy could address those issues at a Planning Commission Meeting. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. With regard to the Californian newspaper, Commissioner Guerdero expressed dissatisfaction, echoed by Commissioners Naggar and Slaven, with the editorialized unfounded comments describing the Commission as ' a bunch of robber-stamping dones of the City Council.' He invited the editor to attend the meetings in order to obtain accurate information. B. Deputy Diredor of Public Wonks Parks assured Mr. Guerdem that the entrance to Claim Jumper from Rancho California Road with no signs restriding U-tums would be investigated. C. For Mr. Guerriero, Senior Planner Hogan advised that once the Cimulation Study has been completed it will warrant amending the General Plan with regard to noise and air quality;, and noted that the Housing Element wiJi be addressed in 1999. D. For Chairwoman Slaven, Mr. Hogan dadfled the Sign Ordinance process. E. Commissioner Naggar noted that Fire Marshall Windsor advised that the City has scheduled two Househoid Waste Disposal Events in Apdl and Odoper, recommending that staff promote community awareness of the events. F. Mr. Hogan advised that the City uses existing guidelines to regulate antennae height. ADJOURNMENT At 9:16 P.M. Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, December 16, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager January 6, 1999 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for October, 1998. Date Cm~e No. October 1, 1998 PA98-0088 October 1, 1998 PA98-0322 October 1, 1998 PA98-0351 October 8, 1998 October 15, 1998 PA98-0359 PA98-0351 Oeotber 22, 1998 PA98-0351 October 29, 1998 PA98-0358 Proposal To divide 3.59 acres into two parcels on property zoned LI Light Industrial Chief Auto Parts Store 6,000 Square Feet To install a wireless PCS facility consisting of four antennas to be mounted onto an existing 80 foot high monopole located at the Paloma Del Sol Park To operate a car rental facility with limited accessory use To install a wireless PCS facility consisting of four antennas to be mounted onto an existing 80 foot high monopele located at the Paloma Del Sol Park To install a wireless PCS facility cousisfmg of four antennas to be mounted onto an existing 80 foot high monopole located at the Paloma Del Sol Park Two subdivide a 2.51 acre site into two residential lots on the east side of Ormsby Road, south of Estero Street, north of Santiago Applicam Four-Sher Development Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC Cox Communications PCS, LP Hertz Local Edition Cox Communications PCS, LP Cox Communications PCS, LP Dems Marchand ~\TEMEC_FS20BDATA\DEPTS\PLANN/NGXDIRHEARXMEMO\I998\I2.30-98.rrgm.do~ Approved Continued to October 15, 1998 Approved Continued to October 22, 1998 Approved Approvod Planning Director's Agenda items for November, 1998. Date Came No. mm November 12, 1998 PA98-0219 November 19, 1998 November 19, 1998 PA97--0370 and PA98- 0408 PA98-0442 November 23, 1998 PA98-0425 Proposal To construct a wireless PCS facility consisting of a 12 panel antenna mounted atop a 65 foot tall monopole constructed to simulate a pine tree located at the Rancho California Wa~r District water tank To construct and operate a commercial fueling station and a three lot tentative parcel map for a parcel CODtainin~e a 5.13 gross acres To construct 68 single family residential lots with 3 different floorplans within TM 28553- l&2 known as the 'The Promenade ' To construct ll2 single family residentiaJ lots with 3 different floor plans with TM23371-9, 10 and 11 known as 'Northwind~ m Temeku Hills ARMwant At'lion Cox Communications Continued to PCS, LP Planning Commission M&D Downs Oil/Pettit Continued to Inc. December 3, 1998 Pacific Century Homes Approved Temeku Hills Development Partners, LP Approved Planning Director Items for December, 1998 Dale Clulo No, December 3, 1998 ~A97--0370 and PA98- 0408 Pnqx~sal To construct and operate a commercial fueling station and a three lot tentative parcel map for a parcel containing a 5.13 Applicaut Actinti M&D Downs Oil/Pettit Approved' ' Inc, I Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 3 \%TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTSXPLANNING\DIRHEAR~V/EMO\I998\I2-30-98.mcm.d~c 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS \\TEMEC_FS201~3ATA\DEPrS\PLANN/NG\DIRHEARW/EMO\I998\I2_30_98.mem.d~ ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner 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 your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Platmet before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Propose: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: planning Application No. PA98-0088 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28779) Four-Sher Development East side of Business Park Drive, north of Rancho California Road, within the Rancho California Business Park To divide 3.59 acres into two parcels on property zoned LI Light Industrial Categorical Exemption, Class 15 Minor Land Divisions Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Annie Bostre-Le, Assistant Planner Approval APPROVED Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Harming Application No. PA98-0322 (Development Plan) Canyon-Cahan Temecula LLC Northeasterly of the intersection of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) and Margarita Road, on Pad 'D' at the Winchester Meadows shopping center Chief Auto Parts Store 6,000 SF Negative Declaration and Mitigation Measures adopted for Planning ,-- C Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Application No. PA97-0305 (Development Plan) and PA-0368 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28697) apply to this project. Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Annie Bostre-Le, Assistant Engineer Approval APPROVED Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Enviromental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA.98-0351 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Cox Communications PCS, L.P. Paloma del Sol Park, 32099 De Ponola Road To install a wireless PCS facility consisting of four antennas to be mounted onto an existing 80 foot high ball field light standard, eight antennas to be mounted onto an 80 foot high monopole similar in appearance to the existing ballfield light standards, six ground- mounted BTS equipment cabinets and one GPS antenna mounted onto the primary power cabinet. Categorical Exemption, Class lb, Section 15301 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 15, 1998 ADJOURNMENT ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the SeniorPlanner 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 your 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. PUBLIC HEARING I. Case No: Applicant: Location: Enviroamental Action: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0359 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Hertz Local Edition, Larry Barbata 3202 N. Harbor Dr., San Diego, CA 92101 27452 Jefferson Ave., Sic. B4 Categorical Exemption To operate a car rental facility with limited accessory use. Thomas Thomsley Approval APPROVED ADJOURNMENT ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S FlEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Serdor Planner 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 your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be flied with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0351 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Cox Communications PCS, L.P. Paloma del Sol Park, 32099 De Portola Road To install a wireless PCS facility consisting of four antennas to be mounted onto an existing 80 foot high ball field light standard, eight antennas to be mounted onto an 80 foot high monopole similar in appearance to the existing ballfield light standards, six ground- mounted BTS equipment cabinets and one GPS antenna mounted onto the prh~ary power cabinet. Categorical Exemption, Class Ib, Section 15301 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 22, 1998 ADJOURNMENT ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner 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 your 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. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0351 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Cox Communications PCS, L.P. Paloma del Sol Park, 32099 De Portola Road To install a wireless PCS facility consisting of four antennas to be mounted onto an existing 80 foot high ballfield light standard, eight antearias to be mounted onto an 80 foot high monopole similar in appearance to the existing ballfield light standards, six ground- mounted BTS equipment cabinets and one GPS antenna mounted onto the primary power cabinet. Categorical Exemption, Class lb, Section 15301 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval ACTION: APPROVED ADJOURNMENT ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 29, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the pubhc can address to the Senior Planner 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 no._it 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 your 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0358 (Tentative Parcel Map 28962) Dennis Marchand, Pacific Capital Investment On the east side of Ormsby Road, south of Estero Street, north of Santiago Road. Two subdivide a 2.51 acre site into two residential lots. Categorical Exemption per CEQA Guidelines Section 153 15 Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Approval ACTION: APPROVED ADJOURNMENT C' ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner 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 no__!t 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 fortyard and state your 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Envimamental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Cox Communications PCS, L.P. At the Rancho California Water District water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road, on the north side of Rancho Califomia Road, between Butterfield Stage Road and Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way To construct a wireless PCS facility consisting of a twelve (12) panel antenna mounted atop a 65-foot tall monopole constructed to simulate a pine tree Cmonopine"), one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver station (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipment. Categorical Exemption, Class lb, Section 15301 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP John Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer Approval Continued to Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT C AL"IiON AGENDA TE/VIECULA DIRECTOR'S I~ARING REGULAR M~ETING NOVEMliER 19, 1998 4:00 PM TE1VIECULA CITY HALL MA]/~ CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner 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 your 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA97-0370 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) and No. 98-0408 (Tentative Parcel Map) M&D Downs Oil / Pettit, Inc. The north west comer of Rancho Way and Diaz Road, also known as APN: 921-040-004. To construct and operate a commercial fueling station and a three (3) lot tentative parcel map for a parcel containing 5.13 gross acres. Mitigated Negative Declaration Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Annie Bostre-Le, Associate Engineer Approval CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 3, 1998 Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: EnvironmentalAction: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. P A98-0442 (Product Review) Pacific Century Homes On the east side of Margarita Road and north of Solana Way To construct 68 single family residential lots with three (3) different floorplans within Tract Map No. 28553-1&2, and known as "The Promenade" Categorical Exemption, Class 5 Stephen Brown, AICP/Patty Anders Approval APPROVED ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner 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 your 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. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA98-0425 (product Review) Temeku Hills Development Partners, LP On the south side ofLa Serena Way, on both the east and west sides of Temeku Drive To construct 112 single family residential lots with three (3) different floorplans with Tract Map Nos. 23371-9, 23371-10, and 23371-11, and known as the "Northwind" subdivision within Temeku Hills Categorical Exemption, Class 5 - Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitations Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Approval APPROVED ADJOURNMENT ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S ~i s~ARING REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 3, 1998 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY ItALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner 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 no__t 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 your 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. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA97-0370 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) and No. 98-0408 (Tentative Parcel Map) M&D Downs Oil / Pettit, Inc. The north west comer of Rancho Way and Diaz Road, also known as APN: 921-040-004. To consWuct and operate a commercial fueling station and a three (3) lot tentative parcel map for a parcel containing 5.13 gross acres. Mitigated Negative Declaration Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Annie Boslre-Le, Associate Engineer Approval APPROVED ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1999 Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219; ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Cox Communications PCS, L.P. REPRESENTATIVE: TDI, Inc., Adan Maddd and John Murphy PROPOSAL: To construct a wireless Personal Communications System (PCS) facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a Base Transceiver Station (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree Croonopine"). LOCATION: North of Rancho Califomia Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road, east of Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way on Rancho California Water Distdct property. CASE STATUS: This project was presented to the Planning Commission on Decamber 16, 1998, at which time the Commission heard testimony from the applicant's representatives including Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg. The Commission also received testimony and a petition in opposition from adjacent homeowners on Merlot Crest. The Commission continued the case to January 6, 1999 and asked the applicant's representatives to consider alternative sites and to provide copies of the selection reports that determined the proposed site. The Commission also asked the City Attorney to provide information on case law involving cellular facilities and the regulations that specify or limit the Commission's action. R:~STAFFRPT~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc ANALYSIS: Site Selection Subsequent to the headng, staff met with the applicant's representative to discuss alternative sites in the area. All suggestions were outside the dng of service for Cox. The applicant agreed to explain with exhibits the selection process to the Commission at the hearing of January 6, 1999. Case Law The City Attomey's office provided several documents for distribution to the Commission and they are included under Attachment 2. CorresDondence Staff received a copy of correspondence to Larry Ledoux from the Rancho California Water District's General Manager dated December 21, 1998. This correspondence is included under Attachment 3. Amendments to the Conditions of ADleroval During the headng of December 16, 1998, the Commission considered the following items as possible additions to the Conditions of Approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Manager a revised elevation of the proposed monopine that shows additional limbs disbursed throughout the height of the pole starting at 20 feet from the base, and which taper as the limbs approach the highest point. 2. The applicant shall periodically refurbish or paint as necessary to maintain the color and texture of the monopine as originally approved by the Commission. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS: Staff centinues to recommend approval of this project based upon the findings previously noted in the Staff Report to the Commission dated December 16, 1998. R:XSTAFFRPT~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 2 ATTACHMENTS: PC Resolution 99- - Blue Page 4 Exhibit A Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Documents from the City Attomey's Office - Blue Page 12 A. Opinion Adopting General Order 159-A Rules Relating to the Construction of Cellular Radiotelephone Facilities in Califomia B. Overview, Police Power (Excerpt from Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law) C. Municipal Police Power and Ordinances excerpts: Pages 41, 43-45, 53-57. D. Document entitled "47 USCS @ 332 (1998)" E. Govemmental and Community Uses, ~Cellular Towers and Other Telecommunicetions Facilities," Pages 129-130 Correspondence from Rancho California Water District to Larry Ledoux dated December 21, 1998 - Blue Page 13 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1998 - Blue Page 14 R:~TAFFRPTx219pag8 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- R:XSTAFFRPT'x219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0219, (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PCS FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ATOP A 60~FOOT MONOPOLE, A GPS ANTENNA AND SIX CABINETS HOUSING A BTS UNIT AND OTHER ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT, LOCATED AT THE RCWD WATER TANK SITE, 3100 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 953-060-022 WHEREAS, Cox Communications PCS, L.P. filed Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) which is in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) on December 16, 1998, and January 6, 1999 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 opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headngs and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit); 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. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit), hereby makes the following findings as required in Chapter 17.04: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non- residential land use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site provide such an area. 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. The project is compatible with R:~STAFFRPT~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 5 the existing public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences. C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, 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. The applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree and has provided three additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "monopine." D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detdmental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study concluded that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local govemment regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. The City Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards. Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included. E. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project qualifies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class 1 (b), because it is a minor alteration of an existing facility, involving negligible expansion of use beyond that previously existing, in order to provide telecommunications service. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) for the construction and operation of a wireless Personal Communications System (PCS) facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a Base Transceiver Station (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("monopine"). R:XSTAFFRPTX219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1999. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of January. 1999 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~STAFFRPTx219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT~219pagg PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Revised Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned telecommunications PCS facility, at the Rancho California Water District tank site, 3100 Rancho California Road, consisting of: Three (3) four-antenna arrays mounted onto a new 60-foot high monopole disguised to look like an evergreen tree ("monotree") A ground-mounted Base Transceiver Station (BTS) within equipment cabinets behind a six-foot high chain link fence with barbed wires above and with vinyl slat inserts (color to match existing water tanks) 3. An 18-inch high GPS antenna mounted to the BTS power cabinet. Assessor's Parcel No. Approval Date: Expiration Date: 953-060-022 January6,1999 January 6,2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78,00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and Califomia Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod 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 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, judgemerits, 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. City shall promptly notify the 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 R:XSTAFFRPT~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 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. 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 Planning 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 the approval. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" Site Plan, Exhibit "B" Elevations, Exhibit "C" Equipment Layout, and Exhibit "D" Details approved with Planning Application No. PA98-0219, or as amended by these conditions. Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit: The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Manager a revised elevation of the proposed monopine that shows additional limbs disbursed throughout the height of the pole, starting at 20 feet from the base, and which taper as the limbs approach the highest point. The applicant shall submit for review and approval Construction Landscape and Irrigation Plans. 9, Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees shall be installed at a minimum of 36" boxed size. 10. All electrical wiring associated with the antenna shall be buried underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. 11. The antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate grounding method approve by the City of Temecula Building Official. 12. Installation must meet wind velocity criteria as set forth in the Uniform Building Code when deemed necessary by the City of Temecuia Building official. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 13. The applicant shall replace any landscaping removed or damaged dudng the installation of equipment. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Manager a copy of the annual receaification document issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that ensures compliance of the project with its standards and regulations. 15. The applicant shall periodically refurbish or paint as necessary to maintain the color and texture of the monopine as originally approved by the Commission. R:\STAFFRPTX219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY 16. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 17. Submit at time of plan review complete extedor site lighting plans for any new fixtures in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 18. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 19. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be U. 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 submitted for plan review. 22. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule for plan review. OTHER AGENCIES 23. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Rancho California Water District, as noted in their correspondence dated June 9, 1998 attached. 24. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, as noted in their correspondence dated June 19, 1998 attached. 25. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, as noted in their correspondence dated June 2, 1998 attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformanca 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. Applicanrs Signature Date R:~STAFFRP'l~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc ATTACHMENTNO. 2 DOCUMENTS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OPINION ADOPTING GENERAL ORDER 159-A RULES RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF CELLULAR RADIOTELEPHONE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA OVERVIEW, POLICE POWER (EXCERPT FROM CURTIN'S CALIFORNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW) MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES EXCERPTS: PAGES 41, 43-45, 53-57. DOCUMENT ENTITLED "47 USCS (~ 332 (1998)" GOVERNMENTAL AND COMMUNITY USES, "CELLULAR TOWERS AND OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES," PAGES 129-130 R:~STAFFRP'B219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doe ALJ/BDP/sid Attachment A .qqdled .... 14 Decision 96-05-035 May 8, 1996 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's own motion to develop revisions to General Orders and Rules applicable to siting and environmental review of cellular mobile radiotelephone utility facilities. R.90-01-012 (Filed January 9, 1990) OPINION ADOPTING ~,~a=aca32 ORDER 159-A RUr.~--~ p~x~TING TO fg~ CONSTRUCTION OF ,:-K,.T.ULAR RADIOrKh~.PHONE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA Summary In this decision, the Commission issues General Order (GO) 159-A, which revises the rules relating to the construction of cellular radiotelephone facilities in California. GO 159-A streamlines the procedure to be utilized by the cellular carriers to notify the Commission of new facilities or significant modifications to existing facilities. Specifically, GO 159-A replaces the current advice letter notification process with a notification letter. Cellular carriers will provide copies of such notification to local government authorities. Commission authorization prior to construction would no longer be required. The ~evisions do not change any local land use or building permit procedures. In GO 159-A, the Commission continues to delegate its authority to regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local agencies,.except,in thoseinstances when there is a clear conflict with statewide interests. Inthose instances, the Commission wil!rey,i,.ew=~he.,ne~d,to preempt.local jurisdiction, allowing local agencies and citizens an opportunity to present their positions.""The~11ul~ utili~:~11~:have-the burden'of'~ proof to demonstrate that accommodating local. agency requirements - i R. 90-01-012: A.53'/~,BDR/std ";':': ' for any specific site would frustrate the Commission's objectives. If the cellular utility is able to prove this point, the Co~nission will preempt local_ Jur~sdiction' ~n~'T'%te'-:authority. under Article XII, Section 8'.~f the~Califo_~rn~_~oz~_.titUtion- Backcrround The issue before the Commission is the advice letter notification procedure that has been in effect for the last five years pursuant to GO 159. Under this procedure, cellular carriers are required to file advice letters for each cell site, and Commission approval of each such filing is required to complete the siting process. Also, the advice letter procedure did result in increased involvement by the Commission in the interpretation and enforcement of local land use planning regulation and building permit issuance (see Decision (D.) 94-11-018 and D.94-11-019). There is general agreement that the advice letter procedure is too cumbersome and needs t0 be changed. To address these concerns, five workshops were held, duly noticed settlement conferences were held pursuant to Rule 51.1(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and a proposed settlement was executed by the Settlement Parties.1 The proposed i The Cellular Carriers Association of California (CCAC); AirTouch Cellular and its Affiliates Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership, Sacramento-Valley Limited Partnership and Modoc RSA Limited Partnership; The following companies doing business as AT&TWireless Services; Alpine CA-3 L.P., Chico MSA Cellular, Inc., Fresno Cellular Telephone Co., Oxnard Cellular Telephone Co., Redding Cellular Partnership, Sacramento Cellular Telephone Co., Santa Barbara Cellular Systems, Ltd., and McCaw Communications of Stockton, Inc.; Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company and its affiliates Napa Cellular Telephone Company, Cagal Cellular Communications Corporation and Salinas Cellular Telephone Company; Cal-One Cellular COmpany; GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership and its Affiliates GTEC Mobilnet of Santa Barbara Limited Partnership, GTE Mobilnet of San Diego, Inc., Contel of (Footnote continues on next page) - 2 settlement, which comprises a revisedGO 159, herein referred to as the Settlement GO, was filed with the Commission on November 1, 1995, as a "joint Motion of the Cellular Carriers Association of California and Participating Carriersto A~prgve and Adopt Settlement of Issues Raised in R.90-01-012." The Settlement GO was amended on Januar~ 3, 1996 to address th~ concerns of the California League of Cities and other local governmental interests. Comments and/or reply comments on the proposed GO 159-A were submitted by: AirTouch Communications, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Bakersfield Cellular Telephone Company, (Bakersfield), Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company and its affiliates (BACTC), - Cellular Carriers Association of California and Participating Carriers (CCAC), - Cities of Arroyo Grande, Claremont, National City, Salinas and Vista, respectively, - Counties of E1 Dorado, Fresno and Madera, respectively, - GTE Mobilenet and Associates, (Footnote continued from previous page) California, Inc., Fresno MSA Limited Partnership, and RSA #4 Limited Partnership; Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company; Mountain Cellular United States Cellular Corporation; and the Safety and Enforcement Division of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. - 3 - R::90-01-012 - League of California Cities and California State AssociatiOn of Counties, Los Angeles_Cellular Telephone Company, pacifiClBell- Mobile..Services (PBMS), Parents for the Elimination of the Schoolyard Tower (PEST), and Utility Consumers ActionSNetwork {UCAN). Proposed Revisions The revisions proposed by the Settlement Parties are set forth in GO 159-A, attached as Appendix A to this decision. GO 159-A changes the manner in which the Commission is notified of new cellular facilities or significant modifications to existing facilities. Under the new rules, prior to commencing construction, cellular carriers must send the Commission's Safety' and Enforcement Division a notification letter within 15 business days of receipt of all requisite land use approvals or a determination that no land use approval is required (see sample letter GO 159-A, p. 8). Carriers will provide a description of the facility and identify the permit obtained or state that no land use' permit is required. In addition to this notification, the carriers will update the listing of their facilities in their tariffs once a quarter. This notification letter will replace the current process which requires advice letter filings for each facility to be sent to all telecommunications utilities on the cellular carrier's tariff service list. In addition, the notification letter will no longer require the filing with the Commission staff of copies of applications and permits obtained from local authorities. Such documents will continue to be retainedby the carriers and will be available to the Commission upon request. Copies of the notification letter will be provided to the city planning director, the city clerk, and the city manager of the affected city, or where - 4 R. 90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/Sid no city is involved, a copy of the notification letter will be provided to the county planning director, the.clerk of the board of supervisors, and the county executive of the affected county. GO'159-~"*e6~[~Be-'-~-T~eco~3~e~th~.t~imary authority- regarding cell siting ~s~es-should~ontlnO8:tO*k~*def~r~ed to local authorities. Local authorities would continue to issue permits, oversee-California. Environment&= Chaality Act (CEQA) compliance, and adopt and.-~mplement-~nO~iCingand~public. comment requirements, if any. The Commission's role continues to be that of the agency of last resort, intervening only when a utility contends that.local actions impede statewide goals, or local agencies contend that a utility's actions are frustrating local interests. Discussion We discuss below the comments received on the proposed GO 159-A. Local Agencies are Ill-Equipped to Regulate Cellular Sites Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN) contends that the proposed GO 159-A unacceptably shifts the burden of regulating the construction of cellular sites and Mobile Telephone Switching Offices (MTSOs) from the Commission onto a multitude of small local governments that are ill~equipped to effectively regulate cellular utilities or to investigate the adverse effects of new technologies, such as Global Systems for Mobile Communications (GSM), that cellular utilities are beginning to implement. In response to UCAN's argument, the carriers (BACTC)2 point out that the workshop participants included representatives 2 In this discussion, for clarity, individual cellular carriers are referred to as "the carriers" where their individual comments represent the general position of all cellular carriers. '= E.90-Ol-O12 of various local government agencies. The carriers contend =hat contrary to UCAN's assertions, local-government agencies have not.. evidenced any concern that they are ill-prepared to handle cell site matters as claimed b~UCAN. Local gove.rnment agency representatives expressed the view that it is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction to look after the interests of their community, they should be the ones to determine whether or not they want to have the cellular facility in~their area, and ~he local government agencies have their own enforcement procedures and do not want more state oversight. The carriers submit that there was consensus among the workshop participants that the local agency should continue to have the primary role to regulate the siting of cellular facilities. Also, the carriers (Bakersfield) argue that under present law, local land use questions are resolved by local authorities, which are best placed to review the local impacts of a particular proposal. The carriers point out that one of the major advantages of the settlement as set forth in the Joint Motion andGO 159-A is that the continuing role of localI agencies is reaffirmed without depriving the Commission or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) of the right to act if necessary. The carriers submit that this has always been the express policy of GO 159 (see GO 159, p. 3). Accordingly, the carriers contend that any implication by UCAN that the revisions in GO 159-A would somehow change existing policy in this regard is mistaken. We agree with the carriers that under GO 159-A, there is no change in Commission policy. GO 159-A affirms that the 'Commission will continue to defer t~..local governments in its exercise of its authority to regulate the location and design of cell sites and MTSOs including (a) the issuance of land use approvals; (b) acting as Lead Agency for purpose of satisfying CEQA~and (c)..=~he satiSfaction'of.noticing prOcedures. for both land use approvals and CEQ~._.~o~edures. However, because statewide - 6 o R. 90 - 01- 012 AIal/BDP/std .. :%:;!, ..L.:~. ~. ~ telecommunicattons interests in some infrequent cases may be in conflict with local interests, the Commission continues to reserv~ jurisdiction to preempt those matters which are inconsistent with the overall statewide communications objectives. The Commission continues to have an interest in assuring that individual local government decisions do not impact uniform state interests, or create unconscionable standards. Further, we note that the proposed GO 159-A was served on all California Cities and Counties and comments were invited.3 No city or county filed comments stating that local agencies are ill equipped to handle siting matters and there were no requests for the Commission to take back from local agencies the primary authority regarding siting of cellular facilities that' was delegated under GO 159.4 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by UCAN'S argument that GO 159-A represents a change.in Commission regulatory policy, or that the Commission should exercise oversight over individual cell site applications currently being handled by local agencies. Local Governments Should Not end Have Not Demonstrated the Ability or Interest in Investigating Adverse Health end Safety Impacts of Wireless Sites UCAN states that currently, there is substantial dispute about the health and safety implications of new wireless 3 Pursuant to an Administrative Law Judge's rnling dated January 18, 1996, the proposed GO 159-A was served on the city clerks, city attorneys, and planning department of 470 cities, county clerks and county counsel of 58 counties. and 4 GO 159, issued pursuant to D.90-03-080 dated March 28, 1990, states: "Accordingly, the Commission delegates its authority to regulate the location and design of cellular facilities to local agencies, except in those instances when there is a clear conflict with statewide interests .... " (P. 3.) - 7 - technologies. In addition to .the national research being conducted on Electromagnetic Field (EMF). effects of cellular transmission, -' there is increased scrutiny of GSM technology for Personal Communications Services (PCS) facilities. Acgording to UCAN, problems associated with GSM are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly to users of hearing aids, and pacemakers. Also, UCAN argues that local governments do not have the expertise to determine whether GSM technology should be. used in this country. UCAN notes that GO 159-A mandates that local governments shall issue land use approvals and act as the Lead Agency to satisfy CEQA. UCAN believes that as a result, numerous local governments may allow GSM, creating significant inconvenience, and even hazards, for unsuspecting ratepayers. UCAN urges the Commission to retain its regulatory control over the construction of cellular sites and MTSOS to prevent these adverse consequences. Pacific Bell Mobile Services5 (PBMS) states that it intends to use GSM technology in deployment of PCS. PBMS acknowledges that all digital technologies, whether Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), GSM, or others, can potentially interfere with certain brands of hearing aids. However, PBMS states that other PCS providers throughout the United States are addressing this matter and are currently working with the hearing-impaired community, hearing aid manufacturers; as well as other organizations and the FCC. PBMS contends that the main issue is primarily with the handsets and not the siting of facilities. PBMS notes that use of handsets is subject to FCC regulation and must be treated as a separate issue from the location of network facilities 5 Pacific Bell Mobile Services is not a member'of the Cellular Carriers ASsociation of California. - 8 which is the instant focus of the settlement agreement and proposed GO 159-A submitted to'the Commission pursuant to the Joint Motion: Further, the carriers (CCAC) argue that the fact that local governments might lack the resources or. the will to fully investigate these matters iS not a=valid criticism of the Joint Motion. The carriers submit that nowhere does the proposed GO 159-A suggest that the Commission give up its traditional authority to regulate health and safety matters concerning cellular towers. Nor has the Commission ever suggested that it would cede its duty over health and safety matters to a local agency. The carriers point out that, indeed, recently the Commission demonstrated its continued oversight of such matters in D.95-11-017, its investigation to develop policies and procedures for addressing the potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility facilities. That decision addressed the cellular phase of its EMF Investigation (I.) 91-01-012 and considered the Commission's role in mitigating health effects, if any, of radio frequency radiation generated by cellular utilities. The carriers believe that the decision demonstrates that the Commission faithfully continues to carry out its duty to consider the impact of utilities' services on human health and safety. we agree with the carriers that the immediate focus of this proceeding is the current advice letter procedure for notification of the Commission of the construction of new cellular' facilities: Also, this is not the proceeding to determine the health effects of cellular technology, or whether GSM should be used in this country. Accordingly, UCAN'S request that the Commission take back regulatory control over construction of individual sites and hold hearings in this proceeding on the health and safety implications of new wireless technologies, is denied. - 9 - R.90-01-012 N-,',y of ~he Terme in the Proposed GO 159-A are/~mhi~uous UCAN argues tha~:.. particular words in the proposed GO 159-A are ambiguous. ~::~u- =. ""- First. UCAN contends that each local government would propound its own definition of .unnecessary delay."6 UCAN urges the Commission to adopt a clear definition of unnecessary delay. We do not share UCAN's concern. We should point out that in GO 159 the words "unnecessarily delayed" are used in a similar context7 and, thus far have caused no problems to the Commission or local agencies. Furthermore, as a practical matter it is not reasonable, aside from the fact that local agencies may conclude that the Commission wishes to ride roughshod over them, to set one definite time limit to cover all contested cell site projects because all projects do not have the same ,complexities. 6 GO 159-A states: "A. Goals The Commission's goals with regard to the construction of cell sites and MTSOs are to ensure that: *** - cellular service providers are not unnecessarily delayed by site reviewby the CPUC; and ..." (Section II.A, p. 3, emphasis added.) 7 In GO 159, the Commission states: The Commission is adopting this General Order to ensure that: - cellular companies are not unnecessarily delayed by site review." (GO 159, Section II, p. 3, emphasis added.) - 10 R.90-01-012 UCAN argues that the definition of "location" is so vague that a utility, when filing its guarterly report, conceivably could comply with this requirement simply by identifying its cell sites bythe county in which the site is located. We do not share UCAN's concern. For new sites and modifications, the carriers are required in the notification letter to provide the Commission with the lot address and the .assessor's parcel number. WE believe that when the carriers file quarterly reports,8 common sense will prevail. However, just in case there is any doubt, carriers should provide sufficient information for each site to be cross-checked with the notification letter. Third, UCAN takes exception. to GO 159-A, Section II(D}i2) which exempts a carrier from serving a notification letter when the carrier has to meet the demands of "emergency circumstances." Since GO 159-A does not define "emergency," UCAN argues that the utilities can define emergency as they see fit, finish the construction, and then provide the government with a fair accomDli. The carriers state that the language contained in GO 159-A was placed with the intent of making the provision of emergency repairs more flexible. The carriers argue that there is no reason to adopt a rule that would bureaucratically gut the effectiveness of cellular communications in such emergency situations. The carriers submit that even if a utility were to build facilities under emergency circumstances, the utility must 8 GO 159-A states: "Section V - QUAR-r~MLYUPDATES Cellular service providers subject to this General Order must file a tariff list of the locations of all cell sites or MTSOs on a quarterly basis commencing January 30 of each year, with the Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division." (P. 7.) - 11 - aLa*/ D /std justify the presence of that facility in subsequent filings where it must obtain all necessary permits and file an advice letter, remove the facility. Thus, carriers callnot, as UCAN suggests, build a cellular telecommunicatigns systemby.defining emergency "as they see fit," and then avoid the consequences of such actions. Again, we do not share UCAN's concerns. GO 159-A states: "In all cases of emergency construction,.the cellular service prorider shall, as soon as practicable, provide'the Commission's Safety ~ Enforcement Division with a notification letter outlining the construction it performed and how such construction was necessitated by the emergency condition." (P. 6, emphasis added.) We believe that the above requirement balances the need for carriers to act promptly in emergency situations with the need for governmental entities to regulate the siting of permanent facilities. The Settlement Agreement Should be Modified to Require PreemptiveAuthority to be Exercised on an R~Dedited Basis Pacific Bell Mobile Service (PBMS) submits that upon application by the cellular service provider for preemptlye authority, the Commissioh should give preference to the matter. If the application is protested, local government should be allowed to present its position and the matter be promptly decided. PBMS argues that such treatment would be consistent with the review remedies under parallel CEQA statutes, e.g., Public Resources Code which require such reviews to be given preferential treatment over all other civil actions "to the end that all such actions be quickly heard and determined" (Section 21167.1). PBMS argues that the exercise of the Commission's preemptive authority could take a very long time and delays themselves can frustrate the Commission's goals or statewide public interests. PBMS suggests that the Commission take judicial notice of the length of time it took for resolution of such matters in the 12 R. 90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/Sid past, and the Commission should then determine what procedural mechanism couldbe put in place which would allow these matters to be handled most promptly. Alternatively, PBMS suggests that the' Commission exercise its preemptlye authority 9n an exitedited basis, perhaps by "issuing a denovo decision" on an application for preemptive authority within 30-60 days. Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company (BACTC) agrees with PBMS and urges the Commission to exercise its preempti~e authority on an expedited basis. BACTC states that the carriers have made extraordinary attempts to work with the local agencies (e.g., carriers work with the local agency to design and locate a site in a place that will be acceptable to local agencies and citizens, consider numerous alternatives and relocate sites where possible, try to address residents' concerns by meeting with neighborhood groups, meet extensively with local planners, and participate on local and county communication task forces). However, although the carriers make every attempt to work with the local agencies, there are those rare instances where the local agencies make it virtually impossible for a Carrier to construct a cellular facility, to the detriment of the carrier's ability to comply with its obligations to provide ubiquitous cellular services. BACTC, notes that, for example, in August 1991, it filed an application for preemptive authority to construct a cellular facility in the City of Mountain View. A decision was rendered nearly a year later on July 22, 1992.9 Therefore, BACTC believes' that in those rare instances where siting a cellular facility is very difficult, the Commission should continue to assist the carriers in constructing those sites. 9 See Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company v. City of Mountain View, D.92-07-074, 45 CPUC2d 141. Also, see GTE Mobilnet v. City of Los Gatos, D.90-03-080, 36 CPUC2d 133 at 137. - 13 - ALJ/BDP/s~d On the other. hand, =he carriers (CCAC) believe the Commission's record of filings for preemption demons=rates that the current preemption. application process functions sufficiently well and does not merit revision.. The carriers also have practical concerns regarding PBMS' suggestion =hat'the Commission should act on applications for preemptive authority through a de nOv~ decision within 30 to 60 days. The carriers point out that any matters that cannot be resolved between the local government and the wireless provider are likely to involve complicated, and/or highly contested issues. In such cases, the carriers believe that it is unrealistic to ex~pect the Commission to resolve fairly a disputed cell-siting matter in less than 60 days. According to the carriers, such an expedited procedure could very likely leave local governments with the impression that the Commission and wireless providers are attempting to ride roughshod over them by severely restricting the time in which to argue their case. Thus, the carriers, like local governmental agencies, believe the best course is to preserve the current procedural process which affords sufficient opportunity to consider applications for preemption in a timely but fair manner. We have not lost sight of the fact that the Commission's intent in adopting GO 159 was partly to "ensure [that] cellular companies [were] not unnecessarily delayedby site review." (D.90-03-080, 36 CPUC2d133 at 137.) To that end, the Commission granted utilities permission to appeal for preemptive authority. In that way, the Commission would be required to intervene "only in a minority of situations where irreconcilable differences or intolerable delays arise." (Id. at 134.) And the record shows 14 - R. 90-01-012 AJ....T/BDP/Sid ~ ~*~,-/~rS',,*'~:*-~' ,~-, ~ ~ that since GO 159 was introduced in 1990, carriers*have applied for preemption only in three instances.10 Based on the small number of instances involved, it appears that the present arrangement between the local agencies and the Commission is working reasonably well. Most local agencies recognize that the Commission must retain preemption authority, and we believe that local agencies understand, and take seriously, their primary role in facility siting-. Accordingly, while the Commission will endeavor to expedite hearing and decision on any future request for preemption, we are not persuaded that GO 159-A should prescribe a time limit for the Commission to issue its decision in such cases. Co~snents of Parents for the El~m~-~tion of the Schoolyard Tower (PEST) PEST opposes the settlement and urges the Commission to adopt stringent regulations in the revised general order as regards the placement of cellular facilities at and near schools. PEST states that there are specific laws mandated in the California State Education Code which govern the process by which a cellular facility may be sited on public school property. Further, PEST contends that the California Department of Education is not an enforcing agency. Consequently, individual school districts are required to use educational funds in costly legal battles with cellular companies to ensure that the State Education Code is followed when cellular facilities are erected on public school 10 City of Mountain View, City of Los Gatos .and, in 1991, PacTel Cellular, applied for, then subsequently withdrew a request for preemptive authority for construction in the Sacramento area. 15 - 1~.90-01-012 property.11 PEST's concern is that the revised general order does not ensure that parents receive notice of potential cell sites school property in order to address health Concerns associated with EMF emissions. ...... -- · PEST notes that the Commission stated: "Cellular Companies can be encouraged to consider alternative siting, especially if projected cell sites are in.close proximity to schools or hospitals. School and hospital sites can be designated only as last-choice possibilities." (D.95-11-017.) PEST submits that this statement is not enough. PEST requests that the language below be inserted in the proposed general order: "When cellular facilities are sited on school property, the law mandated by the California State education code must be followed." We note that GO 159-A requires that a copy of the notification letter be served on the "governing board of the affected school district, as well as upon any other entity requesting service" in the case of construction on public school facilities or property. (Section IV.C.2.) We believe that upon receipt of the notification letter, the affected school district can use its authority under the Education Code to take whatever action it considers necessary to evaluate the cell siting application. 11 PEST cites the cellular facility installed at E1 Morro Elementary School in Laguna Beach, and a possible installation at Patrick Henry Middle School in the Los Angeles Unified School District. We note that in September 1993, PEST filed a protest with the Commission regarding the E1 Morro site. The Commission adopted a resolution finding that AirTouch had obtained all the requisite approvals for the site and the protest was dismissed (Resolution T-15663, dated October 26, 1994.) - 16 - R. 90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid Also, we note that Section 39297 of the Education Code directs the governing board of a school district to appoint a .... district advisory committee: "to advise the governing board in the development of district wide policies and procedures governing the use or disposition of school buildings or space in school buildings which is not needed for school purposes." And, the legislative intent behind that code section is described in Section 39295 of the Education Code: "It is the intent of the Legislature that leases entered into pursuant to this chapter provide for community involvement...at the district level. This community involvement should facilitate making the best possible judgements about the use of excess school facilities in each individual situation." In view of the above, we believe that the proposed GO 159-A is faithful to the Legislatures' intent, as it defers decisionmaking to the local level, casting the Commission in the role of final arbiter and authority on cellular facilities construction. The proposed general order thereby enhances, rather than hinders, the purposes of the Education Code ~o encourage community involvement in judgements concerning the use of excess school facilities. Further, we believe that a Commission requirement concerning the operations of a local agency is beyond the scope of Commission authority. The Commission has jurisdiction over the charges, service, and rules of public utilities. (See PU Code §~ 216, 451.) The Commission may take action when a utility fails to comply with a provision of the law. However, school boards do not fall under the Commission's authority. Thus, the Commission cannot tell a school board when or how to interpret or enforce the Education Code. However, laudable the purpose of the request by PEST may be, we must deny the request. - 17 - PEST also contends that the notification-letter from the cellular carrier must identify the specific location of the facility on the parcel for the property. We believe that local agencies, as part of their permitting process, may obtain detailed infol~nation from the carrier regarding such matters. However, GO 159-A requires that a parcel number be furnished. We believe that is sufficient for Commission record purposes since the Commission will no~ normally be involved in the siting.process.12 PEST's request is'denied. Co...ents of Local A~encies As stated previously, the proposedGO 159-A, which was amended to address the concerns of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, was served on all cities and counties in California. Comments were received from the City of Arroyo Grande, City of Claremont, City of National City, City of Salinas, City of Vista, County of Fresno, and the County of E1 Dorado. Except for the ~ity of National City and City of Vista, the cities and counties that responded to the Commission's request 12 GO 159-A requires the cellular carrier, in its notification letter, to provide: "B. Contents A description of the construction (present and future construction plans) as described in a land use approval, if any, consisting of the site name, the lot address/location, the assessor's parcel number and: (for new sites) the number of antennae to be installed, the tower design, appearance and height, and the building size(s). (for modifications) a description of the modification work." (GO 159-A, p. 5.) 18 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/sid ,, .... - ~:~:~.~. ~ for comments do not find the Commission's retentio~ of the right to intervene, when there is a clear violation of statewide interest,' unduly burdensome. However, there are differences of opinion with regard to three questions posed in the ALJfs .ruling which transmitted the proposed GO 159-A for comment. ResPonses to Ouestions in~T~Ru~ng The responses to the three questions posed in the ALJ's ruling are summarized below: Issue No. 1 The proposedGO shouldspecifically provide for local citizens to be able to appeal to the Comm{esion for preemption. The local agencies generally conclude that citizens have adequate opportunities for comment and appeal at the local level (first at the planning commission level and then at the city council level). There was no support for the idea that the proposed GO should specifically provide for citizens to be able to appeal to the Commission for preemption. The League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties believe that the public appeal proposed in Issue No. i is "redundant and unnecessary." Accordingly, we reject the idea of incorporating Issue No. 1 into GO 159-A. Issue No. 2 Local agencies need to be fully ~nformed of the authority and centrol over cell siting that the Co..u-~sslonhAe delegated to local agencies so that they may use this authority to their fullest advantage when processing applications for cell sites. The proposal is that with each application to a local agency, the cellular carrier be required to provide a letter prepared by the Commission explaining the extent of a local agency's control over such projects. The responses received from local agencies indicate varying interest in the need for such a letter. - 19 - R.90-01-012 ALJ/BDP/Sid We believe that a copy of the Commission's decision in this proceeding provided.to all cities and counties at the time of issuance of this decision should suffice. Additionally, the Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division ma~ send a single letter to each city and county, one time after the modified GO 159-A is adopted by the Commission, explaining how the new procedures affect cell siting issues before local governments. In this manner, all participants, including carriers, local governments, members of the general public, and Commission staff will follow the same "script." We believe that letterson an annual basis from the Commission staff or with every local permit request would be an unnecessary intrusion into local agency affairs. Issue No. 3 The Comm{ssiOn should completely abrogate its jurisdiction over cell siting matters. This solution wouldbe alternative to the proposed changes in GO 159-A. Under this scenario the local agencies would have complete authority over cell siting matters, and the cellular carriers and local citizens would have to resort to the courts to settle all disputes with the local agency. The League of california cities and California State Association of Counties {LCC&C) believes that if the Commission would be completely uninvolved in cell siting matters such abrogation might involve possible legislation and an analysis of statewide concern. However, with regard to the Commission. notification procedure to be established pursuant to GO 159-A, LCC&C states that the requirement that carriers provide a notification letter to the Commission serves a dual purpose. First, it informs the Commission of the activities of the cellular carriers, and, second, it "closes the loop" with local agencies by requiring the cellular carriers inform the local agencies whether they have received approvals'for cell sites or need no such approvals. LCC&C believes that the 2O - information in the notification letter provides assurance to the local agencies that all cell sites will be properly processed. The City of Salinas, City of Arroyo Grande, City of Claremont and E1 Dorado County take no exception to the present arrangement with regard to preemption but stress the need for the Commission to recognize the primary jurisdiction of cities and counties over land use matters. On the other hand, the City of Vista, and City of National City believe that the Commission should completely abrogate its authority over cellular siting matters. In light of recent federal legislation, in D.95-10-032 we discussed the Commission~s jurisdiction over cell siting matters applicable to commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)13 providere. We stated: "However, we disagree with the RTUs' claim that the Commission no longer has any legal jurisdiction over the siting of RTU facilities. We continue to believe that the siting of facilities within a given market area is 'related to, but distinct from, entry or exit from a given market." "Our continued jurisdiction over siting authority is consistent with the Legislative history of the Budget Act which expressly references 'facilities siting issues' such as zoning as a term and condition reserved to the States (House Report No. 103-111 at 261)." (D.95-10-032, pp. 22 and 23.) 13 CMRS includes cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), wide-area specialized mobile radio services (SMR), and radiotelephone utilities (RTU or paging} services. 21 - R.90-01-012 In summary, we conclude that the Commission continuee to have jurisdiction and the proposed GO 159-A should be adopted. L The record demonstrates am~le support by local agencies, the carriers, and the Commission staff for the new rules. We believe that the proposed GO 159-A sets forth an a~propriate, light-handed regulator~ scheme which strikes a balance between the Commission,s policy to promote the development of wireless technologies and the Commission's duty to protect the interests of California's ratepayers. Cellular v. Noncellular Providere We note that in 1.93-12-007 -- Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into Mobile Telephone Service and Wireless Communications --, the Commission recently prescribed siting requirements for noncellular commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers (D.95-10-032, ordering paragraph 6, p. 32). Qurrently, noncellular CMRS providers are subject to interim local permit and minimum Commission notification requirements pending issuance of GO 159-A. We-believe that application of GO 159-A to cellular and noncellular providers alike will harmonize California cell siting policy with federal policy by effectively "leveling the playing field" for all CMRS providers regarding the construction of cellular towers. The Joint Motion In the Joint Motion filed on January 3, 1996, pursuant to Rule 51.1, the SponsOring Parties request that the Commission approve the settlement which sets forth the proposedGO 159-A, attached to this decision as Appendix A. We note that the settlement has taken many months to negotiate. Though some carriers wish to strengthen and expedite the Commission's preemptive option, and others may prefer to abolish GO 159 entirely, the ultimate settlement avoids these extremes. Instead, the GO is clarified in a way which reaffirms the pr.imary role of local jurisdictions in resolving cell-siting - 22 - disputes. Other, more contentious questions have been reserved for the future. Specifically~' ~here are ongoing procedures at both~he state and federal level regarding the health'and safety implications of cellular technology. Nothing. in the proposed GO 159 will cut these procedures short. We believe that the settlement submitted pursuant to the Joint Motion is reasonable. in light Of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest (Rule 51.1(e))~ More importantly, the proposed GO 159-A obviates the need for*COmmission involvement in the interpretation and enforcement of local land use planning regulation and building permit issuance. Further, GO 159-A was the result of five workshops. A special effort was made by the Commission to obtain local government involvement. And the Commission has had the benefit of extensive comments. Accordingly, we conclude that it is in the public's interest that the settlement proffered with the Joint Motion should be adopted, andGO 159 should be replaced with GO 159-A. Findinas of Fac~ 1. Currently, pursuant to GO 159, cellular carriers are required to file advice letters for each new cell site, provide copies of local government permits,' and seek Commission approval to complete its 'siting process. 2. The current advice letter procedure, which has been in effect for the last five years pursuant to GO 159, has proved'to be too cumbersome and it needs to be changed. 3. Five workshops, followed by duly noticed settlement conferences, were held and a proposed settlement was executed by the Settlement Parties. 4. The settlement document sets forth a revised GO 159-A which proposes a more streamlined procedure for notification to ~he Commission of new cellular facilities or significant modifications to existing facilities. - 23 =~.~.-~.~ R.90-01-012 5. The proposed GO 159-A continues to recognize that primary authority regarding cell siting issues should continue robe -:. deferred.to local authorities. 6. The proposed revised general order Was served on all cities and counties in California; and all parties. 7. Comments and/or reply comments were received from various cities and counties, and parties to' this proceeding. 8. All comments, except those of PEST and UCAN, generally support the proposEdGO 159-A as see forth in the Joint Motion proposing adopting of a settlement. Conclusions of Law 1. The Commission has reviewed the comments and/or reply comments on the proposed revisions to the general order and concludes that evidentiary hearings in this rulemaking proceeding are not necessary. 2. The commission has considered the comments of PEST. Since the Commission has no jurisdiction over school boards or enforcement of the Education Code, the Commission must decline to adopt the proposed revisions to the general order as recommended by PEST. 3. The Commission has considered the comments of UCAN and concludes that the request for evidentiary hearings should be denied since this is not the appropriate proceeding to address the potential health effects of electric and magnetic fields of utility facilities. 4. The issue of cell site health effects is not the purpose of the proposed GO 159-A and is not a sufficient reason to reject the proposed GO 159-A. 5. Based on the comments received, it is reasonable to conclude that the settlement agreement proposing a revised general order designated as GO 159-A is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. 24 - ORDER z ...... IT IS ORDEREDthat:- 1. General Order (GO) 159-A, attached ~o this decision as Appendix A, which prescribes the rules applicable to siting and environmental review of cellular mobile radiotelephone utility facilities, is adopted. 2. Henceforth, cellular mobile radiotelephone utility facilities under this Commission's jurisdiction shall be constructed kn accordance with the rules set forth in GO 159-A. 3. GO 159-A replaces GO 159 issued pursuant to Decision (D.) 90-03-080 dated March 28, 1990. 4. Under the procedure adopted in GO 159-A, prior to commencing construction of a new facility or major modification to an existing facility, cellular carriers shall'send a notification letter to the Commission's Safety and Enforcement Division within 15 business days of receipt of all requisite land use approvals stating that such approvals have been received, or that no land use approvals are required (see sample letter GO 159-A, p. 8). As set forth in GO 159-A, copies of the notification letter shall be provided to the local agencies responsible for issuing such land use approvals. 5. Each cellular carrier shall, quarterly, update its list of all sites and mobile telephone switching offices (MTSOs) on record with the Commission's Safety and Enforcement Division. 6. The Commission affirms that with issuance of GO 159=A there is no change in Commission policy. Primary authority regarding cell siting issues continues to be deferred to local authorities and the Commission will intervene only when local actions clearly impede statewide goals. 7. The Executive Director shall serve a copy of this decision and attachedGO 159-A on noncellular carriers and parties 25 - R, 90-01-012 ALJ/BDp/sid · in 1.93-12-007 -- Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into Mobile Telephone Service and Wireless Communications. 8. }as stated in D.95-10-032, pps. 22-25 and ordering paragraph 6, 1.93-12-007, the Commission's cell siting notification requirements for noncellular providers were interim until the Commission issued its decision in this proceeding. Accordingly, the cell notification requirements promulgated in this decision for cellular providers shall be applicable to noncellular providers to achieve uniformity of cell site notification requirements for cellular and noncellular providers alike. 9. The Executive Director shall serve a copy of this decision on all regulated cellular mobile radiotelephone utilities, counties and cities in the state of California, and other parties of record in this proceeding R.90-01-012. 10. The Commission staff may send a one~time letter to each city and county explaining how GO 159-Aprocedures affect cell siting issues before local governments. 11. This proceeding shall remain open to further consider facilities siting matters as prescribedby the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Section 704). This order is effective today. Dated May 8, 1996~ at San Francisco, California. P. GREGORY CONLON President DANIEL Wm. FESSLER JESSIE J. KNIGHT, JR. HENRY M. DUQUE JOSIAH L. NEEPER Commissioners - 26 - GE~ara,,AL ORDEI~ '159A UTILITIES COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFOPaIIA R~LES P~LATING TO 'A'U~ CONSTRUCTION' OF COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNZA (Adopted May 8, 1996. Effective May 8, 1996.) Decision 96-65-035, R.90-01-012. . SECTION I - GENERAL Pursuant to the provisions of'sections 451, 701, 702, 761, 762, 762.5, and 1001 of the Public Utilities Code: IT IS HEPaBY ORDERED that except as specifically provided herein, no cellular service provider, now subject, or which hereafter may become subject, to the jurisdiction of this Commission, shall begin construction in this state of any cellsite or Mobile Telephone Switching Office ("MTSO") without first having obtained all requisite land use approvals required by the relevant. local government agency. A cellular service provider shall provide a notification letter to the Commission that it has obtained the requisite land use approval(s) or that no such approval is required. Finally, to ensure that the Commission maintains adequate information regarding the location of cell sites and MTSOs, cellular service providers shall update this Commission on a quarterly basis with a tariff list of its facilities. The Table of Contents and rules are set forth below. 1 It.90-01-012 II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII· PURPOSE " DEFINITIONS ~ . NOTIFICATION LETTER . A. Generally . B. Contents C. Service By'M~ii D. Exemptions Minor Maintenance (1) and Repair Work· ( 2 ) Emergency Construction QUARTERLY UPDATES COMPLAINT PROCEDURE APPLICATIONS FOR PREEMPTIVE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT COMMISSION REVIEW OF THIS GENERAL ORDER. APPENDIX . A. SAMPLE NOTIFICATION LETTER .3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 .7 7 7 · 7 · 8 2 :, .;, .:,.Si"-: ~-' , .... _ _ F: ,-:' ':- ~ . ~'~-~'~ '9~'~ The Co~ission has previously fo~d in nume~us decisions 'authorizing specific cellular sys=e~ ~ha= cons~mc~ion of cellular s~s~e~ generally sexes ~he p~lic conveni~ce ~d necessit~.-~.~e=~: Co~ission ~s also fo~d ~ha=- Uhe i~ac~s of- cell siUes ~d ~e" are hig~y localized. The= Co~ission~rec~izes t~ the goals ~ interests of local gove~en~d =he s~a=e ~ create competing demands. This ~neral Order bal~ces =he ~ve mentioned statewide interests with local aoncems regarding ~he siting, desi~, cons~mc~ion of cell si~es~d ~SOs'j~' ~e~rocedures described herein should apply unifomly on a statewide basis. A. Goals The Commission's goals with regard to the construction of cell sites and MTSOs are to ensure that: the potential environmental impacts of all cellsites and MTSOs are reviewed and considered in a manner consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); affected local citizens, organizations government are given reasonable notice and .for input into the review process; and local- opportunity the public health, safety, welfare, and zoning concerns of local government are addressed; cellular service providers are not unnecessarily delayed by site review by the CPUC; and cellular service providers provide highquality, reliable and widespread cellular services to state residents. B. Deference to Local Government The Commission acknowledges that local citizens and local government are often in a better position than the Commission to measure local impact 'and"' tO~"identify ~'alternative sites. Accordingly, the Commission will generally defer to local governments to regulate the location and design of bell~'~ites and MTSOS including a) the issuance of land use approvals; b) acting as Lead Agency for purposes of satisfying the CEQA and c) the satisfaction of noticing procedures for both land use approvals and CEQA procedures. However, in so doing, the Commission shall retain its.rt~h=~Eo preempt a local government determination on siting'when there is a clear conflict with the Commission's goals and/or statewide interests. In those instances, the cellular service provider Sh~ll have the burden of demonstrating that accommodating local 3 R ,90-01-012 /AL,T/BDP/sid . APP~~ .... ~ '! ~.r ...... . ~overnment's 'requirement~Zfor~anyrI~'~i~'T'~uld-unduly frustrate the Commission's goals or statewide interests. Further, local government and citizens shall have an opportunity to protest a request for preemption and'to present their positions.' If a cellular service provider establishes that an action by local' government unduly frustrates the Commission's objectives, then the Commission may preempt a local government pursuant to the Commission's authority under the California Constitution, Article XII, section 8. - SECTION III- DEFINITIONS The following terms are used throughout this General Order: Construction includes the construction of any new cellsite or MTSO or the modification of, alteration of, or addition to an existing cellsite or MTSO except as provided in Section IV.D. below. Cellular Service Provider means any entity which provides Domestic Public CellUlar Radio Telecommunications Service, as defined by Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 22 Subpart K 47, to some portion or al.1 of the public. Local Government or Local Governmental Agencies means any government entity with land use approval authority over the proposed cellsite or MTSO. Local Gover~mant or Local Governmental Agencies includes, but is not limited to, cities, counties, school districts, and agencies that administer state and federal lands. 4~ Emergency Cell Site or Emerganc~ MTSO Facility means temporary sites or facilities constructed in response to disaster or emergency circumstances. SECTION IV - NOTIFICATION LETTER A. Generally A cellular service provider must serve a notification letter on the Commission stating that it has obtained the requisite land use approval(s) for the construction that is/are required by all relevant Local Government Agencies or that no land use approval is required. 4 Contents' v ...... - ==. · - ~ - - ~ =ub~ fb 1. A description of the construction (present and future construction plans) as described in a land use approval, if any, consisting of the site name,- the lot address/location, the assessor's parcel number and: a. (for new sites) the numbar of antennae to be installed, the tower design, appearance and height, and the building size(s). b. (for modifications) a description of the modification workl 2. The business addresses of all Local Governmental Agencies. 3. A statement whether a land use approval is required, and if so, whether such approval was obtained including the identification or reference number of the land use approval,'if any. Where no land use approval is needed, a statement setting forth the reason(s) for the exemption. The cellular service provider's notification letter shall be in the form attached hereto as Appendix A. C. Service By Mail A notification letter satisfying the requirements described in this section shall be served on the Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division or its successor within 15 business days after all land use approvals are initially issued or there is a determination that no such approvals are required. A copy of the notification letter shall be served concurrently by mail on each Local Governmental. Agency(ies), and in the case of construction on public school facilities or property, on the governing board of the affected school district, as .well as upon any other entity requesting service. Where a city is an affected Local Governmental Agency, service of the notification letter to the city shall consist of service of separate copies of the notification letter upon the city planning director, the city clerk, and the city manager. Where a county is an affected Local Governmental Agency, service of the notification .letter to the county shall consist of service of separate copies of the notification letter upon the county planning R.90-01-012/ALJ/BDP/8~d LPP~NDIX Page- 6~ director, the clerk of the board of supervisors, and the county executive. D. Exemptions 1. Minor Maintenance and Repair Work For purposes of this General Order, "construction. does not include: :: a) any maintenance, repair or replacement of existing facilities; b) any alteration of, or addition to, 'equipment within or on an existing structure if no land use approval is required or if a notice as provided in Section IV of this General Order has been previously served on the Commission, encompassing such alteration or addition; c) installation of environmental monitoring equipment; d) any soil, geological or site survey investigation; e) any work to determine feasibility of the Use of the' particular site for the proposed facility; or f) other like work where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that such work may have a'significant effect on the environment. The types of work described in this paragraph may be performed without service of the notification letter required by Section IV on the Commission or Local Governmental Agencies. A cellular service provider must still comply with all local permitting requirements, if any. 2. Emergency Construction This General Order does not require a cellular service provider to serve a notification letter prior to: (a) maintaining, repairing, restoring, demolishing, or replacing an existing ceilsite or MTSO that has been damaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster; or (b) constructing or modifying cell sites and MTSOs as required to meet the demands of emergency circumstances, or at the Emergency cellsites or MTSO facilities must be demolished or removed by the cellular --service'~ provider within a reasonable period of tim~ following the disaster- or~- emergency circumstances'l which engendered them, unless the cellular service provider complies with the provisions of'this Order for ne~ facilities, including obtaining all requisite land use approvals required by the Local Governmental Agencyand serving the Commission with a notification letter. In all cases of emergency 'construction, the cellular service provider shall, as soon as practicable, provide the Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division with a notification letter outlining the construction it performed and how such construction was necessitated by the emergency condition. Section V - QUARTERLY UPDATES Cellular service providers subject to this General Order must filea ~ariff list of the locations of all cell sites or MTSOs on a quarterly basis commencing Januar~ 30 of each year, with the Commission's Safety & Enforcement Division. SECTION VI - COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Formal complaints for resolution of any alleged violations of this General Order, pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, must be filed with the Commission's Docket Office. SECTION VII - APPLICATIONS FORPREEMPTIVE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT A cellular service provider may file an application requesting that the Commission exercise its preemptive authority to construct a cell site or MTSO. All such applications shall comply with this Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. SECTION VIII - COMMISSION REVIEW OF GENERAL ORDER 1S9 Upon the filing of a petition for modification by the Commission staff, any cellular service provider or Local Governmental Agency, the Commission may reopen Investigation No. R.90-01-012 to examine whether t~is General Order has served its stated purposes and to consider whether this General Order must be revised to reflect technological changes. : ~ ......'R;90-01-012 SAMPLE NOTIFICATION LETTER APPENDIX A Mr. ¸ Safety & Enforcement Division California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear : This is to provide the Commission with notice pursuant to the provisions of General Order No. -159A of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California ('CPUC") that: [check appropriate box] ~ (a) The cellular company has obtained all requisite land use approval for the project described in Attachment A. (b) That no land use approval is required because A copy of this notification letter is also being provided to the appropriate local governmental agency for its information. Should there be any questions regarding this project, or if you disagree with any of the information contained herein, please contact of Cellular Company at ( ) , or Mr. of the CPUC Safety &.Enforcement Division at ( Very truly yours, Attachment cc: Mr. City or County name and address (.END OF APPENDIX A) 8 Attachment B 1 Overview A. Police Power The legal basis for all land use regulation is the police power of the c~ty; to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents, Bennan ~. Pnrker, 348 U.S, 26 (1954), A land use regulation lies within the police power if it is reasonably related to the public welfare. Associated Home Btt//,/e., Inc. ~. C/t/ofL/verm0re, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (1976). As Justice William O. Douglas, speaking for the United States Supreme Court, stated: The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive.... The values it represents are spiritual as well as phy~c~, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautif~ as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, weU-balanced as well as urefully Fau'oUed. Benun, 348 U.S. as 33. Thjs suitement is recognized by California coum 'as a correct descrip- tion of the authority of a state or city to enact legislation under the police power." M...,,edia, Inc. v. Cirj qfSsn Diego, 26 Cal. 3d 848, 861 (1980). The police power, even though established by common law, is set Forth in the C, alifornja Constitution, which confers on c~ties the power to and enforce widxin [their] limits all lou] police, s~nltary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general biw~* Cal. Const, art. XI, § 7. The CaliFornia Supreme Court has stated: Under the police power Fanted by the Constitution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subjea only to the limirstion that they exerdse this power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. [Citation omitted.] Ap~ from this limitation, the 'police power [oft county or city] under this provision... is as broad as the police power exer- c~ble by the Legislature iueff.' Cand~d F. mgrprba, Inc, v. G. mmont Union High Schod Dirt, 39 CaL 3d 878, S85 (198S~ I. When die word 'city" is used, it also muns 'county"; 'city council" also means "l~srd of superviso.." · I CURI1N'S CAIJFO RNIA LAND USE AND PLANNING LAW In exercising the police power, the city mus~ act within all applicable statutory provisions so there will be no ~conflla with general hws.' The ci~7's acdous must also meet cons~mdon~ ptin- ciples of due process, that is, they must be rea- sonable, nond~scriminstory and not asbitrm7 or capricious. Ste, e.g., G. dr D. Ho/Zvu/ Co. v. City 0fMm~, 12 Cal. App. 3d 9S9 (1970). Of course, a city cannot act where the state has completely occupied the subject maty~er, that is, where it has preempted the field.2 See, e.g., Pevp/e ~c ret Deut~/an v. County of Moidoc/n0, 36 CaL 3d 476, 483-85 (1984); MorebaH v. Connty ~anva Bar/~ra, 7 Cal. 4th 725 (1994). Land use regniations are a manifestation the local police powers conferred by the State Constitution, not an exercise of authority dele- rated by statute. ~crut~ v. C0un~y 275 Cal.App. 2d 412, 417 (1969). For rampie, state zoning laws pertaining to adoption of local zoning regulations are not intended as specifc grants of authority but as minimum standards to be observed in local zoning practices. As stated by the California Supreme Court: We have recognized that a cites or cunnty's power to control its own land use decisions derives from this inherent police power, not from the delegation of authority by the state. (See, e.g., Candid Enig, [~ ~g tx, Int. ~. Gvaumont Union High S,4,0d D~., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 885-86 (1985) (upholding a school Facilities impact fee imposed by a county without statutory authorization); Birken~eld ~. City of Berkele), 17 CaL 3d 129, 140-42 (1976) (upholding city rent control initiative despite lack: of express statotory authority).) DeVita ~. County 0fNa~a, 9 Cal. 4th 763, __ (1995). Under the State Constitution an ordinance cannot conflict with general laws--preemption. For example, Government Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Caov't Code") Section 65858 relating to interim ordinances, preempta the field of 'moratorium~ ordinances. See Bank of the Orient ~. To~vn of Tiburon, 220 Cal-~pp. 3d 2. For an exceilent discussion on preemption, see Gov~nor's Ol~ce of Planning and Rese~'ch, Preemption of Local Land Use Authority in California, 1989. 992 (1990) (holding that a dty could not have an interim moratorium ordin.nce in eEea beyond the two ye~s prescribed in state hw);, Mmhart, 7 Cal. 4th at 725 (findin~ that a county's ordinances relating to merffer of antiquated lots were impliedly preempted by the merger provi- sious Of the Map Act). Also at limes, the Legi.~a- ture will adopt policies and criteria for establish- ment Of certain types Of residential uses which preempt local zoning. See, e.g., 1992 California Child Day Care Act, Health & Safety Code ~§ 1596.64-1596.70 (in Inrticular ~ 1597.30 relat- ing to Family day care centers). This ,Act occo- pies the field to the exclusion of municipal ann- ing, building and fire codes and regulations governing the use or occupancy of Family day care homes for children with certain limited exceptions. Health & Safety Code §§ 1597.40; 1597.47. There are a similar laws for other se= lected uses. For example, $ee the Community CareFadlity,A~.~,Health&SafetyCode§§lS00- 1567.8 for homes for mentally disabled or handi- capped persons for residential Facilities serving six or fewer persons. ld. at ~ 1566.3. lations are sustained under the complex condi- tions of today which, but a short time ago, might have been condemned as arbitrary and unrea- sonable. Euclid v. AmUlet Real~ Co., 272 U.S. 365; 387 (1926). In the 1970s, Justice Douglas, speaking for the United States Supreme Court, upheld a vil- lage's zoning ordinance relating to land use restrictions on single-family dwellin~ units: A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legiti- mate guidelines in s land use project addressed to ~m,y needs. This goal is a pe,~i~ihle one witkin Bernun v. Parkif , supra. The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy phces; it is ample to lay out zones where Family values, youth values, and the blessing~ of quiet seclusion and clean air mnlr~ the area a sanctuary f:r people. ~d/age ofBe//e Terre v. Borax, 416U.q. 1,9(1974~ Likewise, the courts have held that regula= tions affecting economic interests in ~ prop- erty are also an appropriate exercise of the police power. For ~--,~ple, regulations imple- menting local rent control hw~ (Birke~feld v. Cit~ ~fBerkeky, 17 Cal. 3d 129 (1976)) and regu- lations relating to condominium conversions (Griffin De~elapraeat Ca. ~. City of O:mard, 39 Cal. 3d 256 (1985)) have been upheld. The California Supreme Court has held that aesthetic reasons alone justify the exercig of the police power when it upheld, in pro, the City of San Diego's total b'an of offsite adve. nising sig~s (Me~.,~edia, In~. ~. City of San D/ega, 26 Cal. 3d 848 (1980)) and the Culver City's public art fee ordinance (EJ~ch ~. Ci~ of Cul~er Ci:~, 12 Cal. 4th 854 (1996)). Also, the United Sates Supreme Court, in upholding a local ordinance prohibit- ing the posting of signs on public property, stat- ed that aesthetic interera are subsum~al govern- mental interests which a city can address under its police power. Memu~ ~C/ty Cm,ac//v. Tat- paJersfor V'mcent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984). Land use regulations constitute a proper exercise of the police power. Associated Hame Builds, Inc. ~. Cit~ of L~enmre, 18 Cal. 3d 582 (1976). A city may exercise its police power to provide a "modern, enlightened and progressive community." Ranohm La Costs ~. Count~ of San D/ego, 111 Cal.App. 3d 54, 60 (1980). The United Sates Supreme Court has sated that land use regulations may be enacted through the police power 'to enhance the quality of life by preserc- ing the character and desirable aesthetic fea- tures of a city." Penn Ctatra/Tram~. Co. ~. Cit~ 0fNe~ Fork, 438 U.S. 104, 129 (1978). In Ewiag ~. Ci~ of Carrael-J~t~e-Sea, phln- tiff homeowners ~-h, lleng~d the ennstitutionali- ty of a zoning ordinance prohibiting "transient commercial use of residential property," for remuneration, for less than 30 consecutive days. Ew~g, 234 Cal~pp. 3d 1579 (1991), Plaintiffs claimed the ordinance amounted to a taking, was void as being arbitrary and vague, and vio- lated their citizens' tight of privacy. In ruling for the City, the court held that the ordinance was a proper exercise of the City's land use authority under its police power ~to enhance and maintain the residential chaPacter of the City." The enun said that this is a proper purpose of zoning, stating:. It rods m re.on tint the 'residential charac- ter' ors neighborhood is threatened when s signi~eant number of homes at least 12% in this ,'-~, ;_,~in~ to the record are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of resists toying a weekand, a week, or even 29 days. Whether or not transient rentals have the other 'unmiti~table, adverse imparts' cited by the Council, such renals undoubtedly affect the essential ~mr of a neighborhood and the subility of a community. Shah-term ten- ants have little interest in public agencies or in the walk~e of the citiz~m3r. They do not par- ticSlate in local government, coach little league, or ioin the hospital guild. They do not lead Scout ~oop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. LiteraRy, they are here today and gone tomorrow without engaging in the son of activities that weld and m'enSthen a community. Ia~ at 1591. In holc~ng that the ordinance was related to a legitimate governmental goal, the c~urs held: Blessed with unparallaled geography, chinate, beauty, and charm, Carreel nsmraily ateacts numerous short-term visitors. Aga~, it stands to reeson that Carreel would wish m preserve an enclave of single.family homes as the heart and soul oF the city. ~e believe that r~s rea- son alone is 'sufficlendy cogent to preclude us from saying, as it mu~c be said before the ordi- nance can be declared unconsti~nnal, that such provisions are clearly arbitrary and reasonable, hav~ug no substantial reia~on to the public boalth, safety, morals or gunera1 welfare.' [Citation omitted.] /d. at 1592. In reviewing a police power enacunenr, the following rule has been laid down by the enum: It is a well set-tied ntle that determination of the necessity and form of regulations enacted pursuant to the police power 'is primarily a legislative and not a judiciai f~nctjon, and is to be tested in the courcs not by what the judges individually or collectively may think of the wisdom or necessity of s particular regulation, but solely by the answer to the question is there any reasonable basis in fact to support the legislative determination of the regula- tion's wisdom and necessity?' n3 CURnN'~ CALJFORNIA LAND UBE AND PLANNING LAW 4n P. ack Pm/um C0. v. Cay0fLos.4n~eks, 17 Cal. 2d 515, S22 (1962D. Furthermore, even if the reasonsbleneas of the re~ladon is Fairly debatable, the legislative dctermlnstien will uo~ be disturbed. [Cimdon omlned.] R,,,,,,engt v. Ca:;~,,.:, Cu, ul C .... 'n, 163 C_adApp. 3d 623,629 (1985). The California Supreme Com't stated the rule simply:. The land use restriction v~d~tands constitu- tional attack if it is fairly debatable that the resuicdon in fact bears a reasonable reisdon ~ed Heme Bu//,~n, Inc. v. CiP. v of Uvcr- mere, 18 Ca[. 3d 582, 601 (1976). B. $bltu~ory Framework The followlag state laws outhue the legal framework within which a dry must exercise its lend use functions: · Establishment ofpis_,mhg agencies, com- missions end deparanents. Gov't Code ~§65100-65106. · General plan end specific plan. Gov't Code S§ 65300-65457. · Zoning regulntions. Go~tCode~65800- 65912. · Subdivision~MapAct. Gov'tCode§~66410= 66499.58. · California Environmental Quality Act. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000-21178.1; Cal. Code Re~. tit 14, ~ 15000-15387. · Other laws and s~mtes. 54962 (also known as The Open Meet- ingAct). · Property Development agreements. Gent Code §§ 65864-65869.5. · Permit Sl~enmllnln~ ,aCt. GOv't Code ~S 65920-65959.3. C. The Planning Commission The planning COrnrni~SiOll iS a permanent committee of fife or more dtizens who have in some cities, to review and ac~ on marten relat- ed to planning end development. The cornmlg= sion holds regularly scheduled public hearings to consider land use matters, such as the general plan, specific plan, rezonings, use permits and sul~livisions. Comnfissioners can serve at the, pleasure of the council, so that commission membership chenges in rasponse to chenges in the council, or members can have fixed terms. The l~actice varies from city to city. A city need not create a planning commas- s~on. Gov't Code § 65101. In fact, in some juris - dietions, especially smaller ones, there is no planning commission and the city council per- forms in that capacity. Basically, the commission advises the city council on land use matters. The council may choose to follow the recommendations of the commission, or the council may reverse or mod- ify commission actions or send proposals back to the commission for further review. In addi- tion, commission decisions are subject to appeal to the council and the council has the final say in The city community development or plan- ning deparunent is the commission's staff. The planners can advise the commission on the general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance end other land use regu- lations. In addition, they provide background information and recommendations on the pro- posals that are under the commission's con- sideration, answer technical questions, and make sure that meetings have been properly advertised in advance. The commission is also advised by the city attorney's office and public works depamnen~ The city council may assign any or all of the following tasks to its planning commission (Gov't Code §§ 65103, 65400, 65401, 65402): · Assist in writing the general plan and comm,znity or specific plan end hold public hmrings on such plan; · Hold hearings and act upon proposed amendments to the general plan and spe- cific pla~ · Investigate and make recommendations m the city council regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing the general plea or elements of the gen- eral plan, so that it will serve as an effec- tive guide for orderly grov/~h and devel- opmenr. preservation and conservstion of open-space land and nstond restmrt~ and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addr--~sed in the gsnenl plan; · provide an annual repon to the clty coun- cil on the stems of the general plan and pcogress in its implementation, inclnd- ing the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs determined ptt~- suant to C~v't Code ~ 65584; the local efforts to remove governmental con- straints on housing pursuant to Gov't Code § 65583(eX3). · Hold hearings and act upon proposed changes to the zoning ordinance and · Hold hearings and act on tentstire subdi- v~sion maps; · Annually review the city's capital ira- provemeat program and the public works projects of other local agencies for con- sistency with the general plan; · Promote public interest in the general plan; · Coasttit with and advise public officials and agencies, utilities, organizations and citizens regarding implementation of the general plan; · Coordinate local plans and programs with those of other public agencie~ · Report to the city council on the confor- mity of proposed public land acquisition or disposal w~th the adopted general plar~ and · Undertake special planning studies as needed. The planning commission holds reg~dar meetings and special meetings as needed. For the most Put% state law requires public hearings before planning ac6ons are ~aken. At its meet- lags, the planning commission weighs pla, nln~ proposals in light of stete and local regulations and potential environmental effects and listens to testimony from interested parties. If neces- sary, the con~m~ion may continue a hearing to a later time to allow more information to be gathered or to take additional testimony. The commition usually considers several items at each hearing, considering each proposal sepa- rarely and I~[-i~g action before moving on m the next item on the agenda. Depending upon local ordinance provi- sions, the commission's decision on a project rosy be: (1) referred to the city council as a rec- ommendation for action (for example, general phn amendments and rezonings); or (2) consid- ered a final action unless appealed to the council (subdivisions, ~ces, use permits, etc.). The council will then hold a noticed public hearing on the projects referred to it by the commission or received on appeal Pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, all meetings, including s~udy sessions and work- shops, must be open and public. Gov't Code §§ 54950-54962. This means that a quorum of commk'~ioners can discuss comntission business in a public meeting only. For more information on the Brown Act, see Chapter 19, Section A (Ralph M. Brown Act). Reading material for Planning Commis- sionen: · Governor's Office of Planning and Re- search, The Planning Commissioner's Book (1989). · League of California Cities, Planning Con, mi~oner's Handbook (1995). · Guide to C~lifirsis Pldnning (1991) by W~lllam Fulton, Solano Press. aS ATIONS ~58; Jones 2d 460. · . Schuck, lyeport v. , 167 La Farm, mapolis, 143 Neb ~ Swett, 120 NJL ib. Co. v. ~IJ Super ;ertising ~ NE 17; .113 NE FYS 208. McGee, riderson 2SE25; 592, 132 -Salem, /rig this ~rper & 609, 35 124 Tex 95 (Tex ~orp. v. Vt 341, rod, 78 oma v. MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 24.12 Wisconsin. Rust v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 216 Wis 127, 256 NW 919; Milwaukee v. Kaun, 204 Wis 103,235 NW 551. s United States. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 US 104, 55 LEd 112, 31 S Ct 186, opinion amended 219 US 575, 55 LEd 341, 31 S Ct 299. s United States. The police power may be put forth in aid of what is sanc- tioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or strong prepon- derant opinion to be greatly and immediately necessary to the public welfare. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 US 104, 55 LEd 112, 31 S Ct 185, opinion mended 219 US 575, 55 LEd 341, 31 S Ct 299. Arizona. Atchison, T.&S.F. Ry. Co. v. State, 33 Ariz 440, 265 P 602. Arkansas. State v. Hurlock, 185 Ark 807, 49 SW2d 611. California. Ex parte Mathews, 58 Cal App 649, 209 P 220. Illinois. People v. Anderson, 355 289, 189 NE 338. New York. M~nni~ v. Frost, 100 Misc 36, 164 NYS 1050. Washington. Kelly v. The Vogue, 21 Wash 2d 785, 153 P2d 277. 7 See § 24.08. § 24.11. Objects. Since the police power cannot be defined with precision, it follows that the objects of the police power cannot be declared with exactness. Indeed, regulations sometimes are sustained under the police power where they do not appear to be clearly related to any previously well-defined or recognized specific object of the police power. ~ This is especially true with respect to Sunday laws and regulations.s However, statements are made in the cases as to the broad objects of the police power. These broad objects embrace the public welfare, convenience, economy? and somewhat more specifically, public order, health, safety, and morals. 4 See § 24.03. See § 24.188 et seq. See § 24.13. 4See§24.12. § 24.12. --Public order, health, safety and morals. The legitimate objects of the police power embrace the safe- guarding of the public order, health, safety, and morals,~ and the protection of the lives= and property3 of persons. The public health, the public safety, the public morals, and, when defined with some strictness so as not to include mere expediency, the public welfare, each repeatedly has been held sound ground for the exercise of the police power.4 41 RATIONS '2d 101 (Mo · West New A2d 889; ~ch Com'rs, Village of )"s Water 25 NYS2d ifficult to ~voked, is le resttic- necessary ~rais, and .lic peace, /ineburgh , 195NY teights v. 26, 484 tinart, 44 cry v. ,157 P2d ~hs, 184 find, 20 arety). P2d 583 IvIIYN'ICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 24.13 due to developer's failure to correct ongoing drainage problems). s Arl~nnsas. Lonoke v. Chicago, 92 Ark 546, 123 SW 395. Illinois. Condon v. Forest Park, 278 Ill 218, 115 NE 825. West Virginis, State ex rel. State Line Sparkler of WV, Ltd. v. Teach, 187 W Va 271, 418 SE2d 585 (1992). Wyoming. Sun Ridge Development, Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, 787 P2d 583 (Wyo 1990) (valid moratorium on con- struction in residential subdivision due to developer's failure to correct ongo'mg drainage problems). s West Virginia. State ex rel. State Line Sparkler of WV, Ltd. v. Teach, 187 W Va 271, 418 SE2d 585 (1992). Wyoming. Sun Ridge Development, Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, 787 P2d 583 (Wyo 1990). See also § 24.14. 4 Massachusetts. Opinion of the Justices, 234 Mass 597, 127 NE 525. § 24.13. --Public welfare, convenience, and economy. The broad object of the police power is to promote and safe- guard the general or public welfare, and this broad object justifies impositions, restrictions, and prohibitions on individual action and use of property, reasonably related to~ that object. In this broad connotation "police power" means general power of govern- ment to preserve and promote public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare, even at the expense of private rights.2 Although in its early history police power was closely associated with the preservation of public peace, safety, morals, and health, under modern conditions it includes the general wel- fare which embraces regulations to promote the economic welfare, public convenience, and general prosperity of the com- munity.2 This change in conception or at least in practice relative to the broad objects of the police power discloses its dynamic character and capacity for growth.4 Whatever is contrary to public policy or inimical to the public interests is subject to the police power of the state and within legislative controls The police power is positive as well as nega- tive in its object of promoting the greatest welfare of the state, and it is not to be confined narrowly within the field of public health, safety, morality, or the suppression of that which is offen- sive. Accordingly, in recent years particularly, the police power has been constantly exercised by mnnlcipalities, not only to pro- tect the peace, order, safety, health, and morals of the commuvjty, but also to protect and promote the public welfare, which may embrace not merely physical and moral elements, but 43 § 24.13 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS economic as well.' Thus, the police power has validly been exer- cised to protect and promote the public welfare by regulation of public utility services and rates, since property in public utilities is devoted to the public use or service and to that extent is subject to regulation in the interest of the public welfare.7 Moreover, public welfare is the ground, in part at least, upon which the courts base validity of safety appliance, hours of labor, minimum wage, and other labor legislation, including worker's compensa- tion laws.' The public welfare as a proper object of the police power embraces public convenience,' comfort?0 prosperity," and finan- cial security of the people. '~ The police power of the state (which may be delegatQd to cities and towns) embraces regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general pros- perity, as well as regulations designed to promote the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, but the validity of any police regulation, whether established directly by the state or by some public body acting under its sanction must depend upon circumstances of each case and the character of the regulation, whether arbitrary or reasonable and whether really designed to accomplish a legitimate public purpose.~3 It is only with considerable strictness of definition, that the general welfare may be made a ground, with others, for interfer- ence with rights of property in the exercise of the police power," Whenever the police power is exerted for the sole purpose of protecting or advancing the public welfare or the well-being of the community, no other recognized basis for its exercise appearing, the necessity for the regulations must be clear, or at least not obscure. In matters of this nature it is true, nevertheless, that courts are inclined to defer largely to the judgment of the local authorities, for the reason that their knowledge as to the neces- sity of the regulations involved is likely to be more accurate than that of the courts. 's They have gone so far as to sustain its exer- cise for purposes more or less indefinite, e.g., the promotion of the "general interest," "general prosperity," "general well-being," "public welfare" and "public convenience" of the community, apart from any question of public health, safety, or morals. The validity of any given regulation must depend upon the circum~ stances of each case and the character of the regulation, whether arbitrary or reasonable, and whether really designed to accom- plish a legitimate public purpose." rlONS exer- ion of Llities '~bject ~over, h the imum ,ensa- }ower ~hich ttions pros- ~ublic ]ty of ~te or upon xtion, ~t the se of }fthe ring, t not that eces- than fthe pity, The ther MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES §24.13 Since the police power is inherent in the effective conduct and maintenance of government~7 and extends to all great public needs,~s it can be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage, or held by the prevailing morality or strong and preponderant opinion to be immediately necessary to the public welfare. ~s The relief and protection of the poor, indigent, and infirm, and the security of society against the occurrence of poverty, disease, insanity, and infirmity are deemed to be proper objects of the police or governmental power to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare. The care of the poor and infirm has long been regarded as a proper local governmental function. Regulation of charity and charitable organizations also is exercised by state and local government. Municipal social relief and the security and regulation of charity, the only phases of this broad field within the scope of this work, are treated in another chapter. 2o ~ United States. Eubank v. Rich- mond, 226 US 137, 57 LEd 156, 33 S Ct 76; Chicago B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Peo- ple, 200 US 561, 50 LEd 596, 26 S Ct 341; Detweiler v. Welch, 46 F2d 75, affg 46 F2d 71. The police power "extends to so deal- ing with the conditions which exist in the state as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of its people." Bacon v. Walker, 204 US 311, 51 LEd 499, 27 S Ct 289. California. Carlin v. Palm Springs, 14 Cal App 3d 706, 92 Cal Rptr 535. Colorado. Willison v. Cooke, 54 Colo 320, 130 P 828. Iowa. State v. Iowa State Board of Health, 233 Iowa 872, 10 N'W2d 561. Kentucky. Commonwealth v. McCray, 250 Ky 182, 61 SW2d 1043; Shaeffier v. Park Hills, 279 SW2d 21 (Ky App). Michigan. People v. Soil, 310 Mich 305, 17 NV~2d 193, quoting this treatise. Missouri. City of Blue Springs v. Gregory, 764 SW2d 101 (Mo App 1988). New Jersey. Hart v. Teaneck Tp., 135 NJL 174, 50 A2d 856. New York. People v. Passantino, 83 Misc 2d 451, 372 NYS2d 451; Morrison v. Gentler, 152 Misc 710, 273 NYS 952. North Dakota. Russell v. Fargo, 28 ND 300, 148 NW 610. Ohio. City of University Heights v. Dachman, 20 Ohio App 3d 26, 484 NE2d 199. Oklahoma. Beveridge v. Harper & Tuner Oil Trust, 168 Olda 609, 35 P2d 435. Oregon. Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Exnmlners, 148 Or 50, 34 P2d 311; Donohue v. Rosenthai, 147 Or 408, 34 P2d 316. Tennessee. Solof v. Chattanooga, 180 Tean 296, 174 SW2d 471, 176 SW2d 816, quoting this treatise; Bowen v. Hannah, 167 Term 451, 71 SW2d 672. Tens. Lombardo v. Dallas, 124 Tex 1, 73 SW2d 475, affg 47 SW2d 495 (Tex Civ App). 2 United States. See Wall Distribu- tore, Inc. v. City of Newport News, 782 F2d 1165 (CA4 1986) (coin-operated 45 1 )RPORATIONS ~fthe natural and municipality are .ntal purposes for · Curtiss-Wright ast Hampton, 82 :d 125. State v. Jones, ',d 675. ityv. Hartke, 240 sustaining valid- dinance wholly :ing yards on sole Id be offensive to s). Best v. Zoning ~t of Pittsburgh, t 606; County of [ Pa Commw 357, ~ome law). ; v. Smith, 618 atute controlling is and jnnlryards ~y). ne County v. 3, 157 NWSd 591 roblie wrecking istricts). ~well v. Ferrier, NYS2d 22, 225 on's Porta Signs, water, 829 F2d ity's substantial : esthetics justi- ming portable I for Free Speech oard Of Com'rs, NJ 1992) (must for there to be power). Regional Plan- 233 Cal App 3d i (1991). :onduct prohib- Ling drinking of MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES § 24.16 intoxicating liquor in outdoor public places from specified containers offended public sensibilities, aesthetic considerations served as legitimate basis, among others, for ordinance· Lake Charles v. Henning, 414 So 2d 331 (La). Missouri. Municipality may by its legislative body prescribe rules for adorning of cemetery and erecting monuments, tombstones, and orna- ments on cemetery lots and may forbid improper adornment thereof. Ham- mersly v. La Forge, 80 SW2d 211 (Mo App). Pennsylvania. Statute may create municipal art jury to supervise erec- tion of structures on or over highways and requiring its approval as an essen- tial prerequisite. Walnut & Quince Streets Corp. v. Mills, 303 Pa 25,154 A 29. Esthetic considerations in zoning, see ch 25. s United States. McCormack v. Township of Clinton,872 F Supp 1320 (D NJ 1994). City ordinance amounting to a total ban of portable signs was permissible as most direct and perhaps only effec- tive approach to solving problem which city had substantial govern- mental intorest in. Don's Porta Signs, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 829 F2d 1051 (CAll 1987). California. Tahoe Regional Plan- hing Agency v. King, 233 Cal App 3d 1365, 285 Cal Rptr 335 (1991). Minnesota. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of IVf~nnesota v. Vil- lage of Minnetonka, 281 Minn 492,162 NW2d 206. North Carolina. State v. Jones, 305 NC 520, 290 SE2d 675 (reasona- bleness of regulations dependent on facts and circumstances of each case). s United States. McCormack v. Township of Clinton,872 F Supp 1320 (D NJ 1994). North Carolina. A-S-P Asseciatos v. Raleigh, 298 NC 207,258 SE2d 444. § 24.16. ----In connection with other objects. Esthetic or artistic considerations may be involved, or bear on necessities relating to public welfare and health; the same factors that make for beauty, such as zoning according to use, building height restrictions, building setback lines and the like, may also make for public health, safety, and welfare, which of course are legit'nnate objects for an exercise of the police power. ~ Accordingly, whether or not esthetic considerations in them- selves support an exercise of the police power? there can be no question that if a regulation finds a reasonable justification in serving a generally recognized ground for the exercise of the police power, the fact that esthetic considerations play a part in its adoption does not affect its validity.s Thus, the fact that an ordinance has esthetic considerations in view will not invalidate it if it rests upon a substantial ground for a reasonable exercise of 53 § 24.16 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS the police power.* This is true, for example, with respect to ordi- nances as to billboards? signs? and housing projects, slum clearance, or eradication of blighted urban areas.7 Similarly, in regulating and restricting a motor vehicle junk business, esthetic considerations may be regarded? and aesthetics are also recog- nized as a legit'nnate governmental objective in the regulation of junked or abandoned private vehicles unrelated to a junk busi- ness.s So also, aesthetic considerations serve as a legit'nnate basis for a ban on drinking of intoxicating liquor in public outdoor places.'s ~ Californis, Aesthetics should be considered as a factor, together with other factors, in support of an ordi- nance. Carlin v. Palm Sprln~, 14 Cal App 3d 706, 92 Cal Rptr 535. Massachusetts. Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass 364, 79 NE 745; Attorney- General v. Willjams, 174 Mass 476, 55 NE 77, s.c. 178 Mass 330, 59 NE 812; Smith v. Morse, 158 Mass 407, 19 NE 393; Rideout v. Knox, 148 Mass 366, 19 NE 390. 2 Washington. Duckworth v. Bon- hey Lake, 91 Wash 2d 19,586 P2d 860, citing this treatise. See § 24.15. 3 Connecticut. Murphy, Inc. v. Town of Westport, 131 Corm 292, 40 A2d 177. Michigan. See O'Brien v. State Highway Cornre'r, 375 Mich 545, 134 NW2d 700 (aesthetics should at least be taken into account in determining whether the police power is properly exercised). New York. People v. New York Cent. R. Co., 5 Misc 2d 232, 165 NYS2d 877. "Beauty may not be queen, but she is not an outcast beyond the pale of pro- tection or respect. She may at least shelter herself under the wing of safety, morality or decency." Perlmut- ter v. Greene, 259 NY 327, 182 NE 5. Zoning, see ch 25. 4 United States. St. Louis Postor Advertising Co. v. St. Louis, 249 US 269, 63 LEd 599, 39 S Ct 274, affg 195 SW 717 (Mo). '"that in addition to these sufficient facts (public safety from fires), consid- erations of an aesthetic nature also entered into the reason for their pas- sage, would not invalidate them." Welch v. Swasey, 214 US 91, 53 LEd 923, 29 S Ct 567. s United States. National Adver- tisin~ Co. v. City of Orange, 861 F2d 246 (CA9 1988). Twin goals of traffic safety and appearance of city are substantial gov- ernment goals which serve as proper basis for municipal regulation of out- door advertising signs. Metremedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 US 490, 69 LEd 2d 800, 101 S Ct 2882. As to billboard ordinances, see § 24.382. s United States. McCormack v. Township of Clinton, 872 F Supp 1320 (D NJ 1994). 7 New York, Murray v. LaGuardia, 180 Misc 760, 43 NYS2d 408. 54 ~ATIONS ~ to ordi- ~8, Sittill .larly, in esthetic ;o recog- lation of nk busi- ~te basis outdoor Perlmut~ ~2NE5. :is Poster , 249 US , affg 195 sufficient .), consid- ture also heir pas- -~ them." 53 LEd I Adver- B61 F2d ~ty and ktial gov- proper of out- 69LEd hack v. pp 1320 ;uardia, MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER AND ORDINANCES §24.17 Generally as to housing and housing projects as within police power, see § 24.563. s See § 24.353. s United States. Price v. City of Junction, Texas, 711 F2d 582 (CA5). Tenam. See City of Clarksville v. Moore, 688 SW2d 428 (Tenn) (ordi- nance prohibiting storage of abandoned vehicles on residential premises valid). ';0 I.,ouisi~ r~.l~e Charles v. Hen- ning, 414 So 2d 331 (La). § 24.17. Subjects. Generally speaking, any matter reasonably relating to the broad objects of the police power, to wit, the maintenance of the pubhc peace, order, safety, health, morals, convenience, and gen- eral welfare and prosperity, is a proper subject for the exercise of the power. ~ Proper subjects for regulation by the police power of the state are not merely those that are of statewide concern, but they include those of special and local concern which can be made the subject of special law or ordinance.2 With respect to persons subject to the police power, business and other corporations as well as individual persons are in gen- eral subject to a proper exercise of it,s but a state agency delegated by law the responsibility of performing a governmental function is not subject to the general police powers of a municipal corporation.4 With respect to rights subject to the police power, both per- sonals and propertys fights secured by the Constitution are subject to the lawful exercise of the police power.7 With respect to things, objects, matters and measures sub- ject to the police power, they do not lend themselves to precise definition or to accurate detailed and comprehensive enumera- tion, since what the public welfare, morality, health, or safety requires, or is deemed to require, naturally varies from time to time. Accordingly, new subjects or measures come within the police power as required by changing circumstances of economic and social life and by growth of knowledge; in this respect, as stated above, the police power has a dynamic or progressive capacity.s Patently, all things that are injurious to the public are proper subjects for an exercise of the police power? and may be sup- pressed, prohibited, or at least regulated.~0 Thus, fraud is a proper subject for regulation under the police powerY Other 55 §24.17 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS things which may or may not be injurious to the public, depend- Lug on the manner in which they are managed or conducted may be regulated.~2 Other matters coming within the police power include: -- the regulation of fish and game; ~2 the prohibition &wooden buildings;~4 -- the regulation of railways and other means of public conveyance;~5 -- the regulation of Luterments in burial grounds;~8 -- the restriction of objectionable trades to certain localities;~7 -- the management of anticipatory wide spread clamages due to natural disasters, such as flooding;~5 -- compulsoryvaccLuationofchildren;~s -- the confinement of the insane or those afflicted with contagious diseases;~e -- the restraint of vagrants, beggars, and intoxicated · persons;2~ -- the suppression of obscene publications;22 -- houses of ill-fame;n -- gambling houses;24 and -- places where intoxicating liquors are sold.n Proper subjects for regulation under the police power are to be considered as justified only in connection with legitimate objects of the police power. For example: -- to preserve the peace the carrying of concealed weapons may be forbidden;~ -- to decrease the opportunity for certain vehicles to serve as attractive nuisances to children, parking restrictions may be imposed;27 -- to insure the public safety many kinds of building regu- lations may be made and enforced;~s -- to insure the public safety a moratorium may be imposed on construction in a residential subdivision so as to enforce drainage regulations;~s -- to protect the public health numerous regulations, such as those relat'mg to quarantine and sanitation, may be promulgated and carried out;~ 56 )RATIONS c, depend- acted may ude: of public ~ certain damages zted with toxicated ,er are to ~gitimate weapons . to serve :trictions ng regu- imposed SO as to us, such may be MUNICIPAL POLICEPOWERANDORDINANCES § 24.17 -- to safeguard the public morals, indecent practices, utter- ances and publications, gambling, and lotteries may be prohibited;~ -- to prevent fraud and dishonesty, business dealings and transactions; ~ -- weights and measures;~ -- charitable collections and distributions;34 -- to avoid extortion and oppression, combinations among dealers in food products and other necessities in restraint of trade may be forbidden;zs and -- to protect patrons, reasonable regulations of the service and charge of public utilities are authorized. ~ Under the police power, the state or a duly authorized munic- ipal corporation may order the destruction of a house in decay or otherwise endangering the lives of inmates or passersby,z7 the demolition of buildings and structures in the path of a conflagra- tion,~ the slaughter of diseased cattle~ and the destruction of decayed or unwholesome food.4° Under the guise of the police power a municipal corporation cannot regulate subjects not within the police power or otherwise within the competence of the municipal corporation to regulate? Accordingly, a municipal corporation cannot impose a revenue tax which it has no authority to impose, under the guise of an exercise of the police power.~ However, when the police power is exercised in good faith, or, in other words, when there is a good faith endeavor to exercise the power, every intendment will be indulged to sustain the regulation, and all doubts will be resolved in favor of the validity of the exercise of the power.~z This is in accordance with the rules that the validity of statutes and ordi- nances is favored44 and presumed.~s ~ United States. Eubnnl~ v. Rich- mond, 226 US 137, 57 LEd 156, 133 S Ct 76; Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Illi- nois, 200 US 561, 50 LEd 596, 26 S Ct 341; Marysville v. Standard Oil Co., 27 P2At 478; Marrs v. Oxford, 24 F2d 541. California Gin S. Chow v. Santa Barbara, 217 Cal 673, 22 P2d 5; Ex parte Lawrence, 55 Cal App 2d 491, 131 P2d 27. Florida. Metropolitan Dade County Fair Housing & Employment Appeals Board v. Sunrise Village Mobile Home Park, Inc., 511 So 2d 962 (Fla 1987) (age discrimination in housing ordinance). Hl~neis. Metropolis v. Gibbons, 334 Ill 431, 166 NE 115; People v. John Doe of Rosehill Cemetery Co., 334 555, 166NE 112. 57 I --- Attachment D ,:~ .. 47 oJcs e 332 (1998) ' ,hall (ii) ~ S~a~e o: local ~ovem~t o~ ~tmntality ~he:eo~ shall a~ ~ ~y :e~es~ fo~ au~ho~izatien to place~ c~tmc~ o~ ~fy personal wireless samice facilities ~ a :eas~le pe:i~ of ~ a~e: is d~y filed wi~h su~ ~ovemn~ ox ~ali~y~ taming ~o acc~ naive ~d scope of su~ xe~es~. ~iii) ~y decision ~y a S~a~e ~: loc~ govem~n~ o: ~ali~y ~hezeof ~o deny a ~e~est ~o place, c~m~ o: ~y pe:a~al ~zeless se~ice facilities shall be m ~i~ ~ Nuppo~e~ by s~s~Uial evidence contained ~ a w~i~en ~eco~d. (iv} No Sta~e o~ local ~ove~ oz ~p~tality ~he:eof xe~la~e ~he placing, c~mc~i~ ~d ~fica~ion o~ pe:sonal ~eless ~ssions to ~he e~en~ ~ha~ su~ facilities c~ly ~ ~e C~ssion'a {v) ~y pez~on adve:aely affected by ~Y final acti~ o: fail~e to act by a S~a~e o~ local govemnt ox ~y ~s~n~ali~y the:col ~ha~ is inconsistent wi~h this s~pa:ag~aph my, widen 30 days afte~ such ac~ion failure to ac~ co~nce ~ action in ~y co~ of c~eten~ ju:is~ction. cou:u shall heaz ~d decide such action on ~ e~pedite~ basis. ~y adversely affected by ~ ac~ o: failu:e ~o ac~ by a S~a~e o: local Ch. 4 .w utilities in pecia] permit nditioned for st determine ~neralizations ~ate regulato- nption in the :tance to find regulatesJ4 A ould destroy is tendeneyJs · preemption ~e general or extent that a question is c service re- government ~ingness to fie statutory ,ublic service rations that ~ rationale, a a municipal ion, may be ~f a preemp- ~ for uniform ty v. Potomac · 511, 525, 573 ~iing that with the need for a pparent in the ~tute). P. sylvania stat- tion, regarding lations of this !Co.v. Rosen- r.S.2d 895, 898, ); New Bruns- v. Old Bridge $uper. 122, 636 onwealth, Pub- ~CH Communi- 351 A.2d 328 v. Department · 667, 680, 322 Attachment E § 4.25 GOVEILV~AL AND COMMUNrlY USES 129 tion determination.as Many disputed cl~Lrwations involve radio and other communication facilities, and the case results vary.s Even if an entity is not a public utility under state utility law, it may meet the definition of a public ut'~ity for state zoning law purposes and be entitled to preferential treatment. Several states regard public utili- ties as "inherently beneficial" uses and, as such, they subject them to a more lenient test for the purposes of obtaining a variance.=a The fact that an entity is not a public utility for state ut'fiity law purposes also does not preclude it from meeting the local zoning definition of that use.= C. Cellular Towers and Other Telecommunications Facili- ties Cellular telephone towers and other types of telecommunications facilities are a subject of controversy.= The public has shown a strong appetite for the communications eervicos that the towers enable, and the number of these towers, which are often three to four hundred feet high, is increasing in rospense to the demand. Many neighbors, however, deplore them. While they may have health concerns,~ the dominant objection is that the towers are aesthetically offensive. Federal and state laws limit local control over cellular towers. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 partially preerapts zoning of cellular towers by providing that local zoning may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and that zoning cannot have the effect of totally prohibiting such services? 19. Planning Bd. of Braintree v. Dep't of pub. Utlls., 420 Mass. 22, 27, 647 N.E.2d 1186, 1189 (1995). 20. Finding a radio tower to be a pub- tic utility, see Marano v. Gibbs. 45 Ohio St.3d 310, 544 N.E.2d 635 (1989). To the contrary, see Mammina v. Zoning Bd. of App. of Ton of Cortlandt, 110 Misc.2d 534, 442 N.Y.S.2d 689 (1981). 21. Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosen- berg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895, 624 N.E.2d 990 (1993) (applying "more lenient" pubtic utjlity variance standaxd to cellular tower). But cee Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. Bor. of Fair Lawn, 152 N.J. 309, 704 A.2d 1271 (1998) (declining to find mono- pole inherently benefichd). · -~-. Finding cellular use to be a pubtic utility, see Hawk v. Zoning Hearing l~l. of Butler Twp., 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 48, 618 A.2d 10~7, 1090 (1992); Payne v. Taylor, 178 A.D.2d 979, 573 N.Y.$.2d 327 (1991); McCaw Cemmunications v. Marion County, 96 0r. App. 552, 773 P.2d 779 (1989) (cellu- hr use found to be a putitic utility, tiut not a necessary one as required by the ordl- nance). To the contrary, ~ee Bell Atlantic Motille Systems, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Twp. of O'Hars, 078 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 199~) (not a public ufllity where zoning ordinance did not define the term). 23. As to satellite dish antennas, 47 C.F.R. § 25.104 preempts zoning that mate- dally timits transmission or increases costs on users unless the zoning authority can prove it is reasonable. See Christopher Neu- mann, Note, FCC Preemption of Zoning Ordinances that l~strict Satellite Dish An- tonna Placement: Sound Poticy or Lagisla- rive Overkill? 71 Stjohn's L.Rev. 635 (1997). The Taleeommunications A~t of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332, does not expressly preempt local zoning for purposes of regulating digS- tel television facilities, the next wave of progress. The FCC, however, may have im- plied preemption authority. See, e.g., City of New York v. Federal Communications Com- mission, 486 U.S. 57, 108 S.Ct. 1637, 100 L.Ed.2d 48 (1988), The wave promises to be of tidal dimensions, as many existing broad- costing towers are loaded to capacity, 24. SOe Hawk v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Butlsr Twp., 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 48, 618 A.2d 1087, 1090 (1992) (upholding finding that tower had no edver~e health affects). 25. 47 U.S.C. § 332 (c) (7)(B)(i)(I) and (II). 130 TYPES OF ZONES & USES Ch. 4 The Act precludes consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission if the facility complies with federal regulations concoming such emissions. The Act also provides for expedited judicial review of adverse rulings by state or local government bodies. In Bell- South Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett County,= the county denied a request to build a tower apparently due to neighbors' concerns with safety and visual incompatibility with surrounding lands. Applying the 1996 act, the court held theso vague, speculative concorns unpersuasive in light of evidence showing that the departments of public safety and trnn.~porta- tion had no objection and a report from an appraiser that these towers had no adverse effect on preporty values. In addition to federal limits, the power of local authorities to regulate these uses turns on whether the service provider is exempt under state law as a public utility. The towers may be treated as "inherently beneficial" public utilities since mobile telephone service enhances personal and commercial communications and is valuable for emergency servicos? In accord with other utility exemption cases dis- cussed above, if a cellular tower is a public utility under state law, it will be exempt as others are exempt.~s Some states, however, have deprived cellular transmission facilities of the exemption otherwise afforded to public utilities.~s Immunity may also be issue specific. In New Jersey, for e~arnple, a state statute precludes zoning authorities from considering electromagnetic radiation effects.as Even if not public utilities under state utility law, cellular towers may be treated as public utilities for state and local zoning law purposes and be entitled to the preferential treatment they afford to such uses. The New York Court of Appeals, for example, has found the towers to be"inherently beneficial" uses subject to a relaxed variance test.a~ Sever- al courts also have found cellular towers to qualify as public utilities under local law.~ D. Undergrounding Utility Lines Another issue of controversy is whether local govern~n, ent can re- quire utilities to underground their services. Aesthetics generally is the reason undergrounding is desired, though issues of safety may also be alleged. Cost is the problem from the utilities' perspective. In a Missouri 26. 944 F.Supp. 923 (N.D.Ga.1996). See Sprint Spectrum, L.P.v. City of Medi- ha, 924 F.Supp. 1036 (W.D.Wa.1996). 27. See cases cited supra notes 21-22. 28. Oldham County Planning & Zon- ing Comm'n v. Courier Communications Corp., 722 S.W.2d 904 (Ky~App, 1987) (hold- ing that a mobile telephone service seeking to construct a 290 foot tower is a public utility and exempt by state stotuto). 29. Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211 (B) (spe- cifically conferring power on local govern- ment over cellular services); Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(2l(iv). 30. N.J. Stot. Ann. § 26:2D 1 to 88, discussed in New Brunswick Cellular Tels- phone Co. v. Old Bridge Twp. Planning Bd., 270 N.J.Super. 122, 636 A.2d 588, 596 (1993}. 31. Cellular Telephone Co. v. Rosen- berg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 604 N.Y.S.2d 895, 624 N.E.2d 990 (1993) (applying "more lenient" public utility variance standard to cellular tower). But see Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn Bd. of Adj., 152 N2. 309, 704 A.2d 1271 (1998) (declin- ing to find monopole inherently beneficial). 32. See supra § 4.25B. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CORRESPONDENCE FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT TO LARRY LEDOUX DATED DECEMBER 21, 1998 R:~STAFFRPT~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc 13 Ran ho Vatsr December 21, 1998 Mr. Louis L. Lidoux 32004 Merlot Crest Temecula, CA 92591 SUBJECT: ANTENNA RESERVOIR SITE INSTALLATION AT GENERAL KEARNEY Dear Mr. Lidoux: In regard to your concerns about antenna installations at Rancho California Water District's (RCWD) General Kearney Reservoir site, I can assure you that there are presently no plans or applications for any facilities beyond those of Cox P.C.S., Assets, L.L.C.. which are currently being reviewed by the Temecula Planning Commission. Should there be any such applications in the future, their approval would be subject to the approval of the RCWD Board of Directors at a public meeting with the opportunity for any public comment that may be forthcoming. I have instructed my staff that you should be notified of any such item that may come before the Board of Directors. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT John F. Hennigar General Manager CC: RCWD Board of Directors Ms. Carol Donahoe, City of Temecula Planning Department U:~ADMIN\WORDPROC~LINDA98\98335.DOC ATTACHMENT NO. 4 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATED DECEMBER 16, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT~219pa98 PC STAFF REPORT 2.doc STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219; ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Cox Communications PCS, L.P. REPRESENTATIVE: TDI, Inc., Adan Madrid and John Murphy PROPOSAL: To construct a wireless Personal Communications System (PCS) facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a Base Transceiver Station (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60~foot high monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("monopine). LOCATION: North of Rancho Califomia Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road, east of Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way on Rancho California Water District property. EXISTING ZONING: PI (Public Institutional) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: SP (Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential, 2-5 du/ac) South: SP (Specific Plan. Low Medium, 3-6 dwelling units/acre) East: SP (Specific Plan, Medium Density Residential, 2-5 du/ac) West: SP (Specific Plan, Medium High Density, 5-8 du/ac) PROPOSEDZONING: Not Applicable GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: P (Public / Institutional Facilities) EXISTING LAND USE: Two existing above-ground water tanks and associated pump equipment, and a Pacific Bell 50-foot high monopole with associated ground-mounted equipment. ,. //TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~219PA98.pC,doc SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant The Vineyard and Appalachia subdivisions Chardonnay Hills subdivision Vacant BACKGROUND The project was submitted on May 20, 1998. On June 10, 1998 the applicant's representative met with staff and members of the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association at the project site. For the next three months TDI and staff worked together to research alternative locations and monopole heights. On October 14, 1998 TDI presented a creative solution to address the concerns of the adjacent homeowners, by lowering the antennas on the monopole height to 60 feet, and by disguising the pole and antennae as a pine tree, The modified proposal was sent to and was endorsed by the Chardonnay Hills Homeowners' Association Board of Directors. A Directors Hearing was conducted on November 12, 1998. Five homeowners from the new Appalachia tract located to the south of the project site testified to voice concerns regarding the emission of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from the Cox equipment. They protested the time of the hearing because it was conducted when residents work, and requested a continuance in order to investigate the project. The Planning Director concurred with the request for a continuance, and asked staff to schedule the item on a Planning Commission agenda in order to provide a more convenient public hearing at 6 p.m. Staff advedised this case for the Planning Commission's December 16, 1998 hearing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The monopine and ground-mounted equipment are proposed to be located on the north side of the water tanks, approximately 130 feet east of the existing Pacific Bell monopole. The equipment will be installed on the outside of the existing chain link fence that surrounds the water tanks, but will add similar chain link fencing around its installation. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees and an irrigation system to service them will be installed north and east of the equipment, to add credance to the disguised mortopine. ANALYSIS Project Desicln Staff recommends approval of the design of the project. The applicanrs representative has worked diligently and cooperatively with staff to address the aesthetic concerns of the adjacent property owners, ElectromaGnetic Fields The concem regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for protection against radio frequency emissions. Study after study has concluded that there is no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities is harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybrid of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by various entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~19PA98.PC.dOC 2 The City Attomey has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards. Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included to require this. included as Exhibit No." I" is a chad compadng typical exposure levels from various radio frequency and microwave sources. Additionally, TDI has asked Dr. Jerrold T. Bushberg of the University of California, Berkeley, to attend the Commission headng to provide infon~ation and address questions. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project qualifies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class I (b), because it is a minor alteration of an existing facility, involving negligible expansion of use beyond that previously existing, in order to provide telecommunications service. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98-0219 be adopted for this project. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff and the applicant have worked together to ensure that the proposed project does not adversely affect the view from adjacent residential properties. Staff also believes that the telecommunications industry is regulated with standards in place for the protection of public health and safety, and that the Cox system falls well below the standards that have been established. Staff continues to recommend approval of this project based upon the following findings: FINDINGS The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustedng of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-residential land use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site provide such an area. 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. The project is compatible with the existing public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, 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. The applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree and has provided three additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "monopine." The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, The concern regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study concluded that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act, the \\TEMEC_FS201 ~OATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFR PT%2.19PA98.PC.dOC 3 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybdd of vadous standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by vadous entities and regulates the certification of their radiities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. The City Attorney has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards. Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included to require this. That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Minutes of the Planning Director's Hearing of November 12, 1998 - Blue Page 13 Exhibits - Blue Page 14 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan C. Zoning D. Surrounding Land Uses E. Site Plan F. Equipment Plan G. Elevations H. Photo of Existing Monopine I. Typical Exposure Chad J. Site Cross Section \~TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~19pA98.pC.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- ~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~219pA98.pC.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 98~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98- 0219, (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS PCS FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWELVE PANEL ANTENNAS MOUNTED ATOP A 60-FOOT MONOPOLE, A GPS ANTENNA AND SIX CABINETS HOUSING A BTS UNIT AND OTHER ELECTRONIC AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT, LOCATED AT THE RCWD WATER TANK SITE, 3100 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 983-060-022 WHEREAS, Cox Communications PCS, L.P. filed Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) which is in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Pen'nit)was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) on December 16, 1998, at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an oppo~lunity to, and did, testify either ~n support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use PerTnit); NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findin.qs That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit), hereby makes the following findings as required in Chapter 17.04: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The PCS facility qualifies as a public utility, which is a use permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the Public Institutional zone. The General Plan encourages the clustering of public and institutional facilities to the extent possible in both residential or non-residential land use designations. The existing Pacific Bell installation and water tanks at the site provide such an area. 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. The project is compatible with the existing public facilities already at the site. The design of the facilities have been modified to be compatible with adjacent residential uses. There is no demonstrated evidence that wireless communication systems adversely affect adjacent residences. \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~219pA98. pC.dOC 6 C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, 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. The applicant has revised the design of the monopole to simulate a pine tree and has provided three additional Italian Pine trees to assist in the disguise of the "monopine." D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The concem regarding electromagnetic fields (EMFs) surfaced in the 1980's and as a result, several organizations reviewed the issue and developed standards for the protection against radio frequency emissions. Study and after study concluded that there was no demonstrated evidence that exposure to wireless service facilities was harmful to people. As part of the 1996 Wireless Communications Act. the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established an exposure standard that is a hybdd of various standards developed by others. The FCC controls frequencies used by vadous entities and regulates the certification of their facilities. The 1996 Act expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modifications of wireless service facilities on the basis of environmental effects. The City Attomey has recommended that the project be conditioned to provide annual evidence of recertification by the FCC, in order to ensure compliance with the FCC's regulations and standards. Condition of Approval No. 9 has been included. E That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission. Section 3o Environmental Coml~liance. The project qualifies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class 1 (b), because it is a minor alteration of an existing facility, involving negligible expansion of use beyond that previously existing, in order to provide telecommunications service. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98- 0219 be adopted for this project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) for the construction and operation of a wireless Personal Communications System (PCS) facility consisting of twelve (12) panel antennas, one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a Base Transceiver Station (BTS) unit and other electronic and battery equipment. The antennas will be mounted atop a 60-foot high monopole, disguised as an evergreen pine tree ("mortopine). \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~OEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~,19pA98. pC.doc 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this sixteenth day of December, 1998, Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the sixteenth day of December, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT%219PA98.PC.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL \\TEMEC_FS201 *~DATA~:)EPTS~LANNING~STAFFR PT~219PA98.PC.dec 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an unmanned telecommunications PCS facility, at the Rancho California Water District tank site, 3100 Rancho California Road, consisting of: Three (3) four-antenna arrays mounted onto a new 60-foot high monopole disguised to look like an evergreen tree ("monotree") A ground-mounted Base Transceiver Station (BTS) within equipment cabinets behind a six-foot high chain link fence with barbed wires above and with vinyl slat inserts (color to match existing water tanks) An 18-inch high GPS antenna mounted to the BTS power cabinet. Assessors Parcel No. Approval Date: Expiration Date: 953-060-022 December 16, 1998 December 16, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) 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 The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to ~ndemnify, 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, judgements, 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. City shall promptly notify the 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. //TEMEC_FS201~I:)ATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~219PA98.PC.doc 10 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 Planning construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year pedod which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by the approval. 4 This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" Site Plan, Exhibit "B" Elevations, Exhibit "C" Equipment Layout, and Exhibit "D" Details approved with Planning Application No. PA98-0219, or as amended by these conditions. The applicant shall submit for review and approval Construction Landscape and Irrigation Plans prior to installation. 8. The applicant shall replace any landscaping removed dudng the installation of equipment. Damaged plantings during construction shall be replaced. Area refurbishment and enhancement shall be noted on the plans. 10. Three (3) Italian Stone Pine trees at a minimum of 36" boxed size. 11¸ All electrical wiring associated with the antenna shall be buried underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. 12. The antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate grounding method approve by the City of Temecula Building Official. 13. Installation must meet wind velocity criteda as set forth in the Uniform Building Code when deemed necessary by the City of Temecuia Building official. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Manager a copy of the annual recertification document issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that ensures compliance of the project with its standards and regulations. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY 15. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 16. Submit at time of plan review complete extedor site lighting plans for any new fixtures in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 17. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction 18. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be U. 19. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~E)EPTS~PLANNING~STAFFf~ PT~2.19PA98.PC.dOC 11 20. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with odginal signature on plans submitted for plan review. 21. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule for plan review. OTHER AGENCIES 22. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Rancho California Water District, as noted in their correspondence dated June 9, 1998 attached. 23. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, as noted in their correspondence dated June 19, 1998 attached. 24. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, as noted in their correspondence dated June 2, 1998 attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned 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 /\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~219PA98.PC.doc 12 June 9, 1998 BY FAC~I~m .F TRANSMISSION (909) 694-6479 CAW of Temecula P!a.ning Depathaent P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 PLANAaNG AFI~./CATION NO. PA_qS0219 (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) Dear Sir: In accordance with the City of Temecula Development Review Commtttee's request in connection with the above subjec~ application, please be advised that the property in question is located within the boundaries of the Rancho Cn!ifornia Water District (RCWD). Currently, RCWD is considering entering into a lease agreement with the applicant, Telecommunications Development and Innovations (TDD/Cox Comm~mications for the purpose of inst~lling cellular communications equipment at our reservoir site. ECWD's conditions for a lease agreement would require that the Lessee meet the followtug requirements: · The equipment be placed so as not to interfere with the current or future use of this site, including RCWD's future plans to install radio transmission equipment for the SCADA System (frequencies must be compatible). RCWD's Operations Department requests that a frequency interference study be performed at the expense of Cox Communications to verify compatibfiiW of transmiRing frequencies. · A separate power meter be obtained at the site from Southern California Edison (SCE). · All necessary CiW permitting processes be obtained prior to construction. · An~, California Environmental Quality Control Act (CEQA) requirements be addressed and compiled with. · Adjacent property owners be notified of the proposed facilities and operations. Upon successful completion of the aforementioned requirements, and others, construction of TDrs facilities will be allowed by RCWD. Clv/of Temecula Page 2 1une 9, 1998 If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you need further clarification of the items listed, please contact me. Sincerely yours, General Services Manage DAVID P. ZAPPE Gcncral Managcr-ChicrEnginccr RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 / / 51180.1 City of Temecula Plannin De artment Po,t if& 9°33 TemectJla, California 92589-9033 Attention: C.-/~ R/')I F :Z:)ON/~ HOE Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: p~ C]~ 'it:)7--/~ The Distdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases m incorporated dries. The District also does not an check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Reel Estate letters or other flood hazard repgrts for suhqPlcases. Distdct comments/recommendaitons for such cases am normally limited to items of specific interest to the District indudin Disbict Master Dralna Plan fad ties, offer ionat flood control and draina e facifities which could be considered a logical componenP~or extension of a master~p~n stsm, and Disthct Area ~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general n~re is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply Disthct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: t/This pr.ojed would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor am other facilities of regional ~nterest proposed. This project involves District Master Ran radiities. The Disthct will acce t ownershi of such facilities on written request of the City. Fadlities must be constructed to D strk~ stan~iP~rds, and ~l~strict plan check and inspection will be requinjd for District acceptsnee. Plan check, nspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. 'The Dis'a'ict wo~jl°~ consider accepting ownership ot such tac~lmes on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to D strict standaids, and D~sthct I~_an check and inspe~jon will be required for District acceptance. plan check, inspection and administrative fees wi be requ red. check or money order oni to ~e Rood Control Distijct or City pdor to issuance of building or grading comes tees to be pa,d .hou,d be at the .ta n at the .me of ,ssua.ca of the GENERAL INFORMAtiON This project mar *uire a National Pollut~nt Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Con~oie~oard. Clearance for grading, recoidation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a parrnit or is shown to be exempt. occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood p a n s m acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca~;mia Department of Fish and Game and a C ean P~ter Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a endes indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Qua Cer~cat on may be required from the local California Regional Water Qua ty Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. "~'~ Ve~ truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT : Carole Don e, A~,CP _ ~ ~7 CONDITION~ USE PETIT NO. PA98-0219 DATE: June 2, 1998 1. The Department of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA98-0219 and have no objections. 2. If permanent structures for employees are required that maintain restrooms, this Depaxh~ent will require "will serve letters" from the sewer and water agency. CH:dr (909) 955-8980 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1998 \~TEMEC_FS201~DATA',DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~.lgPA98.PC.doC 13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR M]KETING OF THE, C1TY OF TEMECI~A PLANNING DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 12, 1998 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula plann{ng Diredtor was called to order on Thursday, November 12, 1998 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business Pazk Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner Matthew Fagan presiding. Also present were Project Planner Carole Donahoe and Minute Clerk Cathy Davis. I. PlanninE Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Project Planner Carole Donahoe presented the staff report for PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permi0 to construct a wireless PCS facility consisting of a twelve (12) panel antenna mounted atop a 65-foot tall monopole constructed to simulate a pine tree ("mortopine"), one (1) Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna, and six (6) cabinets housing a base transceiver station (BTS) unit and other electroulc and battery equipment located at the Raacho California Water District water tank site at 3100 Rancho California Road, on the north side of Ranch California Road, between Butterfield Stage Road and Meadows Parkway, and south of La Serena Way. Senior Planner Matthew Fagan opened the public hearing at 1:45 PM. Richard Zolla, 32020 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that he felt there is a lot of undeveloped areas and this could be located somewhere else. Shawn Bierle, 32016 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to health Concerns, Frank DiGiaoomo, 32032 Merlot C~est, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due 'to health Coficerlls. Louis LeDoux, 32004 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition for to project due to health hazards and EMS emissions. He would like further study and proof that this type of monopole is safe. Leo Finegold, 32036 Merlot Crest, Temecula spoke in opposition to the project due to lack of notice and not enough time to research possible health concerns. He also suggested some different locations. Senior Planner Matthew Fagan closed the public hearing at 2:23 PM. An additional condition was added to the Conditions of Approval. Applicant is to ensure that the mono-tree is periodically maintained in order to retain the color and materials as approved. Applicant Adan Madrid, TDI, Inc., 3150 Briswl Street, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, 'CA concurred with the modified Conditions of Approval. Senior Pl~nner Matthew Fagan continued this matter to a noticed plnnning Commission meeting for the following reasons: 2. 3. 4. Requests from homeowners for time to further study the issues. Requests from homeowners for additional information regardIng EMFs Requests from homeowners for additional exhibits such as line of sight RequestS from homeowners to hold a hearing at a more convenient time for residents who work. The meeting was adjourned at 2:23 P.M. R:',~ORMSXDIRHEAR.MIN tl/18/98klb ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS ~TEMEC_FS201'~)ATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~219PA98.PC.doC CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO, - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRFI~19PA98.PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA OS ./ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (MInor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -December 16, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT~219PA98.PC.dOc CITY OF TEMECULA // ,: SP i \ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT C PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 ZONING MAP R:\STAFFRPTX219pA98.pC.dOC CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT D SURROUNDING LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R:\STAFFRPTX219PA98.PC.dOc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT~219PA98.PC.doc CITY OF TEMECULA / CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT F EQUIPMENT PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R:~STAFFRPT\219PA98,PC.dOC CITY OF TEMECULA (L") 6'.-0° PiT, CHAIN LINK FENCE CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFRPT\219PA98,PC.dOC CITY OF TEMECULA Photo of Existing Pine Tree Mortonpole in Mission Viejo by Other Carrier CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT H PHOTO OF TYPICAL MONOPINE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December t6, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT~19PA98.PC.doc Exposure in Microwatts/cm2 CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT I TYPICAL EXPOSURE CHART PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0219 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT J SITE CROSS SECTION PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 16, 1998 R:\STAFFRP'F~219PA98.PC.doC ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1999 Planning Application No. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas K. Thomsley, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends Commission: 1. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: the Planning ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0469; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No, PA98-0469; ADOPT Resolution No. 9~.__ approving Planning Application No. PA98-0469 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. John Herring, C & H Office Specialties, Inc. The design and construction of a 50,050 square foot industrial building (tilt-up concrete) on a 2.71 acre lot for the manufacturing and warehousing of office and school furniture. At the end of Colt Court south of the intersection of Colt Court and Winchester Road (APN 909-360-003 & 004) BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) North: LI (Light Industrial) South: LI (Light Industrial) East: LI (Light Industrial) West: LI (Light Industrial) Vacant North: Vacant South: Vacant industrial building East: Industrial businesses West: Bostik industrial building under construction \\TEI'vlEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLAJ, INING\STAFFRI:q'\469pa98,dO¢ PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Building Area: Building Footprint: Landscape Area: Paved Area: Hardscape: 118,047 square feet 50,050 square feet 48,550 square feet 25,820 square feet 41,330 square feet 2,360 square feet (2.71 acre) 42% 41% 22% 35% 2% Parking Required: Office (2,700 square feet/300) Manufacturing (12,000 square feet/400) Warehousinci (35,000 square feetJ1000~ Total 9 spaces 30 spaces 35 spaces 74 spaces Parking Provided: 68 spaces (61 standard spaces, 7 compact spaces (10%), 3 handicapped accessible spaces) plus 6 motorcycle and 9 bicycle. Building Height: Vades 24-26feet BACKGROUND This project started with a pre-application review in November of this year and was determined to be eligible for Fast Tracking. The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on November 20, 1998. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on December 3, 1998. The project was deemed complete on December 18, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is the design and construction of a new manufacturing facility for C & H Office Specialties, a producer of office and school furnishings. Approximately one third of the building will be used for manufacturing and the other two thirds will be for warehousing finished inventory. The company offices will occupy 2,700 square feet at the front of the building. The front of the building will be the clipped comer of the building. The office elevation will be twenty-six (26) feet high while the overall height of the building will be twenty-four (24) feet. The footprint of the building will cover 48,550 square feet. Total building square footage will be 50,050 square feet (48,550 square foot first floor and 1,500 square foot second floor). ANALYSIS Site Desicln and Circulation The project will have two access points to Colt Court at the bulb of the cul-de-sac. The site is trapezoidal in shape with the widest dimension of the lot being at rear. Placement of the building is to the southern comer of the site with the western side of the building near the property line and the front of the building within 40 feet of the cul-de-sac. This placement creates two separate parking areas, each with access to Colt Court. Each point of entry will provide parking on both sides of the driveway leading to the with loading or delivery areas. The western parking area will be for employees and deliveries, while the eastem parking will accommodate visitor and employee parking and shipping. The delivery and loading areas are located at the far ends of the building placing them the greatest distances possible (150 feet or more) from Colt Court and they are screened with landscaping. An employee patio area will be located outside the east comer the building in a landscape setting. Parkincl Analysis As calculated by the City's parking standards for determined uses there should be 74 parking spaces. As designed the applicant is proposing 68 automobile parking stalls, six motorcycle and nine bicycle spaces. The applicant has made a request for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces based on their actual needs. It is the applicant's expectations, as stated in his "Statement of Operation," that he will need only 25 spaces per shift when operating at maximum capacity. Staff supports this request because it is within 15% allowable reduction for parking requirements as permitted by the Development Code under Minor Exceptions (Sec.17.03.060 B. 1 .) and the request is not expected to create any future parking problems. Architecture & Colors The building is designed for warehouse and industrial use and is designed to maximize internal floor space according to the applicant's needs. This building is being constructed of tilt-up concrete. The front of the building, which is visible from Colt Court, is articulated through the use of both painted and sandblasted concrete and blue glass windows on the clipped comer of the building. The first floor offices and entry will be recessed, creating an entry focal point from the parking lot. The remainder of the building is concrete articulated through two-tone colodng (white and off white) separated by horizontal accent reveal banding finished in blue. The bulk of the building will be 24 feet in height and the office facade will be 26 feet in height. The current height of the parapet appears to vary from one to three and needs to be raised to screen the roof-mounted equipment. The Design Guidelines require that roof mounted equipment "be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building design." As a result, staff has conditioned this project to ensure that all roof mounted equipment be screened by the building walls. This condition will be monitored dudng plan check. Staff was not entirely comfortable with the applicants design and encouraged additional architectural enhancements to the long linear elevations of their building. We suggested variations in height, wall recessing, finish textures and colors. The applicant felt that their design was similar to other large building in the area, and the image they were looking for was one of a more "timeless" industrial design. They also felt that certain enhancements to the exterior would effect the function of the building and conflict with their needs. Additionally, visibility of the building is limited from adjacent properties and streets. A15 foot high slope obscures visibility on the southwest side of the building while the southeast side is blocked from public view by the buildings fronting Rio Nedo. The applicant felt that given the site location and its limited public visibility, it was appropriate to concentrate the architectural enhancements and landscaping at the building's street frontage and not the add elements that would not be seen. If the Commission believes that additional architectural enhancements are necessary are necessary. Staff request that the Commission provide the appropriate direction. Landscapin~ Twenty percent (22%) of the site has been landscaped. This is consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The bulk of the landscaping is provided on slopes around the property. A forty foot landscape buffer has been provided between the street and the building. The large planting areas at the front of the building and on the west side provide further enhancement. Additional landscaping has been provided adjacent to the building around the perimeter to further breakup the vertical and horizontal hard surfaces. The street trees are shown as Deodar Cedar however, a final decision on the street trees has not yet been agreed upon pending further discussed with the other property owners on Colt Court. We are looking for a tree type that the other owners on Colt Court consider compatible with their landscape designs. \\TEIvlEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFT\469pa98.doc 3 Internal to the site the applicant has chosen a landscape palette that will provide them with their own distinctive look. The front landscaping is a mixed grouping of Italian Stone Pine, Crape Myrtle. Califomia Sagebrush, Autumn Sage, Wooly Blue Cuds, Agave, Yucca_, Texas Ranger, and Rosemary as ground cover. This selection of plants utilizes a wide vadety of local plant species. However, staff and the City's landscape architect feel that a few of the selected plantings seem to conflict or clash within this chosen palette and with other planting in the area, such as the use of Deodar Cedar as a street and combined with the high concentration of Agave on the rear slope. Staff respects the applicant's desire to create their own environment but has conditioned the applicant to revise the landscape plan to provide a better blend between neighboring properties. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any impacts will be mitigated to levels less than significant. In addition, because the site was previously prepared, it contains on biological resources. As a result staff is recommending that a De Minimus Impact Finding be made. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Office/warehouse uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This is a Fast Track project and Staff and the applicant have work faithfully to bring this project forward according to schedule agree to in eady November. During our limited negotiating time Staff had encouraged further enhancements to the design at hand but complied with the applicant's wishes to take this project forward for your consideration. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission condition the applicant to provide further accenting to the building such as cornices, additional reveal or relief patterns, texture and color variations, if they feel more enhancements are necessary. This is the second building to be proposed on the Colt Court that provides access to five parcels. This project is at the end of a cul-de-sac where visibility is limited to those intentionally heading to this site. Although the design of the building is not as articulated with features described in the City's Design Guidelines, it meeting the minimum limits of the Development Code. The project proposal does mimic architectural styles found on some of the older and larger buildings in the surrounding industrial parks although, it may not be in keeping with the City's latest desires for enhanced architecture. Therefore, the proposed design and use can be considered compatible and consistent with other businesses in the area of Colt Court and Winchester Road. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 project is consistent with all City Ordinances, including; the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFTS\PLANNING~STAFFRFr\469pn98.doc 4 The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and street improvements have already been installed on site. There are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. FINDINGS - MINOR EXCEPTION That there are practical difficulties or unnecessay hardships created by strict application of the code due to the physical Characteristics of the property. The use of the site is designed for a known user who has a parking need that is far below the established standard based oR floor area. The minor exception does not grant special privileges which are not otherwise available to surrounding properties and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of other persons located in the vicinity. All other properties are entitled to request a reduction in the parking standard within the stated limits and this request will not be detrimental to the public welfare or to the property of others in the area. The minor exception places suitable conditions on the property to protect surrounding properties and does not permit uses which are not otherwise allowed in the zone. This property has a known used with set operating conditions that limit their parking needs. The use of this property is for manufacturing and warehousing is appropriate for the zoning designation. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Study - Blue Page 19 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 35 Exhibits - Blue Page 41 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Landscape Plan G. Floor Plans H. Rendering \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEFI'S~PLANNING~TAFFRPT\469pa98 .dec ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- \\TEIdEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~TAFFRPT~469pa98 .doe 6 ATTACHMENT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 99~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98- 0469 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 50,050 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING (TILT-UP CONCRETE) ON A 2.71 ACRE LOT; LOCATED AT THE END OF COLT COURT SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLT COURT AND WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PM 28471-1 AND ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-360-003 & 004. WHEREAS, John Herring, of C & H Office Specialties, Inc., filed Planning Application No. PA98-0469, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0469 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0469, on January 6, 1999, 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. PA98-0469; 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 FefeFence. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PAg8-0469 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. 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 project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. C. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEIq'S\PLANNING~STAFFRFf\469pa98.doc 7 D. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are no native spedes of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An initial Study was prepared for this project and indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration with a DeMinimus impact finding, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) for the design and construction of a 50,050 square foot industdal (tilt-up concrete) building on a 2.71 acre lot, located at the end of Colt Court south of the intersection of Colt Court and Winchester Road, and known as Assessors Parcel No. 909-360-003 & 004, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1999. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of January, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRFr\469pa98.d~c EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL \\TE~IEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEFfS\PLANNING~rI'AFFRFI~469pa98 .doc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0469 (Development Plan - C & H Office Specialties, Inc.) Project Description: The design and construction of a 50,050 square foot industrial (tilt-up concrete) building on a 2.71 acre lot located at the end of Colt Court south of the intersection of Colt Court and Winchester Road Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 909-360-003 & 004 January6, 1999 January6, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 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 Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. 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 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, judgemeats, 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. City shall promptly notify the 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. 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 pedod which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval, \\TEIVlEC_FS201\DATA\DEI~FS\pLANN~'~IG\STAFFRpT\4~9pa98.do~ The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The development of the premises shall conform substantially to Exhibit D (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 98-0469, or as amended by these conditions. Building elevations shall conform substantially to the approved to Exhibit E (Elevation Plan), or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structures. Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the Development Code. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bdng 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. The colors and materials used for this industrial building shall conform substantially to the approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions. Material Color Concrete walls Mid-section band Separation reveals Office front and windows Man doors & Overhead doors Vista 300, White C & H White C & H Blue Ford, Blue C & H White Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the colored architectural Elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic pdnts. 10. 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. 11. 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 raturn one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. Parcel Merger PA98-0395 shall be completed and recorded. 13. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Planning Manager the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. 14. If an external dust collector is proposed, appropriate screening including wing walls and landscaping shall be provided and approved by the Planning Manager. R:\STAFFRPT~469pa98.doc 11 15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 16. Revised landscape plans shall be submitted which provide for: better transitional landscaping between the adjacent properties; alters the extensive use of Agave along the rear property line; finds an alternative to the Deodar Cedar; and, establishes an appropriate street tree. 17. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and conform substantially to the approved Exhibit "F' Conceptual Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. 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). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 18. Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted in confon'nance with City Ordinances, Design Guidelines, and Development Code. 19. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be propedy constructed and in good working order. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plans, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 21. Each parking spaca reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectodzed sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking spaca finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place. at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, cJeady and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." ~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEFTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFF~469pa98.d~ In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 22. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 23. 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 street lights 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. 24. 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. 25, Provide layout of wood working area. Dust collection system my be required for type and amount of equipment used. 26. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 27. The Occupancy classification of the proposed building shall be B/F-I/S-1 28. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 29. Provide Occupancy approvals for all existing buildings (i.e. finale building permits or Certificate of Occupancy) 30. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. {California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 31. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 32. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 33. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 34. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of extedor lighting, fire alarm systems. 35. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 36. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 37. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRFF\469pa98.doc 13 38. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 39. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 40. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 41. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector pdor to the start of the building construction. 42 Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate approvals and permits. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 43. Unless otherwise noted. all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to 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 furlher review and revision. 44. General Requirements 45. 46. A Grading Permit for a precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Depadment of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Depadment of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 47. 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 48. 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 pdvate property. 49. 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. 50. 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 repod shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 51. 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. \\TF_I4EC_FS201%DATA\DEITrS\PLANNING\STAFFRFT\469pa98 .doc 52. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 53. 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. 54. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 55. 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. 56. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct by either cashiers 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 57. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design cdteda shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Ddveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. All street and driveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees. d. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing e. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attomey. \\TF-MEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT\469pa98.doc Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 61. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water Distdct b. Eastern Municipal Water Distdct c. Department of Public Works 62. 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. 63. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 64. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 65. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng 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. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 66. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 D" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart 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 upgrede of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 67. As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) 68. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 69. 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 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) ~\TEklEC_FS201\DATA~,DEPTS\pLANNING\STAFFRFF\469pa98.doc 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77, 78. 79. Pdor to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Depadment vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any poffion 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 70,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical dearonce of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) Pdor to building construction, dead end road ways 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. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Pd0r to issuance of building permits, the developer shall fumish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor 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 plans are signed by the local water company, 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. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) 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. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) 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 pdor to installation. (UFC Article 10) 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. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4) Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Adicle 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. This building is not designed for high-piled storage. No high-piled combustible is allowed or permitted. (UFC Adicle 81) \%TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRFr\469pa98.doc By placing my signature below. I confirm that I have read, I understand, and I accept all the above mentioned 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 Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name pdnted ~\T]E~IEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT\469pa98.doc 18 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA\DEFrS\PLANNING~STAFFRFI'\469pa98.do~ 19 Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Location Project Sponsors Name and Address General Plan Designation Zoning Description of Project Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose approval is required City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist PA98-0469 (Development Plan for C&H Office Specialties) City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033. Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Thomas Thomsley, Project Planner (909) 694-6400 27480 Colt Ct. (south of the intersection of Colt Ct. and Winchester Rd.), 909-360-003 and 004 John Herring, C&H Office Specialties 1615 Fremont Ct., Ontado, CA 91761 BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) The design and construction of a 50,050 square foot industrial building for manufacturing and warehousing of office and school furniture. The project is located in an area that has be previously graded, street improvements, water and sewer are within the vicinity of the project. The properties to the north and west are vacant and to the east and south are industrial buildings. Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Deparlment, Temecula Police Department. Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. \~TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEFrS~PLANN/NG\STAFFRFZ'X469pa98 .doc 20 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. X X Land Use Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier 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, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name fOF %\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRF~469pa98 .do¢ 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: 1.a, 1.b. 1.c. 1.d. 1.e. ~"nd:suPP~i~iU~!om'"*~'":sources Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minodty community)? Potentially S~;nirmant Unless Mitigation LIII Thln :smmca~ No X X X X X Comments: 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. 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). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) 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. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low- income or minodty community). The project is an industrial building that has been designed to accommodate handle manufacturing and warehousing uses, and is surrounded by some currently developed similar uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minodty community) at this site. No effects are anticipated as a result of this project. ~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\pLANNING~STAFFRpT~469pa98.doc 22 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: 2.a. 2,c, tssuela~l:Suppordr~gitnfolm=f~.8ouroes Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? Induce substantial gro~h in an area either dire~ly or indirectly (e.g. through proje~ in an undeveloped area or e~ension of major infrast~cture)? Displace existing housing, especially affo~able housing? X No X X Comments: The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is an industrial building for manufacturing and warehousing consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of LI (Light Industrial). Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Light Industdal, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth - that will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. 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 Light Industrial. The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No effects are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS~PLANNING~STAFFRF~469pa98,do~ 23 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? 3.a. 3.b. 3.c. 3.d. 3.e. 3.f. 3.g. 3.h. 3.i. Issues and Suppc,fdng information Sou,ces Potentially i S~nirK:am : Impact Fault rupture? (Source 1, Page 7-1, Figure 7-6) Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, Page 7-1, Fig. 7-6) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Page 7-2, Figure 7-8) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Page 7-2, Figure 7-8) Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? S~gmflcant Less Than Unless Slgm;acanl M~tigabon ImFact X X X No X X X Comments: 3,c, 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 mitigated through building construction that is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as pad of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to detennine 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. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact 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. 3.f. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur dudng the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils as recommended in the soils report. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTSXPLANNING~TAFFRPTx469pa98 .doc 24 3.i. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4.a. 4.b. 4.c. 4.d. Issue~ and Suppoding Inbn~ation Sources Changes in absorption rates, draina~'~ ~ttems, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Pg. 7-10, Fig. 7-3 and Pg. 7- 12, Figure 7-4) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Potenteal~/ Potally I SiNrecant ', Less Tl,.an 8ignifr.,ant Unless i S~lnfficant Impsct Mitigation Impact Incorporated X X X ND X 4.e. 4.f. 4.g. 4.h. 4.i. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water Movements? Change in the quantity 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? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater. Otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source 2, Page 263) X X X X X Commen~: 4.a. The project will result in potentially significant changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. 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 will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.c. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Pdor to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Poliutant 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 less than significant level. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e, 4.f-h. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any water body or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape, parking and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into Murrieta Creek will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant change in 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. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5.a. 5.b. 5.c. 5.d. · · Polentially · P0tentia~/· · Signifr~nt Le~ Than :; . Signirmant . . Unlss . :~ignificant No tssuesandSUplx>rlinglnfonnalionSources ." Impact'. .Mitigation .impact Impact Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing X or projected air quality violation? (Source 3, Page 6-11, Table 6-2) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? X Comments: 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants or sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c, The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project will create objectionable odors dudng the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of shod duration and are not considered significant over the long term. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TFJvIEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS%PLANNING~'TAFFRFI'%469pa98.doc 6.a. 6.c. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: I~,ues aM Supporting Infom,,ltlon Sources Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Signirtan~ Signirr, ant Mlhgat~on Less 'lltan Slgnirr, ent No Impact Irapad X X 6,d. 6.e. 6f. 6.g. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source 4, Table 17.24)a), Pg. 17-24-9) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 4, Table 17.24, Pg. 12) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X X Comments: 6,8. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes dudng the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Winchester Road and Colt Court. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is an industrial building for manufacturing and warehouse use in an area with existing similar uses and planned Business Park/Light Industrial uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyciists. Hazards or barriers to bicyciists have not been included as part of the project. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterbome or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. %\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~TAFFRpT~469pagg.doc 27 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal result in impacts to: 7.a. 7.b. 7.c. 7.d. 7.e. Issues and Suppoffing Inferrr,~,~ Sources Impact Endangere~ threatened or~are species or their habitats ' (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 1, Pg. 5-15, Figure 5-3) Locally designated species (e.g. hedtage trees)? (Source 1, Pg. 5-15, Figure 5-3) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Pg. 5-15, Figure 5-3) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, dpadan and vernal pool)? (Source 1, Pg. 5-15, Figure 5-3) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? P0(enliall~/ Slgnifmanl ~ Than n Impact Incorporated No X X X X Comments: 7,e, The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as pad of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 8.a. 8.c. : : P~entmlly , S~gndr, ant Less Than Sign:truant Unless Slgn:ficant No Issues and Suppoffing Informatm Sources Impact Mitigation Impact Impact · Confhct with adopted energy conservabon plans? _ __ J Ir~orpora. ted ..... X Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner?. Result in the loss of availability of a known minerel X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: 8.a. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pedaining to energy conservation dudng the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. There will be an increase in the rate of use of natural resource dudng construction (construction materials, fuels forthe daily operation, asphalt, lumber). The depletion of these nonrenewable resource(s) and the subsequent depletion of the non-renewable natural resources is minimal. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are seen as less than significant. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPrSXpLANNING\STAFFRF~469pa98.doc 28 8.c. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known minerel resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Issues lind Suppoffing Ir.;,,,,,.,abon Sources '~:'~. ....~'~:isk'~ accidental explosion '~F~el~ase of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? 9.b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 9.c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 9.d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 9.e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ' 'F ' ! Polefttidy Signifr. ant ~ Less Than i Slgni~ca~ Unless ! Ssgm~cant :~ NO Impact MItigation ! Impact ; Imlacl ' Incoq~oraled X X X X X Comments: The project will result in a less than significant impact due to dsk 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. VVhile 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 dudng plan check for compliance with applicable codes and regulations and may require further mitigation measures based on the construction drawing and intemal layout. The mitigation of potential impacts will be mitigated prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Department pdor 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. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area that could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c. 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. Reference response 9.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project (Reference 9.a. & 9.c.). No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 9.e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is an industrial building for manufacturing and warehousing in an area of similar uses and proposed Business PaddLight Industrial uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 10.a. 10.b. Issues and Supporong Informabort Smjrces Increase in exi~'ti~0 Rc~i~ lev~l-~? " Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Impact Potentially Poten~iagy S~gnicant S~lnificant Unlet& Mitigaten ............... .L . Incorpora..tnd Le~ Than S~gni~cant Impact X No i Comments: 10.a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the shod or long-term. 10b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the developmentJconstruction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very annoying and can cause headng damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. The manufacturing operations to be located within this facility may expose people to sever noise but the extent and duration will be within industry standards. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11. 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: · · Potentially · . Potenlialiy : Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant : Issues and Suppoffing Infomla~ion. Sources Iml:mct ' MitigatiOn Impact · · Incorporated 11 .a. Fire protection? X 11. b. Police protection? X 11 .c. Schools? X 11 .d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X 11 .e. Other governmental services? No X Comments: 11 .a, b, The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DElaTS\PLANNING~TAFFRPT~469pa98.do¢ 30 11.c. 11.d, 11.e. 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 of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of reads is dedved from the Gasoline Tax, which is distdbuted to the City of Temecula from the State of Califomia. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 12.a. Power or natural gas? 12.b. Communications systems? 12.c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Potenlialiy Pctentm~y Signirmant Sign~rr, ant Unless Impact Mitigation _ I, nco, rporated Less Than · Significant No Impact . Impact ' X X 12.d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pgs. 39-40) 12.e. Storm water drainage? 12.f. Solid waste disposal? 12.g. Local or regional water supplies? X X X X Comments: 12.a-c &g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to: power or natural gas; communication systems; water treatment or distribution facilities; local or regional water supplies. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs that are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\pLANNING'~TAFFRPT~469pa98.dec 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 13.a. 13.b. 13.c. Ir~sues and Suplx~ffing Inkx'malm~t Sour¢~ Aff~ a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect? Create light or glare? S~gmf~cant Imi~ct Potentially 8ignir~lnt ~ Than Un~ens Sigmrmnt Mitigation Irapad Inco~oraL,,d. ....... X X No X Comments: 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is an industrial building in an area of existing uses and the proposed Business Park/Light Industdal uses. The building is consistent with other designs in the area and the proposed landscaping will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a less than a significant impact from light and glare. 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 Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: . Poten~ia~y . Slgnjfcant .Less Than ::::: i:i :i ::!! Js,~es ~ ~u~!Q~ ~s; Im~d MR~at~n ImNct Im~ :: :~Z~::: :;: ~ ::: :~:~ :::: ~ :1~:: 14.a Disturb paieont01ogical resources? (Source 2, Fig. 15, Pg. X 70) 14.b. Disturb archaeological resoumes? (Source 2, Fig. 14, Pg. X 67) 14.c. Affect historical resources? X 14.d. Have the potential to cause a physi~l change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 14.e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? Comments: 14.c. The project will not have an impact on historical resources. The site has been previously graded and resources would have been disturbed at that time. No historic resources exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a.c. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEFTS~PLANNING\$TAFFRPT~469pa98 .dOc 32 14.e. The project will not restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 15.a. 15.b. ..... ' ' "l~tN ' Increase the demand for neighbo~ood or regional pa~s X or other recreational fa~lities? Affe~ existing recreational oppo~unities? X No Comments: 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEtviEC_FS201\DATAH)EFq'S\i~LAJ~NIiNG\STAFFIL~I~469pa98.doc 33 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Ir~ue= and Sul~mg Infalr, i~,,~ Source~ 16.a. 6E~ the project have~ ~Re potential to c~gr~Ele't~ q"~lity 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 pedods of California history or prehistory? 16.b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 16.c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited. but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively 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 projects, and the effects of probable future projects). 16.d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: None. po~enua.y Significamt Unler~ MitiDaflon I ' I,I!~Than Sigmficant Impact No X X X X EARLIER ANALYSES, None. 2. 3. 4. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. City of Temecuta development Code \\TEJvlEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~pLANNING\STAFFRF~469pa98.doc 34 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM \\TEIVIEC_FS 201 ~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~TAFFRFf\469pa98 .doc 35 Geologic Problems General impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA97-0469 (Development Plan, C&H Office Specialties) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works. Pdor to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Pdor to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or eadhquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils repod prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check, Building pads shall be cedified by a registered Civil Engineer. Pdor to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. %',TF.~IEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRFr'~469pa98.doc 36 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Depadment of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Ran (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). %\TEIvIEC_FS201\DATA\DEFTS\PLANN1NG\STAFFRPT%469pa98,dOC 37 Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Bioloqical Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle tdps or traffic congestion, Payment of Development Impact Fees which contribute to road improvements and traffic signal installations. Pay fees as computed by the Building Department. Pdor to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion, Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-rata share for traffic impacts to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 ~er acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Pdor to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Depadment ~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPi'S\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~469pa98.doc 38 Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered govemmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Development Impact Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Depadment and Temecula Valley Unified School District. General impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Pay fees computed by the Department of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. \\TEIVIEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFf%469pa98.dOc 39 Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitodng Party: A potentially significant negative aesthetic effect. Add landscaping throughout the project to screen views of the building. Add further adiculation to the building that will provide aesthetic enhancement to the building. Submit building construction plans, elevations, and landscape plans which are consistent with the approved site plan elevations, and landscape plans for review and approval. Pdor to the issuance of building permits. Planning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEFrS~PLANNING\STAFFRF~469p898 .do~ 41 CITY OF TEMECULA ,/ Winch Square Temecula Showgrounds ,~ . /./ ~,.' · -,, F~e~n~cl.~..----~ /' ',~ , ..~ ,,~"~ %// ~ ... · / //' ~ ~ ~ "" ',' ' ~ / ~Z~ CODE , ~ ~ ~ ~Y"/ ~Y Eastern DMV Q, ~ / * Dist 925~ Business "'X City · ,-!.~,~!,~,,..:, _ Hall PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) EXItIRIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 4, 1998 VICINITYMAP R:\STAFFRPT~469pa98.dec 42 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - LI(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING MAP BP EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK) GENERAL PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 4, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT\469pa98 .doc 43 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICAT/ON NO. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 4, 1998 SITE PLAN R :~STAFFRIYFX~69pa98 .doc 44 CITY OF TEMECULA ! ,,'E~I I IFI tit !lf!l ql IP" I; qii~k ]lllil'~'F]OFFFFl~l t i~ IUI PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA984469 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 4, 1998 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFRPT\469pa98 .doc 45 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) EXmnIT F LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 4, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT\469pa98.do~ 46 CITY OF TEMECULA li :,, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) EXIHRIT G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 4, 1998 FLOOR PLANS R:\STAFFRPT\469pa98.doc 47 CITY OF TEMECULA C&H OFFICE SPECIALTIES BUILDING COLT COURT, TEM~CULA, CALIFORNIA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0469 (Development Plan) EXHIRIT H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - November 4, 1998 RENDERING R:~STAFFP, PT\469pa98.do~ 48