Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051700 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY '17, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:07 P.M., on Wednesday May 17, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Guerriero. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Commissioners *Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, Chairman Guerriero. None. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hogan, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:10 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Approval of Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 17, 2000. 2 Director's Hearin.q Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and File. and R: PlanComm~minutes~051700 MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. Consent Calendar Items Nos. 3 and 4 were considered separately. 3 CIP (Capital Improvement Program Summary - Draft Extract 2001-2005) RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Review and Comment. It was noted that Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:10 P.M. Senior Planner Hogan relayed that it was the Commission's charge to determine whether the proposed CIP projects were consistent with the General Plan. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Commission could make recommendations with respect to the traffic signal projects denoted in the CIP. With respect to the CIP, Commissioner Webster recommended that a traffic si,qnal be added at the intersection of Diaz Road and Winchester Road. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the Rainbow Canyon Interchange Study Project was not on the City's current Circulation Element, relaying that the proposal was solely for the study portion of the Interchange in order to determine a feasible location for the future project south of Highway 79 South which was consistent with the General Plan, noting that the words design and construction could be deleted. With respect to the Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossin.q Project into Old Town, Commissioner Webster recommended that the reference to a conference center be deleted, since there was no proposed conference center use in this area. With respect to the Temecula Park and Ride Facility Project at Hi.qhway 79 South and La Paz Street., Commissioner Webster queried why facilities had not been proposed at alternate locations. Senior Planner Hogan relayed that staff was in the process of working with the developers to install a facility at the mall site. Commissioner Webster recommended that additional Park and Ride facilities be added into the CIP. Chairman Guerriero recommended that the Northwest Sports Complex be categorized at a Priority II Level rather than a Priority IV Level. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that this project would be been fully funded within the next two years, advising that although the project had been categorized as a Priority IV project, that based on the urgency of the need for the facility the City Council had directed staff to ensure that this project was built, reiterating that the project would be funded during the first two years of the CIP. Since funding for the Northwest Complex Project had already been determined, Commissioner Mathewson recommended categorizing the project as a Priority Level I; and in light of the continued growth in youth sports programs queried whether the Joint Use (County/City) Sports Complex Proiect could be elevated from a Priority Level IV. Deputy Director of Public Works R:PlanCornm~in utes\051700 2 Parks advised that it would be prudent for the Commission to review the rationale for the categorizing of priority levels, noting that the higher priority projects were urgent projects that reflected a need regarding health, safety, and welfare issues, relaying that typically the park projects were not classified as high priority items. With respect to the Buttedield Staqe Road Bypass Project (Phases I and II), Commissioner Mathewson queried why the segment from La Serena to Rancho California Road was not included in the CIP. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that this portion of the project was developer driven (noting that Phase I and II were also developer driven and would be part of an assessment district). Senior Planner Hogan provided additional information regarding the segment of the project between La Serena and Rancho California Road being conditioned as part of an approved project. Confirming Senior Planner Hogan's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the timing of the project which would be dependent upon the development activity in this area which would generate a need for an assessment district or an alternate funding source. With respect to the Focused Circulation Study for Meadowview, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether this traffic study would address any proposed non-residential uses in that area. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the study would encompass all of the land use in that area, noting that this project would not be funded within the first two years of the ClP; and confirmed that this study was not necessary for any pending projects. Commissioner Fahey commended staff for the development of the CIP, advising that the · proposed program was consistent with the General Plan. For the record, Chairman Guerriero noted the receipt via e-mail of a letter from Mr. David W. Dillon dated May 17, 2000 regarding recommendations and concerns with respect to the CIP. In respect to Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding the Winchester Road Wideninq Project, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the median strip would not be removed, noting that the project encompassed the addition of right-turn lanes, and additional width at the intersections, advising that the project would necessitate the removal of some curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Chairman Gue~:riero commended staff for their diligent efforts with respect to the CIP. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the proposed Capital Improvement Program (ClP) with the consideration of the Commission's proposed comments and revisions. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Administrative Approvals for Projects Under 10,000 square feet and Exempt for CEQA Addressing development under 10,000 square feet within an approved Specific Plan, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the Development Code allows projects of this size, if exempt from CEQA, to be administratively approved by staff; and queried the Commission for input. For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed the appeal process with respect to these projects. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Senior Planner Hogan relayed additional information regarding the previously mentioned CEQA exemption issues. R: Pla nComm~minutes~051700 For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the Development Code, as written, allows for this type of administrative approval, noting that there would only need to be revision of Development Code if the Commission was uncomfortable with the process. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Plannin.q Application No. PA97-0242 (Antenna Ordinance) to recommend that the City Council approve the Ne.qative Declaration and the proposed Antenna Ordinance. Dave Ho.qan RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 17.40 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND ANTENNAS AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS" (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0242) Senior Planner Hogan presented an overview of the proposed Antenna Ordinance (of record), noting that the Planning Application Number had been misrepresented in the staff report, and that the correct number was No. PA97-0242 (as indicated in this record); relayed that staff had been working with the wireless communication industry representatives to gain input; clarified that the minor homeowner antennas would be exempt; with respect to antennas for wireless facilities that could be potentially mounted on a tall building, relayed that this application would be approved by staff; noted that various proposed locations would be approved via a Director's hearing (referencing the matrix in the staff report); relayed that if the installation was proposed in a conspicuously significant location, or if a network plan was proposed, the approval process would be via the Planning Commission; specified the type of antennas included in the regulatory process; noted the revisions in the draft ordinance as the ordinance had developed; specified the distance requirements (as per agenda material); indicated the following proposed corrections to the draft ordinance: 1) with respect to page 31, Section 17.40.200, noted that the reference to the number of signs should be eliminated, limiting all the signage to a maximum size of three feet, 2) with respect to page 38, Section 17.40.130 A., noted that the phrase Airport Owner/Operator should be replaced with the phrase Airport Land Use Commission, 3) with respect to page 42, Section 17.40.210, noted that the Standard Agreement should be required to be obtained Prior to a Building Permit, rather than Prior to a Use Permit, as indicated, and 4) with respect to page 42, Section 17.40.210 Cl, noted that the word lessors should be replaced with the word providers. R:PlanComrn~minutes\051700 For the record, Chairman Guerriero relayed that he had received a fax from Mr. Madrid, representing PCS, which the Commission had been provided per supplemental agenda material in the form of a duplicate letter addressed to Mr. Hogan. For Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Hogan provided information on how the ordinance would regulate new technology. In response to Commissioner Fahey's queries regarding a proposed plan for fiber optics, Attorney Curley relayed that there had been several requests, noting that this matter was being reviewed and analyzed. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that currently the City had 11 antennas; noted that the existing antennas would not be required to be modified; advised that there was no required lot size with respect to the antenna structures, noting that the Planning Commission would review criteria and the appropriateness of the proposed location for multi- use site proposals. Commissioner Telesio commended staffs efforts with respect to the proposed ordinance. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan confirmed that Federal Law preempted local regulations with respect to residential dish antennas up to two meters in size; with respect to page 10, Section 17.40.020, subsection K, confirmed that the setbacks would be measured from the base of the tower of the facility, noting that this provision no longer applies to the citizens band or amateur radio requirements; noted that in the introductory paragraph of Section 17.40.020 it stated that no nonexempt facilities shall be constructed and that all nonexempt facilities shall meet the following requirements, relayed that the citizens band antennas up to the height of 35 feet were considered exempt. With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's querying regarding a proposed antenna being installed which would result in an overhang on an adjacent property, Attorney Curley advised that encroachment into one's property would be trespassing; and with respect to the necessity of regulating the number of television antennas on a residence, provided additional information. Addressing Homeowners Association (HOA) issues, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the matters would be dealt with separately; noted staff's intent to provide a basic framework. Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding HOA matters, noting that the City policies were not provisions for an individual to override the HOA standards. Commissioner Mathewson queried regarding a Temporary Facilities proposal, being approved, and the applicant making the installation during an appeal process. In response, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the appeal would suspend the approval. Planning Manager Ubnoske provided additional information regarding an applicant choosing to move forward during the 15-day period available for individuals to file appeals, noting the risks the applicant would be willingly taking. For Commissioner Webster, with respect to page 32, Section 17.40.050 regarding the use of the term exempt, Senior Planner Hogan noted that it was staffs intent to specify the permitted exempt facilities in residential zones. With respect to FCC requirements, Attorney Curley relayed the intent of the language of the ordinance to be in compliance with FCC regulations. R:PlanComm',minutes\051700 While noting that staff had incorporated modifications in response to his prior comments provided to staff, Chairman Guerriero queried the regulations associated with truck-mounted antennas. In response, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that with respect to the crank up antenna regulation, the maximum level height of the antenna would be the height regulated. Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the approval process determined by the maximum height an antenna could reach. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan provided additional information regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's authority which would provide approval for location of an antenna within the airport flight zone, noting that the Airport Land Use Plan had been reviewed by the FAA. For Commissioner Fahey, Attorney Curley relayed the enfomement process with respect to adherence to the ordinance. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the screening of the antenna was not specified, noting that adequate screening would be determined at the time of the approval process. At this time Chairman Guerriero opened the public hearing. Ms. Barbara Saito, representing Nextel Communications Inc., commended Senior Planner Hogan on his excellent work with respect to the ordinance; with respect to Commissioner Mathewson' queries regarding the FAA, noted that all tower proposals were required to be submitted to the FAA for approval; and relayed that if it was the Commission's desire, the applicant could submit proof of that approval prior to obtaining a building permit. Mr. Joe Richards, representing Horizon Wireless, reiterated commendation to Senior Planner Hogan; queried the 1000 foot separation issue reflected on page 37 of the ordinance, paragraph C and D, noting that there was a plan to mount antennas to streetlights; and questioned whether this restriction would preclude the installation. In response to Mr. Richard's queries, Attorney Curley relayed that if it was the Commission's desire to accommodate the above-mentioned installations, that in Section 17.40.220, on page 43, there could be an exception inserted due to the link with the public right-of-way. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Richards specified the dimensions of the streetlight- mounted installations, noting that the diameter of the pole would be approximately 18 inches. Mr. Adan Madrid, representing Sprint PCS, applauded Senior Planner Hogan for his efforts associated with this ordinance; with respect to Section 17.40.030, subsection ^2, regarding proof of compliance with Federal non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation standards, recommended requiring this as a Condition of Approval, noting that after construction the applicant could provide actual data to staff; and with respect to Section 17.40.030, subsection C, regarding the Director's discretion to require independent technical experts, queried the type of experts referenced. In response to Mr. Madrid's comments, Attorney Curley relayed that if an applicant brought in a specific study based on an area of expertise, staff could potentially need to consult with an expert in that area. R:PlanCornm~minutes\051700 Mr. Madrid relayed that Sprint worked with a technology that required overseas experts at times, requesting that the expert utilized be mutually agreeable between the City and the applicant. In response to Mr. Madrid's comments, attorney Curley relayed that if it was the Commission's desire to incorporate the request of a mutually agreeable expert, there would be no negative legal issues for the City associated with the request. The Commission relayed closinq comments, as follows: Commissioner Fahey relayed that she concurred with Mr. Madrid's comments regarding the request for proof of compliance with Federal non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation standards to be required as a Condition of Approval; and relayed that she was not in favor of altered streetlights (referencing previous comments regarding mountings on streetlights), while noting that due to changing technology she could support language allowing the installations for future consideration. With respect to the distance requirements, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he did not object to the antennas being mounted on the streetlights if they were adequately spaced, supporting the lO00-foot separation distance. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Attorney Curley relayed that the recommendation could be inserted into Sections C, and D, noted that an addition of a last clause could be added stating unless permitted pursuant to an agreement authorized under Section 17. 40. 2020. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he could support the request to have a mutually agreeable expert between the City and the carrier; and with respect to Ms. Saito's comments, that proof of approval from the FAA be required to be provided prior to obtaining a building permit, relaying a desire for this to be incorporated into the approval of the application. Commissioner Webster relayed concurrence with Commissioner Fahey's comments regarding the addition of a Condition of Approval for proof of compliance with the Federal non- ionizing electromagnetic radiation standards; with respect to page 31, recommended that the phrase placement of non-wireless telecommunication facilities be inserted; with respect to subsection .05, recommended that for clarity the word non-exempt replace the word exempt in the title section and in the first sentence; on page 33, under Item E, with respect to exempt facilities the word exempt should be removed; on page 34, Section .16 recommended that after the phrase after all the wireless telecommunication facilities, that the phrase except exempt facilities be added; on page 41, Section .19, under paragraph A., recommended the addition of the phrase except exempt facilities; with respect to the initial study associated with the CEQA issues, queried the manner the City had posted the issue. In response, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the data had been mailed to numerous agencies, and that, additionally, there had been a public notice posted. With respect to Section .050, subsection E. 2. Chairman Guerriero recommended eliminating one of the words need; and with respect to Section .060, the same recommendation. Commissioner Telesio concurred with the previous comments regarding the mutually agreeable technical expert being hired; with respect to the installations mounted on the streetlights, concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comment that this would be more favorable than a monopole, recommending incorporating consideration of the installations into R:PlanCommVnin utes\051700 7 the ordinance on a case-by-case basis; and with respect to Section 17.040, subsection C, recommended replacing the word shall with the phrase considered to be. Senior Planner Hogan queried the Commission with respect to the terms of the proof of the compliance, receiving confirmation that it was the Commissions' desire to have this removed from the submittal requirements, and for staff to make it a Condition of Approval; with respect to the mutually agreeable expert, referencing page 32, Section .030 subsection C, relayed that this could read The planning Director is explicitly authorized at his or her discretion to employ on behalf of the City a mutually agreeable independent technical expert to review... In response to Chairman Guerriere, Attorney Curley recommended that the previous statement include that the mutually agreed upon expert be agreed upon between the City and the applicant. Commissioner Webster suggested having the expert not be mutually agreeable, and that the City fund the hiring of the consultant for review, as done in the City's landscape review for projects, specifically recommending that it be funded through Development Impact Fees. In response to Commissioner Webster, Attorney Curley advised that if the expert review became a routine part of the review process, that it would then be incorporated into the Development Impact Fees; relayed that the City did not desire to subsidize a private development by using general funds, advising that since this review would not be routine, it would be an ad hoc exaction if staff recommended the additional expertise, clarifying that the cost would be incurred by the particular applicant. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation to forward this ordinance to the City Council with the inclusion of the recommendation for a mutually agreed upon (by the applicant and the City) expert (referenced on page 32 of the draft ordinance). Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Webster relayed two recommendations to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, as follows: 1) at the intersection of Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive (where Overland dead-ends) that there be installation of a 3-way stop, and 2) for the section of Overland Drive between Commerce Center Drive and Jefferson Avenue, that it be striped, as well as provision of striping for the turning movements out of the two commercial centers proximate to Jefferson Avenue. With respect to Planning Manager Ubnoske's memorandum regarding the Park and Ride facility at the mall, Commissioner Webster relayed that the comments stated were unsatisfactory and did not meet the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring Program; noted that the mall developer did not have the right to discontinue that use; with respect to an adequate Park and Ride facility, noted that there would be provision of a shelter for waiting commuters; advised that these issues needed to be addressed; and relayed that prior to additional approvals in the mall area, the following matters needed to be addressed: compliance with the Park and Ride facility, with the Mitigation Measures for the EIR, and with the Conditions of Approval for the Development (i.e., landscaping, and standard erosion control). R:PlanComm~nin utes\051700 With respect to the Mall's corner monument, for Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that Associate Planner Donahoe was investigating whether the landscaping, and the design of the treatment were consistent with the approved plan. Chairman Guerriero relayed that at southbound Margarita Road, in the No. 2 lane, there was still a need for a finish coat, noting the uneven surface without proper street lining; and queried the status of the completion of the street project in this area. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she would have Deputy Director of Public Works Parks call Chairman Guerriero to provide additional information. Commissioner Mathewson requested Commission support to have staff develop bylaws governing the Commissioner's action as related to ex-parte communications. In response, Chairman Guerriero relayed that per the California Planning of Association and the American Planning Association, the Commissioner's responsibilities on every project was to gather as much data as possible, stating that discussions with the applicants was part of this informational process. Commissioner Webster relayed that the City does have an existing Code of Conduct for Councilmen and Commissioners, requesting that staff provided copies of this data, and to additionally provide a recommendation in response to the Commission query. With respect to the James Day Middle School area, Commissioner Fahey relayed that there was no signage indicating the end of the school zone (traveling from the Meadowview area). Commissioner Telesio provided additional information regarding school zones. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Department had hired a new Senior Planner, Mr. Dan Rockholt; and introduced him to the Commission. Mr. Rockholt provided a brief overview of his work history, and his educational background; and noted that he was looking forward to working for the City of Temecula. Chairman Guerriero welcomed Mr. Rockholt, relaying that it had been an honor to work with this Planning Department since the City's incorporation. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the June 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting would have a full agenda, including the Meadowview Golf Course issue. ADJOURNMENT At 7:52 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, June 7, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ror~ Guerri~r(:~-~rr~-- --' Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager R:PlanComm~nin utes~051700