Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020701 PC Agenda'~,~' 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] In compliance with the A~ericans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE FEBRUARY 7, 200t - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2001-003 Commissioner Telesio Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no~t on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1Approvethe Agenda of February 7,2001. RAplanCOMM\agendas~001~-7-01 .doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of December 6, 2000 COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. 3 Planning Application 00-0257 (Sprint PCS Unmanned Cellular Facility) to design, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless telecommunication facility located at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir - 41520 Margarita Road. - Rolfe Preisendanzl Assistant Planner1 continued from January 31, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 4 Plannin.q Application 00-0416 (Development Plan) DesiRn and construction of a 13,550 square foot office/warehouse buildin.q on a 1.06 acre lot, located at the north side of Roick (third pad). - Rick Rush, Planner I. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0416 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; R:~planCOMM~agendas~2001~-7-01 .doc 2 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-04t6 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,550 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (SCOTT'S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-047. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: February 21, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R:~pla nCOMM~agendas~2001~2-7-01 .doc 3 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday December 6, 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 Commissioner Telesio. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners *Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Commissioner Chiniaeff. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thomhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Attorney Curley, Attorney Paula Gutierrez Baeza, Fire Captain McBride, Project Planner Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner DeGange, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:20 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, relayed his comments regarding Agenda Item No. 3 at this time since the item was not a public hearing item; read into the record his comments (which were submitted to staff at the meeting) regarding his recommendation for the Planning Commission to recommend a change to the City Code to eliminate compact parking spaces for the following reasons: that vehicles of all sizes utilized the compact spaces, the frequent damage to vehicles, and the narrowed access lanes. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would be bringing forward a Development Code amendment in approximately two to three months. Commissioner Webster recommended that the Commission discuss this item at this time in order to provide direction to staff, recommending that when Development Code R;PlanComm~nutes/120600 Amendment is brought before the Planning Commission, that this matter could be addressed at that time. Commissioner Telesio relayed that primarily people are driving larger cars at this time, concurring with Mr. Lynn that vehicles of all sizes do utilize the compact parking spaces; and noted that he was not opposed to consideration of one standardized size for all parking spaces. Mr. Lynn relayed that there are existing compact parking spaces in the City that are below the minimum size (per Code requirements). Chairman Guerriero concurred with Mr. Lynn, recommending that after additional investigation, that the Planning Commission consider making modifications with respect to allowing compact parking spaces. It was determined that the compact parking spaces issue would be agendized for a future meeting. Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 6, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 4, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 4 Compact Parkinq Spaces It was determined that this issue would be agendized for a future meeting. Planninq Application No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment); No. 98- 0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12); No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305); No. 00-0029 (Wolf Creek Development Agreement); and 98-0482 (Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report) on parcels totalin,q 557 acres located on the east side of Pala Road between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 2 R:PlanComm/minu[es/120600 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180- 001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0029) AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT A, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: 3 R:P~anComm/r~nutes/120600 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting that the project had been presented to the Planning Commission on September 6, September 20, and October 4, 2000, advising that at the October 4th Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission moved to recommend denial of the project; relayed that at the October 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission considered the Resolutions of denial prepared by the City Attorney's office, noting that during consideration of the Resolutions, the Planning Commission moved to reconsider the project which was the rationale for the project being presented at this time; advised that it had been the Planning Commission's request for the developer to address the items specified in the Findings associated with the Resolutions of denial for this hearing; noted that Attachment No. 6 (per agenda material) was the developer's full written response regarding the resolutions, advising that she would be summarizing the data; and relayed that Project Planner Naaseh would present the Development Agreement points for the Planning Commission's consideration in order for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation and comments to the City Council. Associate Planner Donahoe recapitulated the recent modifications to the project, as follows: Noted the revision from the planned high school site to the proposed 40-acre sports park which triggered the following revisions: the modification of the Community Park to the current proposed Neighborhood Park, and the Neighborhood Park which was now proposed as an activity node. Relayed that the multi-family apartments were removed as one of the options, noting that there still existed an option for senior multi-family housing in Planning Area No. 18. Advised that the small lots (4,000-4500 square foot lots) have been eliminated, noting that the minimum lot size would be 5,000 square feet. Noted that the single-family dwelling Courtyard Housing in Planning Areas, 7, 10, and 18 would come forward with Planned Development Overlay (PDO) zones. 4 R:PlanComm/nfinutes/120600 With respect to the implementation of narrower streets, noted the exhibit entitled "Option 2 - Through Local Streets," advising that this element would be implemented, where feasible, in the neighborhoods, noting that the parkway landscaping would need to be maintained by an HOA. With respect to the revisions to the Commercial Areas in Planning Area No. 12, and 13, noted that the applicant did provide a revised list of commercial uses in response to the Commission's previously expressed comments. Advised that the applicant updated the matrix with the Zoning Ordinance, reflecting the lot size changes, noting that the lot coverage was not modified, advising that it was the applicant's opinion that with the existing setback standards the lot coverage would not be a significant factor. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that she would not address the issues which were covered in the Development Agreement, while noting that the cul-de-sac length was revised to reflect a 600-foot maximum in lieu of 1320 feet; with respect to the request to have Energy Conservation Measures implemented into the Specific Plan, relayed that Conditions of Approval were added to address this issue; with respect to the request for coordination with Metropolitan Water District regarding the pipelines at the south end of the project, noted that mitigation measures and conditions have been included to address this matter; noted the request of the Temecula Community Services District to add three additional conditions to the Specific Plan (presenting the conditions via overheads), advising that these conditions would ensure that if the Development Agreement was not approved, that there would be the ability to revert back to the original format in terms of the Community Park and the Neighborhood Park in order to meet Quimby requirements; and relayed that Development Services Administrator McCarthy was available for questions from the Planning Commission regarding these particular conditions. For Chairman Guerriero, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified the rationale for the language if feasible being added to the document, noting the need for flexibility. Commissioner Webster queried why a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop regarding this project was never held, referencing comments from previous meetings. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff did meet with the City Council regarding the Development Agreement. Associate Planner Donahoe noted, additionally, that there have been several meetings held with the Subcommittee, relaying that Councilman Naggar and Councilman Pratt served on this Subcommittee, confirming that no Planning Commissioners were on this particular Subcommittee. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified that the courtyard option would not be restricted to seniors only, noting that these dwellings would be single family units, advising that there was no language added which would preclude the developer from designating this area for seniors only. It was noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived to the meeting at 6:20 P.M. Project Planner Naaseh presented the Development Agreement Deal Points (per supplemental agenda material), noting that staff has been negotiating with the applicant for the past few months, advising that the City Attorney and the applicant's attorney are still working out the legal details of the Development Agreement document; relayed that the Deal Points represented in the data were sufficient information for the Planning 5 R:Plan ComrrVrninutes/120600 Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council; presented a detailed overview of the Deal Points of the Development Agreement; and for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the ten percent (10%) was added to the DIF component for the parks, advising that the City would be receiving ten percent (10%) more than the current DIF for parks, noting that this amount was included in the $2,800,000 figure. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that a DIF component was adopted, advising that there was a component related to park improvements. With respect to the meeting held on Monday, December 4, 2000 with the Subcommittee, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the Subcommittee's comments had been added to the Deal Point summarization data (per supplemental agenda material). For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the proposed Administrative Facility would be located adjacent to the Fire Station site, noting that the specific plan for this site was undetermined at this point in time. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the proposed Fire station would enhance the emergency response times for the annexed Vail Ranch area; and noted that the City was in charge of the construction of the Fires Station site, advising that the project was conditioned to have the Fire Station be completed by the 400th building permit or the applicant would not be issued any additional building permits due to the impact with respect to the 5-minute response time. Fire Captain McBride relayed that the emergency response times for Vail Ranch would not effect this particular project, advising that this proposed Fire Station would aid in the service of the Vail Ranch area; and via overhead maps provided additional information regarding the response times, which would only be improved with the proposed Fire Station with this particular project. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the entities contributing to the cost of the sound wall could potentially be Assessment District No. 159, the Pechangas, or alternate sources. In response to Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the 134' ROW improvement of Pala Road was a right-of-way dedication, noting that the City would be in control of the improvement plans, advising that it had not yet been determined whether Pala Road would be constructed as six lanes all the way to Wolf Valley Road, noting that this issue would be addressed with the City Council. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh provided additional information regarding the Subcommittee's recommendation with respect to the applicant being responsible to pay the future Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee when it was adopted, noting that the impacts addressed were regional and not based on a project by project basis; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that various Subcommittee comments had not been agreed to by the applicant; in response to Commissioner Webster's queries, relayed that the Deal Points provided as supplemental agenda material were the same Deal Points provided in the agenda packets with the exception of the addition of the Subcommittee's comments; and clarified Condition No. 65 (referencing page 15), which stated no occupancies will be allowed that will result in a 6 R;Plen Cornr~'~ n u [es/120600 service level of less than "D" on Pala Road, or at any of the Pala intersections from Rainbow Canyon Road to Woff Valley Road. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the Deal Point regarding LOS Level D associated with Planning Areas 20, 21, 22, and 23, noting that the alternate portions of the subdivision would be developed within the limits of the LOS at this time; and noted that the casino's plans had been taken into consideration in the traffic projections presented. In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the Wolf Valley 12' median installed between Pala Road and the easterly boundary of Planning Area No. 14 would be landscaped, advising that if language was not included in the Specific Plan document to address the landscaping issue, that it would be added. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that this issue was addressed in Condition No. 26c. (of the Tentative Map) which required a raised landscaped median. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh provided additional information regarding the permitted uses within Planning Area No. 12 addressed in the Deal Point data. With respect to the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning, Commissioner Webster noted that he had previously recommended that taverns, and bar uses not be excluded, querying the rationale for these existing exclusions; and relayed that during the previous public hearing associated with this item, that there had been a verbal agreement between the developer and the Pechanga tribe with respect to utilizing an Indian monitor in lieu of an archeologist, noting that he did not see this agreement referenced in the Specific Plan Condition No. 20, or in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. After additional investigation, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that it was determined to leave the condition as stated, advising that staff was of the opinion that the applicant's agreement to work with the Pechangas was sufficient; and provided additional information regarding Condition No. 20 (of the Specific Plan) which addressed this matter. With respect to the narrow road option, in response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Public Works Department would make the final determination with respect to this implementation, advising that it was anticipated that, where feasible, this element would be installed in the local neighborhoods. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if cedain criteria were met with respect to the Average Daily Trips (ADTs) then this element would be implemented. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified the nexus between the ADTs and the feasibility of this option. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review the street widths at the time the Tentative Maps are brought forward for the particular planning areas. For Commissioner Webster, Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner Edwards relayed that the narrower streets for the Wolf Valley Project were discussed at a recent Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting, noting that it was a receive and file item, clarifying that no action was taken with regard to this item; and provided additional information regarding the negative impacts associated with the implementation of 36' wide streets (referencing the public speaker comments where residents relayed concern with respect to the impacts regarding the narrower streets implemented in their neighborhood), advising 7 R:PlanComnVmlnutes/120600 that it was the consensus of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission that a wider street width would be more appropriate for reasons of safety. With respect to Condition No. 17 (of the Specific Plan conditions), regarding reclaimed water usage, Commissioner Webster queried whether this would need to be in compliance with Senate Bill 2095 which was the new law recently enacted which was the Water Recycling and Landscaping Act. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that this condition reflected comments received during the environmental review process, advising that this element was encouraged, where feasible. With respect to the Findings in the Resolutions for the Tentative Map, specifically Finding No. G (regarding energy conservation), Commissioner Webster queried how this issue was implemented in the Specific Plan. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that the applicant was required to address conservation issues, where feasible. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding to the Mitigation Monitoring Program included with the Findings for the Environmental Impact Report, Associate Planner Donahoe noted staff's intent to have an inclusive condition in order to be able to refer back to the General Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring Measures without increasing the Mitigation Program, advising that the condition in the Specific Plan referencing this matter made it subject not only to the Mitigation Measures in the Program but also to the General Plan. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries with regard to the revised densities, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that she had utilized the actual dwelling units per acre of each of the planning areas to obtain the densities in the categories. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries relayed to staff prior to the meeting, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that with respect to the densities data, that she had utilized the net acreage in those areas in her density figure analysis, whereas the applicant was utilizing a gross number, as opposed to a net figure, advising that she could understand the rationale for the applicant's figure analysis. With respect to the Pala Road improvements, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether staff was of the opinion that the improvements denoted under the CFD were consistent with the infrastructure improvements in the Conditions of Approval on Phase I, and II, referencing Condition No. 67a, regarding this issue. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was the opinion of Director of Public Works Hughes that if the CFD was formed and the City had control of the improvements, then building permits would be issued based on the fact that the road system was in the hands of the City at the time, and was fully funded which meant that the building of the improvements could proceed, advising that staff was of the opinion that this would constitute a process similar to bonding for subdivision improvements, ensuring that it would be built; relayed that in the COAs there still was a requirement to have Pala Road constructed as four lanes Prior to the Issuance of the first building permit; and advised that the sound wall would be part of the funded improvements under the control of the City at that time (via the CFD), noting that it would be completed with the widening and the ultimate improvements of Pala Road. It was noted that at 7:18 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:28 P.M. 8 R:Pla nComrn/min ut es/120600 After additional investigation, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the project was conditioned so that the developer was required to have in place the interim four-lane improvements (to Pala Road) prior to the issuance of the first building permit; noted that there was a traffic study submitted to the City that revealed that in excess of 615 dwelling units could be built on this site without exceeding LOS D on Pala Road with the four-lane improvement; advised that it was the intention of the City to have in place the CFD to fund the Pala Road improvement (the ultimate improvements), noting that if the CFD was in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit then the City would be in control of the funding mechanism for the read, relaying that the improvements plans were 70-80% complete at this time, advising that at this point bonds could be sold, and under the direction, of the City staff, the ultimate improvements of Pala Road would be constructed inclusive of the median and the sound wall; relayed that it would take approximately 3-6 months to obtain the funding, and approximately 12-18 months to complete the improvements; confirmed that it was the plan to have these improvements in place prior to the first occupancies at Wolf Creek, relayed that there was a stop gap in the Specific Plan which required that prior to the 473rd building permit the funding mechanism would have to be in place, and prior to beginning Phase B (the 823r°building permit) the improvements would have to be completed; and noted that as the Tentative Tract maps are presented that there would be the opportunity to revisit this issue. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries at to whether or not the Development Agreement was an equitable deal, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that by comparison, alternate Development Agreements have been set at $500 per dwelling unit, and that this Development Agreement would be at $1500. Via overhead slides, Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the Village Center overlay from the General Plan, noting that this project plan was consistent with the configuration; presented the park sites, and alternate recreational facilities; specified the location of the center median, the Fire Station, and the provisions for turning motions; presented the option plan for the narrower streets, and the separated parkways; reiterated that the 4,000-4500 square foot lots have been eliminated which addressed numerous Commission concerns; clarified the use of the phrase if feasible denoted in the documents, relaying that when there was a menu of options that would address a particular issue, the phrase if feasible was utilized due to the situations where it would not be an applicable element; in response to Commissioner Webster's queries, referenced the section of the Specific Plan under Residential Orientation where it was stated siting of buildings shall take advantage of natural elements such as topography, soil orientation, and prevailing breezes, providing assurance that there was language in the Specific Plan to address this matter, as well as in the Conditions of Approval; with respect to the recommendation to add bars or tavern uses to the permitted uses in the commercial area, relayed that the applicant would have no objection to this addition; and provided additional information regarding the proposed densities, noting the plan for approximately 1900 units unless the senior housing option is constructed whereby the densities would be over 2,000 units. Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed that this project plan has had significant amount of changes to the plan, noting the removal of the 4,000-4500 square foot lots which was an issue of concern for the Commission and the community; and clarified that the only apartment alternative would be for the senior housing option, relaying that the courtyard housing would be units for sale, and not rental housing. 9 R:PlanComnVminutes/120600 Mr. Griffith provided an overview of various issues addressed in the Development Agreement, as follows: Relayed that with respect to the bullet point addressing the Deer Hollow improvements, that it was the applicant's desire that this project not be accelerated, noting that it was the applicant's opinion that the land dedication of 12.37 acreage with a real value of $2.25 million was a generous and adequate gift to the City, advising that in light of the alternate circulation priorities, the Deer Hollow project should not be accelerated; With respect to the Administrative Facility, noted that this element was included in response to Commission recommendations for there to be opportunities for civic or public uses within the Village core; With respect to the Fire Station, relayed that the dedication of 1.5 acres for a credit of $114,000 represents an additional gift to the City of approximately $150,000- 160,000; With respect to the CFD description, advised that it would be his desire to amend the description, as follows: The Pala Road improvements shall include pavement, curb, gutters, sidewalk, lights, and median landscaping, with the addition of the sound wall, and the underground utilities improvements, advising that this was a vital issue as it pertains to the applicant's commitment to the neighborhood concerns; with respect to the Subcommittee's comments regarding this issue, noted that the developer offered to advance 100% of the cost of the sound wall in relation to any interim improvements of Pala Road, noting that the applicant has met with Mr. Lucier and other members of the community, advising that the applicant was concerned with the interim improvements of Pala Road not including the sound wall, providing the rationale for this commitment; With respect to the Commercial DIF fees, clarified that to the degree that available credits are not utilized for the residential area, it would be the applicant's' desire to have the benefit of applying any residual credits to the commercial area, thereby reducing the cost of developing this particular area; With respect to the Subcommittee's recommendation regarding the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee, advised that at this point the applicant was not in agreement with this request, relaying that this particular property has no habitat issues, noting that it was the applicant's opinion that it would not be equitable for the City to impose this fee since at this point did not exist, and since this fee would be designed to share the cost of habitat among those developing habitat; With respect to the LOS D in Planning Areas No. 20, 21, 22, and 23, relayed that as indicated by the Public Works Department, that via the current lien of $2 million on this property, and the prior cash commitment to the development of Highway 79, that the applicant has a right to certain capacities within this system; advised that the applicant only anticipated those conditions being exceeded via development of the County residential developments, clarifying that the applicant was not in agreement that this issue should be part of the Development Agreement, noting that the project was conditioned regarding the LOS Level D obligation, and would not desire to have this project's development stopped via traffic capacity being utilized by the County developments; With respect to the Wolf Valley median, advised that the applicant has agreed to a 12' landscaped median; and Noted that the applicant has worked diligently with staff with regard to the Deal Points, relaying appreciation to staff for their hard work, advising that this was an 10 R:PlanComr~m~nutes/120600 excellent opportunity for the City to obtain improvements, financing, and infrastructure upfront, and to address issues of concern with respect to fire stations, schools, drainage, and parks. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith clarified the applicant's concern regarding the Commercial DIF, providing an example, noted that if the number of residential units developed was reduced, that the applicant would desire to have the residual credits considered for the commercial area. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Griffith clarified that the Adminstrative Facility would be a public use, noting the potential uses at this site. Attorney Curley clarified the linkage of uses for this type of DIF fee, noting that this was a Corporate Facilities Fee that was being negotiated; and relayed that this fee, as setforth in the City's Ordinances has limitations on its use which would be for government public, as opposed to a general community type of use. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Griffith relayed that in discussions regarding the spods park, there has been discussions with respect to placing clubhouse meeting-type areas at this site; and noted that one of the permitted uses in the Commercial area in Planning Area No. 12 would be a church use. Commissioner Telesio queried the legal issues associated with the Subcommittee's recommendation that the applicant be responsible to pay the future Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee when it is adopted. In response, Attorney Curley relayed that this fee would be implemented at the point in time that the applicant was building when the MSHCP was adopted, advising that the fee would not recapture fees for dwellings that have been built prior to the adoption. For clarification, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that this fee would become applicable when building permits were issued, confirming that prior construction would not be subject to the fee; noted that there was an interim fee being proposed at this time, relaying that the fee was not solely applied to development with habitat, but that all development paid into the program to aid in the acquisition of the huge amount of land that would be required as part of the MSHCP. With respect to Commissioner Webster's previous recommendation to introduce civic uses proximate to the Village core, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that at the Administrative Facility site there was the potential to place a police substation, a building permitJPlanning Services facility, a Community Services facility (due to the proximity to the parks), noting that there may be an oppodunity to create a mini-annex to City Hall; and relayed that as a fallback, if the City determined not to utilized this area, then the type of uses Commissioner Telesio mentioned could be constructed in this area (i.e., a church use, a daycare use). Commissioner Webster clarified his recommendations at the previous meeting, specifically to implement the Village Center Plan with a public use type of element in this area, specifically recommending that there be a dedicated church site; relayed that with the Zoning Codes and Laws, a church use is conditionally permitted in all zoning areas; and advised that in his opinion it was unlikely a church would be developed in the Commercial areas due to the lack of retail in this area, clarifying that it was his recommendation to have a designated church site in the Village core, but not in the commercial area. In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Griffith relayed that if a church came forward with an interest to develop a site, he would be willing to convert a portion of the residential area for a church use, clarifying the impacts of designating a site for a specific church use which would tie up the property if there was not a church interested in locating at this particular site; and provided additional information regarding potential sites for chbrch uses. Commissioner Webster recommended that there be a church site designated for a specific period of time. In response, Mr. Griffith relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to a designated church site in Planning Area No. 12 for a reasonable period of time as part of the Development Agreement. Commissioner Telesio noted the potential need for a church site at this site. With respect to the Pechanga archeological issues, Mr. Griffith relayed that the applicant intended to work with the Pechangas regarding this issue. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the applicant's written response to the Findings associated with the Resolutions (per agenda material), specifically with respect to page 3, second paragraph, at the end where it stated it must be assumed that some relief from the City's Development Standards would be granted, Mr. Burnell noted the following: the elimination of the smaller lots, that certain Open Space standards have been added, that the Design Standards were extremely comprehensive, and that the courtyard housing was implemented in lieu of apartment complexes; and clarified that the applicant was requesting minor areas of relief form the standards. With the exclusion of the courtyard housing area, Commissioner Webster queried whether zero lot lines would be permitted in the project. In response, Mr. Burnell relayed that a zero lot line would be allowed, noting that it would typically not be utilized in this project's lot sizes (5,000, 6,000, and 7200 square foot lots), relaying that the applicant would be agreeable to prohibiting zero lot lines. At this time Chairman Guerriero opened the public comment period. It was noted for the record that the following individuals opted not to speak, filling out a request to speak form solely to register that they were proponents of the project: Mr. Doug Haserot Ms. Lynette Dent Mr. Hugh Young Mr. Donald O. Lohr Mr. Tony Terich 41976 Avenida Alvarado 24970 Carancho Road 45254 Esplendor Creek 43503 Ridge Park Drive 31132 Dog Leg Circle The following individuals were opposed to the project: Mr. Rick Barrera Ms. Pamela Miod Mr. Mark Broderick 45639 Corte Lobos 30995 Via Saltio 45501 Clubhouse Drive 12 R:PlanComnVm~nutes/120600 The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: Opposed to the proposed densities, specifically with respect to the Courtyard Housing option. Recommended limiting the density to a maximum of 1500 homes. Queried the Councilman's recent argument with the County's plan to implement the Morgan Hills project if this particular project with a higher density was being considered for approval within the City limits. Noted concern with respect to the cumulative impacts of this project not being addressed. Relayed concern regarding traffic impacts generated from this project without a plan for alternate transpodation plans. Noted the lack of Open Space between the Redhawk area and this project for trails. Advised that this project was not consistent with the Growth Management Action Plan. Applauded the developer for the reduction in densities. Referenced an article in the Californian newspaper from September 10, 1999, reading the following: Mr. Deputy City Manager Thomhill says a lot of things that are going to impact us we don~ have a lot of control over, adding that City staff members will have to talk with County officials to study the effects of projects outside City limits,; and advised that the City did have control over this particular project. For Mr. Barrera, Commissioner Webster clarified that with respect to the Councilman's comments referenced, that his comments had been relayed as a private citizen, and not as a representative of the City. In response to Ms. Miod, Commissioner Webster relayed that the trail referenced was located on the Redhawk side of the property line. The following individuals were proponents of the project: Mr. Jason Parks Mr. John Stanlil Mr. Wayne Hall 32828 Caserta Drive 45299 Paseo Durango 42131Agena Street The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the pr~e~ for the following reasons: ,/ Relayed that the City of Temecula needs more space for children to be able to play sports, noting the benefits of the sports park. ,/ Noted that the traffic would be reduced with the sports park proposal due to families traveling a shorter distance for sporting activities. ,/ Complimented the City of Temecula for its exemplary park system. ,/ Noted that the proposed Fire Station would be a great asset to this portion of the City. ,,' Applauded the developer for his agreement to work with the Pechangas regarding the monitoring issues. ¢' Noted opposition to any alcohol being sold in the permitted uses in the Commercial area. ,/ Relayed a desire for Pala Road to be constructed as six lanes. 13 R:PlanComm/n~nutes/120600 Mr. Joseph R. Terrazas, 31160 Lahontian Street, relayed his concern with respect to the inadequate EIR and Traffic analysis; queried the ability to sell bonds for the necessary road improvement projects; noted concern with respect to the additional traffic generated due to the sports park proposal; recommended that Pala Road be constructed as six lanes to Wolf Valley Road; and noted that he was pleased with the applicant's comments regarding the sound wall issue. Mr. Peter Lucier, 31257 Hiawatha Court, representing the Wolf Valley HOA, thanked the Commission, staff, and the developer, for their diligent efforts with respect to this project; relayed concern with respect to the potential sale of liquor at any of the'uses in Planning Area Nos. 12, and 13; noted the need to widen Pala Road to six lanes to Wolf Valley Road; relayed that although the sound attenuation had been addressed in the Developer Agreement, that there were no Conditions of Approval addressing this matter; and relayed concern with respect to the traffic, specifically in conjunction with the casino project. Mr. Charles Hankley, 31745 Via Cordoba, applauded the developer for the project plan, relayed his concern with respect to the traffic impacts associated with this project, noting the heavy traffic flows existing on Loma Linda Road, and Via Cordoba, relaying the additional traffic that the school would generate; and advised that the streets in this area could not afford to be impacted negatively with respect to additional traffic. For Mr. Lucier, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the referenced permitted uses of the Commercial area were excluded uses, clarifying that on page 15 (of the agenda material) that this was a list of prohibited uses. For Mr. Hankley, Commissioner Webster concurred that cut-through traffic on Via Cordoba and Loma Linda Road was a significant problem, noting that the proposed improvements to Highway 79 South, the Pala Bridge, as well as the improvements to Pala Road and Wolf Valley Road would direct traffic away from Loma Linda Road; and advised that the City had no control over the location of the school sites. In response, Mr. Hankley noted the need for additional Police enforcement in the Via Cordoba area. At this time Chairman Guerriero closed the public comment portion of the meeting. The applicant's representatives provided the followinq rebuttal comments in response to the Commission and community comments: Mr. Camille Bahri, representing the applicant, clarified the intent to have differentiated permitted uses in the two commercial areas (Planning Area Nos. 12, and 13.) Mr. William Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed the following: In response to previously made comments, specified the differences between the Wolf Creek Development and the Morgan Hill Development (which is in the County), noting that the Morgan Hill Project was currently zoned for one unit per ten acres, under the Regional County Plan, which would enable the Morgan Hill Developer to develop 45 units, with a total of 1300 units, relaying that by comparison, the target density under the General Plan for the Wolf Creek Project would be for 2601 units, clarifying that the presented proposal was for approximately 1900 units, or with the senior housing option, just over 2000 units; 14 R:Pla n Corem/rain u [es~ 120600 relayed that the Wolf Creek property was currently zoned for a combination of Low, Low Medium, Medium, and High densities, noting the applicant's determination to comply with the Growth Management Plan, proposing the lower end of the density range while still providing a broad spectrum of amenities (i.e., school site, fire station, civic centers); advised that the Morgan Hills Project would not be inclusive of an commensurate measure of amenities; With respect to traffic, noted staff's review and support of the traffic analysis; relayed that the road system in this portion of the City was designed based on the General Plan's target density of over 2600 units, advising that due to this particular project's proposal to develop substantially below that density that there was the creation of a potential excess capacity; Relayed that this property was not environmentally sensitive; · Advised that in his opinion this padicular project plan meets the guidelines of the City (per the General Plan documents, the GMP, and meeting all of the criteria with respect to issues that staff has raised regarding the project over the past three years); Noted the applicant's previous involvement in the development of numerous award- winning Master Planned communities; Provided additional information regarding the circulation plan; In response to Mr. Broderick's, comments, reiterated that the project was being developed within the policies of the General Plan, and the GMP; in response to Mr. Lucier's concerns, relayed that the applicant has held numerous meetings with Mr. Lucier, noting that it was the applicant's desire to work in cooperation with both the City and the neighborhood with respect to defining solutions to the noise on Pala Road, the widening of Pala Road, and the associated congestion relief; Advised that the assiduous efforts of the applicant, the staff, and the revisions incorporated in response to Commission comments have culminated into this proposed project plan; Thanked the Commission for its consideration of this matter, relaying hopes of support for this particular proposal. At 8:45 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:54 P.M. The Commission relayed the followinq closing remarks: Commissioner Mathewson noted the following: Relayed appreciation to the applicant for addressing the Commission's concerns since this project was last visited; For the record, noted that he had participated in ex-parte communications, meeting with the applicant and staff on December 4th in order to discuss the proposed modifications to the project plan; 15 R:Pla nComr~'min ut es/120600 Advised that his primary concerns had been addressed with the proposed revisions to the project. With respect to the density issues, relayed that he was a strong advocate of following the GMP and the General Plan, noting that in comparison to what the minimum density designation allowed (per the General Plan), that this particular project proposed a seven percent (7%) increase from the minimum density, noting that if the senior multi-family element was implemented, the project would propose a thirteen percent (13%) increase in density above the absolute minimum density allowed; advised that he could support the proposed densities in conjunction with the numerous amenities proposed (i.e., a 40-acre park, land dedication for the fire station, the linear parkway), relaying that the proposed amenities would not solely benefit the project itself, but the community, as a whole; relayed that the sole multi- family area would be limited to senior housing, noting that the senior housing and the courtyard homes would have a significantly less negative impact with respect to school enrollment in this area; With respect to lot sizes, clarified that the discussions pertaining to the smaller lots were regarding the minimum lot size and not the average lot sizes, noting that in the first two areas to be developed the average lot size would be dramatically higher than the minimum; With respect to the Village Center proposal, relayed that with the siting of the courtyard housing around this center, this planning element aided in achieving the ultimate purpose of a Village Center, as identified in the General Plan; advised that the permitted uses that have been identified for the commercial areas were adequate, noting that he could support Commissioner Webster's recommendation for adding a tavern, or bar use in the Neighborhood Commercial area, noting that with respect to the community concern expressed regarding excessive alcohol consumption, that in his opinion this issue was an enforcement matter, advising that to attract residents to the pedestrian center in the evening hours a tavern, or bar use would be appropriate; With respect to the architectural guidelines for the residences, and the issue of a mix of one-story, and two-story dwellings, relayed that after additional investigation of the voluminous Design Guidelines which were inclusive of language encouraging one-story homes, that it was his opinion that the Specific Plan was not the document best-suited for regulating these specific elements; recommended that if this project goes forward and is approved, that all product reviews come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval; with respect to Deputy City Manager Thornhill's previous comments regarding the option to hire an architect consultant for aid in the project review, recommended that this option be utilized; noted that these provisions would address garage setback issues and alternate architectural treatments that have been previously sited as concerns by the Commission; With respect to the proposed traffic improvements, advised that the data presented earlier in the meeting by staff addressed this issue, ensuring that this matter would be addressed adequately; noted that the Development Agreement (if it goes forward, as proposed) provided him with a great level of confidence that the traffic 1 6 R:Plan Comm/m~ nutes~ 120600 issues would be properly addressed (inclusive of the sound wall); in response to a community residenrs comments regarding concern with respect to funding issues and the potential for the interim traffic improvements to not be completed, for Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Directqr of Public Works Parks provided additional information. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the funding would ultimately be available due to the applicant's willingness to loan funds upfront for these improvements; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's request for confirmation of this agreement, the applicant's representative nodded affirmatively; and With respect to the previously expressed desire of the Commission to implement smaller streets and sidewalk setbacks, advised that he strongly recommended that these elements be incorporated into the project plan. Commissioner Telesio noted the following: Commended the applicant for continuing to work with staff and the Commission in order to meet the goals of the Commission, the General Plan, and the GMP; Noted that in his opinion, the applicant has met the standards relayed by the Commission with the recent revisions to the project plan; Relayed that he was comfortable forwarding this project to the City Council with a recommendation for approval; With respect to the community resident's expressed comments, noted that the majority of these concerns were based on misinformation, relaying hopes of the Commission or staff providing clarification to the community; Regarding the proposed courtyard homes, and the multi-family senior housing, noted the need for diversity with respect to the provision of housing products; Concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation with respect to the product reviews being brought forward to the Planning Commission; With respect to traffic issues, relayed that this matter had been adequately addressed; Regarding the concern with respect to allowing a bar or tavern use in the commercial area, relayed that he concurred with Commissioner Mathewson that the excessive use of alcohol was an enforcement issue, noting that in his opinion these uses should be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); and Relayed that in his opinion, the applicant has done an excellent job planning a project appropriate for this area, noting that the proposal was well under the densities allowed for this area (per the General Plan). Commissioner Webster noted the following: For the record, relayed that he had not met with staff or the applicant to discuss the project plan since the Planning Commission's workshop, which was held on 17 R:PlanComm/minut es/120600 October 18, 2000, noting that the sole staff member he had discussed this issue with was the City Attorney. Noted his extreme disappointment with staff due to the exclusion of the Planning Commissioners in the Subcommittee that worked on this project. Advised that in order for this project to receive his support for conformance with the City's General plan, General Plan EIR, the Development Code, the Design Guidelines, and the GMP, that the project would need to incorporate the following elements: · With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b (regarding the mitigation measures within the Specific Plan conditions), recommended that the language if feasible be deleted from the conditions due to violating the intent of the CEQA Act, noting that either this language could be deleted, or there would need to be provisions for a performance standard, recommending the deletion of this language; · With respect to Condition No. 17 (regarding the feasibility of a reclaimed water system within the Specific Plan conditions), recommended that there be assurance that this condition was in accordance with Senate Bill 2095; · With respect to traffic impacts and accumulative impacts, relayed that in order to agree with the analysis, that there should be assurance that the Deal Point Item (per the Development Agreement) stating that no additional occupancy is allowed when traffic reaches levels less than a Level of Service (LOS) D, for 1- 15 Interchanges, as well as Highway 79 South (between the freeway and Pala Road), recommending that this requirement should be placed on all phases of the project; advised that if the project's EIR analysis, and the City's traffic analysis is correct, this is a mute point, while noting that in order to alleviate the concerns and issues expressed with respect to traffic impacts and cumulative impacts, it was his opinion this Deal Point should be included. · Noted that this project should have a complete Mitigation Monitoring Program inclusive of the applicable portions of the General Plan EIR; · With respect to the Specific Plan, regarding the street options referenced in Condition Nos. 12, 12a, 31 and 75, recommended that there should be one option for this element (rather than the two street options indicated), recommending that the one option be for narrower streets, specifically with a thirty-six foot (36') read right-of way which would provide for two eighteen foot (18') lanes, a four foot (4') sidewalk, and a six foot (6') parkway (with the sidewalk separated from the curb); · With respect to the CFD Deal Point (within the Development Agreement), regarding the Pala Road improvements, concurred with the inclusion of the requirement to widen Pala Road to six lanes to Wolf Valley Road, noting the applicant's requirement to provide the dedication of the right-of-way, and not to pay for all the improvements. · Concurred that an architect consultant should be hired by the City to review the PDO, noting that an independent review would be beneficial. · With respect to the Land Use Plan map, regarding Planning Area No. 24 (the proposed regional park area), recommended that if the park plan did not go forward, the option to construct 5500 square foot lots should be revised to require 7200 square foot lots; with respect to Planning Area No. 23, recommended that this be revised to require a 6,000 square foot lot minimum to provide a better transition between the Village Center core to less dense residential; with respect to Planning Area No. 21, recommended revising this to require 7200 square foot lot minimums, noting the lack of 7200 square foot lots which should be implemented to create consistency with the Development Code. Noted that he was pleased with the applicant's previous expressed response regarding the agreement to include a church site designation for a specified period of time, recommending that staff and the applicant work together to establish an appropriate period of time for this designation. Recommended that there be no allowance for zero lot line houses for the single- family residential area. · With respect to the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the 5,000 square foot lots which stated the request to use the Zoning Ordinance of Medium Density Residential, noting that the City's Development Code for Low Medium Density is basically 5, 000 square foot lots and above, recommended that this be kept at the Low Medium Density zoning in order to be consistent with the Development Code. · With respect to the minimum sideyard requirements, within the Residential Development Standards, relayed that for the 5,000 square foot lots, it was his recommendation that this standard be revised to be consistent with the City's Low Medium requirement which is a five foot (5') minimum sideyard, with a fifteen foot (15') minimum for the sum of the two sideyards; · With respect to lot coverage, regarding the 6,000 and 7200 square foot lots, recommended that there be a maximum thirty-five percent (35%) lot coverage for the lots with two-story dwellings, and forty-five percent (45%) maximum for the lots with one-story dwellings; regarding the 5,000 square foot lots, recommended that there be a maximum lot coverage of forty percent (40%) for the lots with two story dwellings, and forty-five percent (45%) for the lots with one-story dwellings; · With respect to architectural forward requirements that the Commission addressed in the past, recommended that on the exhibits denoting the garage options, that the split garage option be deleted which does not comply with an architectural forward element, noting that with this configuration the front door was tucked inside the house; and · With respect to the Design Standards, regarding the option for multi-family senior housing in Planning Area No. 18, recommended that if this option is implemented that garages be a requirement for this development, in lieu of carports. Chairman Guerriero noted the following: Thanked all the citizens who came forward during the past months to address the Wolf Valley Project, noting that their comments were appreciated by the Commission, and specifically by him; Thanked the applicant for taking the time to meet with the community residents; and Advised that all of his concerns have been addressed by staff, the applicant, and the citizens that have relayed their comments, noting that in his opinion this was a 1 9 R:PlanComm/minutes/120600 good project, and his recommendation would be to pass it on to the City Council, recommending approval. Commissioner Telesio requested the applicant to address the recommendations setfodh by Commissioner Webster. Addressing Commissioner Webster's previously mentioned recommendations (See pages 17-19 of the minutes.), Mr. Griffith, representing the applicant, relayed the following: With respect to the street option recommendation, and the church designation issues, relayed that the applicant had agreed to incorporation of these elements. Relayed that at this stage of the process, he would be reluctant to revise the Land Uses, noting that these elements have been carefully planned, advising that the 4,000-4500 square foot lots had been eliminated due to Commission concern; reiterated that the lot sizes denoted were minimums, noting that in the 6,000 square foot lot area, that the average lot size would be approximately 8,000 square feet. In response, Commissioner Mathewson noted that his concern was regarding Planning Area No. 24 (the potential sports park site). For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith relayed that he was convinced that the City would go forward with the proposed sports park, noting that to accommodate the Commission's concern he would agree that for an alternative (if the sports park plan did not go forward) that Planning Area No. 24 could be revised to maintain a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet, reiterating that it was not his desire to revise Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his reluctance. With respect to the church site designation, reiterated that the applicant would work with staff for an appropriate period of time for this designation. With respect to the Design Standards, specifically, regarding the recommendation for sideyard requirements, noted that he would be reluctant to agree to this element, relaying that the Design Standards are consistent from product category to product category. With respect to maximum lot coverage requirements, noted that it was the applicant's opinion that the critical variables are the setbacks which are internally consistent, relaying that he would not desire to agree to a lot coverage reduction without a clear understanding of the impact this element would have on other variables. With respect to the recommendation for narrower streets, relayed that the courtyard area would be a great opportunity for this element since the streets could be reduced further, noting that with respect to the neighborhood streets, the applicant would support the thirty-six foot (36') section that Commissioner Webster recommended. Advised that it was his opinion that this project package was well-defined, noting the new and modified criteria, recommending that the project go forward with the recommendations he has relayed. MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion died for lack of a second.) Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040 with the following modifications: Add- That the three added Community Services conditions be added to the Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental agenda material via a memorandum from the Community Services Department). That all of his previously mentioned recommendations (see pages 17-19 of the minutes) be incorporated into the project plan. That Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation for the product review to be conducted at the Planning Commission level be implemented. It was noted that this motion was not seconded and therefore died. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Commissioner Webster relayed his desire to include the Land Use revisions for Planning Area Nos. 21, 23, and 24 in the motion for approval, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his recommendation. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that the minimum lot sizes would not be the average lot sizes, noting that Commissioner Webster's Land Use recommendation may restrict the variability in the housing products, and may additionally discourage the development of one-story homes. Commissioner Webster was not in agreement that his recommended Land Use revisions would have an impact on the development of one-story homes. With respect to the one-story verses two-story dwelling units issues, Commissioner Mathewson noted that he, too, was of the opinion that the recommended lot coverage requirements would negatively impact the potential for one-story homes, although he shared Commissioner Webster's concerns, it was his desire to provide the flexibility in order to encourage the development of one-story dwellings, relaying that in his opinion the additional lot coverage issue could be addressed in the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Webster reiterated that the Development Code standard was basically a thidy-five percent (35%) maximum lot coverage, noting that he was opposed to some of the existing development in the City where there were houses filling the entire lot, located proximate to the neighboring houses (i.e., the Temeku Hills Development), relaying that in these developments the residents were unable to park their vehicles in their own driveway due to the housing unit filling the lot; and advised that his recommendation was to ensure that the general policy goal for design excellence on all developments be implemented, while still providing flexibility. 21 R:PIa nComrr'/min ut es/120600 Commissioner Telesio advised that by limiting the lot coverage, this standard would be encouraging the development of two-story homes. MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion was amended.) Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040 with the following modifications: Add- That the three added Community Services conditions are added to the Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental agenda material via a memorandum from the Community Services Department). That all of Commissioner Webster's previously mentioned recommendations (see pages 17-19 of the minutes) be incorporated into the project plan with the exception of the revisions to Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23. That Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation for the product review to be conducted at the Planning Commission level be implemented. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion. In response to Mr. Griffith's queries, Commissioner Telesio confirmed that the motion on the table was inclusive of the recommended revision in lot sizes in Planning Area No. 24 (to a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet) if the proposed sports park did not go forward, noting that Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23 would not be revised, additionally, noting that the lot coverage and the setbacks would not be revised. Commissioner Mathewson queried what the Commission's action should be with respect to the Development Agreement, which had not been finalized at this point in time. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Development Agreement was still in the draft mode. Commissioner Mathewson noted that there were certain issues addressed in the Deal Points of the Development Agreement that he had strong opinions about, querying what action was expected by the Planning Commission with respect to this document. Commissioner Webster relayed that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council should not be inclusive of the Development Agreement since the Planning Commission was not involved in the process, and due to the Development Agreement going before the City Council at a future point in time. Attorney Curley relayed that it was recommended that the Planning Commission provide comments in response to the Deal Points of the Development Agreement (as per the supplemental agenda material) in order to provide Planning Commission input to the City Council. For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley relayed that the Development Agreement would be a consensual document, noting that if the document was agreed to, 22 R:PlanComm/n.nutes/120600 it would become a legal document; and advised that proposing the Deal Points as Conditions of Approval would be problematic. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he would support the Development Agreement as proposed to the Planning Commission, strongly encouraging that the habitat fee be included in the Deal Points, providing additional information regarding previous comments the Commission presented regarding the Deal Points. With respect to the Development Agreement, Chairman Guerriero noted that the applicant had expressed several concerns, as follows: 1 ) the applicant was not in favor of accelerating on Deer Hollow, and 2) with respect to the CFD, the applicant had expressed concerns. Commissioner Webster relayed that during the ensuing process, these points of disagreement would be worked out. Commissioner Telesio requested confirmation that the Planning Commission was not supporting all of the Deal Points in the Development Agreement. Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, relayed that this document should be excluded in the Planning Commission recommendation due to the existing contention on certain points, and since it was still a work in process. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Commission to the City Council should relay a recommendation regarding the Development Agreement. Attorney Curley relayed that the numerous motions have become convoluted, advising that when there is a consensus to move forward with a motion, that the Planning Commission should provide clarification so that all parties had a clear idea of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, noting that it would be recommended that Commissioner Webster's recommendations be articulated in the final motion. Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney for the applicant, specified his understanding of the motion. Attorney Curley relayed that as the Planning Commission discussed the motion it was clear that the specificities included in the motion needed to be clarified prior to the vote being taken. Commissioner Webster relayed that the motion was inclusive of all of his previous recommendations with the exception of revising the lot sizes for Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the setback standards and lot coverage requirements were also excluded. Commissioner Webster noted that the setback standards and lot coverage requirements were not excluded from the motion, clarifying the motion that he had seconded. 23 R:PlanComrNminutes/120600 For clarification, Attorney Curley provided the following elements included in the motion that he had noted, requesting that the Commission add additional input if there were alternate conditions desired to have included in the recommendation to the City Council, listing the elements, as follows: That staff's recommendation be approved with the attached modifications. With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b, to delete the phrase if feasible. With respect to Condition No. 17, to review conformance to S.B. 2095. With respect to the traffic and cumulative impacts, to ensure that the Deal Point in the Development Agreement was followed through regarding the maintaining of the Level of Service "D." The Mitigation Monitoring Program would be augmented. With respect to the street option concerns, requested specificity regarding these particular associated recommendations. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the recommendation was to not have options, but to implement a thirty-six foot (36')standard. To incorporate the Land Use Map revisions to Planning Area No. 24; and That the three added conditions from TCSD be added (per supplemental agenda material). Commissioner Webster relayed that the following recommendations were also included in the motion: The recommendation that the split garage option would be removed from the Design Guidelines, The recommendation to incorporate garages, in lieu of carports, for the multi-family senior housing. The recommendation for the City to hire an architect for the review of the PDO, and The recommendation for the Product Review to be presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval. In response to Attorney Curley, Commissioner Webster confirmed that all of the above elements were included in the motion. Commissioner Webster relayed that the lot coverage requirements were also included in the motion. In response, Commissioner Telesio noted that this recommendation had been excluded. Commissioner Webster advised that the sole exclusions were regarding Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23; advised that if Commissioner Telesio desired to modify the motion in order to exclude the residential Design Standards, the motion could be amended. For Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Webster noted that there was a differential between the recommendation of minimum lot sizes for planning areas, and the recommendations for revisions to residential development standards for planning areas, 24 R;PlanCornm/minutes/120600 clarifying that these were two separate recommendations, noting that if it was the desire to exclude these two recommendations, this exclusion would need to be denoted. The followinq discussion ensued reqardinq the Planninq Commission recommendation to the City Council reqardinq the Deal Points of the Development Aqreements: Commissioner Mathewson noted that the Planning Commission recommendation had become convoluted, relaying that there appeared to be a consensus to approving the project plan with certain modifications; advised that he was concerned with respect to the recommendation regarding the Development Agreement; and queried the Commission for its desire with respect to recommending the Development Agreement in its conceptual form. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission was provided the Deal Points of the Development Agreement, and subsequently the Subcommittee's comments, noting that these comments had not been incorporated into the document. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his opinion that it was expected that the Planning Commission would provide a recommendation regarding the Development Agreement in its conceptual form, noting that the Subcommittee comments were fairly straight forward, and that he was comfortable recommending approval with the attached . comments. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Commission had received the Deal Points of the Development Agreement in the agenda material, noting that the supplemental agenda material was inclusive of the same Deal Points with the Subcommittee's recommendations. Chairman Guerriero relayed that if the Planning Commission was to approve the conceptual form of the document, he could support that action, as long as the points could be rebutted with the City Council, noting that the developer was in disagreement with various Deal Points, advising that he was in agreement with the developer. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the developer would have an opportunity to relay his points of disagreement with the City Council. Commissioner Mathewson noted various Deal Points that the Planning Commission had commented on. For clarification, Attorney Curley relayed that the Deal Points of the Development Agreement were the core elements that would be placed in the final Development Agreement which would be a voluminous document, noting that the presented points were the planning elements that the Planning Commission needed to provide input on for the City Council's consideration; clarified that these points were more than mere concepts, noting that these points were the core elements that would be incorporated into the legal document; noted that the Planning Commission did not need to redraft the document, but to relay to the Council comments, clarifying that specific points could be recommended for removal. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was not in agreement with the Subcommittee's comment regarding the multi-species issue, noting that he could support approval 25 R:PlanComnVminutes/120600 without this element, relaying that it was his desire for the applicant to have the opportunity to address this issue without the approval of the Planning Commission. Chairman Guerriere noted the applicant's disagreement with respect to permitted uses in Planning Area No. 12, relaying that he agreed with the developer. Commissioner Mathewson noted that with respect to the habitat issues, he was of the opinion that the plan should go forward. In response, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the applicant should have an opportunity to address the habitat issue without the weight of the approval of the Planning Commission. For clarification, Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission could specify the points that were not supported, listing the elements of disagreement while approving the document in its entirety, in concept. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there were differences of opinion within the Planning Commission. Mr. Alhadeff relayed that it was his opinion that the Development Agreement could be approved by the Planning Commission in concept and principle, relaying that the points of disagreement could be specified. Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission has mentioned the following Deal Points as items of concern: the level of service, the habitat issue, and Planning Area No. 12; advised that if the previous three points were the sole elements to be addressed that the Planning Commission could provide input regarding these specific elements, subsequently approving the remainder of the document. The Planninq Commission relayed the followinq specified recommendations reqarding the followinq listed elements of the Development Aqreement~ recommendin.q approval re.qardin.q the remainder of the document: With respect to including habitat issue in the Development Agreement, it was noted that Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Mathewson were proponents of having this element included, while Commissioner Webster and Chairman Guerriero were opposed to the inclusion of this element. With respect to the area in Planning Area No. 12, the developer provided additional information, noting that this issue could be worked out and that the Planning Commission need not address this matter. With respect to the recommendation regarding the requirement that the LOS not go below LOS "D" during any phase of the project it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this element should be included. (It was noted that Commissioner Chiniaeff was absent.) 26 R:PlanComm/m~ nut es/~ 20600 At this time the Planninq Commission resumed to the previous discussions, addressing the motion for approval for the proiect, as follows: With respect to the motion, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could not support modifying the lot size coverage. AMENDED MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion died for lack of an amended second.) Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation subject to the modifications clarified by Attorney Curley and subsequently by Commissioner Webster (see page 25 of the minutes in the bulleted comments of Attorney Curley and Commissioner Webster), noting that Commissioner Webster's recommendation regarding lot coverage standards would not be included. For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could not support Commissioner Webster's proposed modification to the maximum lot coverage, or the sideyard setback requirements. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the setback standards implemented in the Temeku Hills Development, which had been referenced at an earlier point in the meeting. Commissioner Telesio relayed that with Commissioner Webster's recommended sideyard setbacks the houses would be smaller and stacked. Commissioner Webster noted that he would not amend his second on the motion to include these exclusions. FINAL MOTION: (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 28)Commissioner Telesio moved to close the p~blic hearing; to recommend approval of the presented Development Agreement with the exception of the specified comments relayed with regard to three of the Deal Points (denoted on page 25 of the minutes); and to approve staffs' recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040, subject to the following modifications: Add- That the three Community Service conditions (as per supplemental agenda material) be added into the Conditions of Approval. With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b (regarding the mitigation measures within the Specific Plan conditions) that the language if feasible be deleted. With respect to Condition No. 17 ( regarding the feasibility of a reclaimed water system within the Specific Plan conditions) that there be assurance that this condition was in accordance with S.B. 2095. That the Mitigation Monitoring Program be augmented to include the applicable portions of the General Plan EIR. With respect to the references in Condition Nos. 12, 12a, 31, and 75, that there be one option for narrower streets, specifically with a thirty-six foot (36') road right-of-way, with a parkway separating the sidewalk from the curb. That the City hire an architect consultant to review the PDO. 27 R:PlanComnVminutes/120600 That Planning Area No. 24 (the proposed regional park area) be revised to maintain a minimum lot size of 7200 square foot lots (if the proposed park plan does not go forward). That there be a church site designation in Planning Area 12 for a specified period of time (to be determined by staff and the applicant). That a tavern or bar use be added to the list of permitted uses in the commercial area (via a Conditional Use Permit). With respect to the garage options denoted in the exhibits, that the split garage option be deleted from the Design Guidelines. With respect to the Design Standards, regarding the option of multi-family senior housing in Planning Area No. 18, that garages be a requirement, in lieu of carpods. That the product review be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who voted no, and Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske queried whether the Planning Commission would support an additional workshop meeting on January 31, 2001, noting that dinner would be provided. In response, it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule an additional meeting on January 31, 2001. With respect to queries the Planning Commissioners have with respect to any projects, Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that there be call to staff in advance of the meeting, relaying that concerns could be addressed without utilizing the audience time. With respect to the Joint Planning Commission/City Council Subcommittee meeting that was discussed, Director of Planning Ubnoske apologized that this meeting was never scheduled, relaying that it was an oversight on staff's part, noting that it was unfortunate that no individual called to remind her of the desire to hold this meeting, advising that the Planning Commissioners should feel free to call her regarding any issues of concern. COMMISSIONER REPORTS For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the upcoming workshop with the City Council was scheduled in order to address the Roripaugh Project, providing additional information. In response to Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there was a full agenda for the December 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. C. Commissioner Mathewson commented on the unresolved issues at the Cosco site with respect to signage and landscaping. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would provide an update at a future point in time. Chairman Guerriero noted that he had met with City Manager Nelson and Deputy City Manager Deputy City Manager Thornhill, relaying that he had requested that a list be compiled regarding the medians that had been targeted for landscaping, but had not yet been landscaped, requesting additional information regarding this matter. ADJOURNMENT At 10:14 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, December 20, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning 29 R:PlanComrWminutes/120600 ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner February 7, 2001 PA00-0257 (Sprint PCS Unmanned Cellular Facility) At the direction of the Planning Commission on January 17, 2001, Planning Application PA00- 0257 was continued in order for the applicant to work with staff to address design concerns with the mono-pine (tree). As a result, the applicant has modified the design and graphically illustrated the exact rendering to be constructed. Staff has worked with the applicant to reduce the circumference of the antenna panels in order to bring them tighter to the tree trunk, as well as increasing the density of the branches. The item was continued until the January 31, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, however the applicant was not able to meet our deadline. Within this review period, the applicant has provided a more concise and descriptive color board, which will assure that the antenna panels are painted the same color as the foliage. Additionally, the plantings of pine trees within the proposed lease area will soften the impact of the mono-pine. Staff has also added the following conditions of approval which staff is confident that this will insure that the project will be developed exactly as the exhibits demonstrate. Those conditions are as follows and have been incorporated in the attached amended Conditions of Approval: 11. Any future proposal for antenna co-location, as allowed within the Antenna Ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and will require an additional Minor Conditional use Permit to be approved by the Planning Director at a Director's Hearing.(This condition has been reworded to clarify the type of permit required.) 16. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance/facility removal agreement (per Chapter 17.40.210), or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure that the intent of Chapter 17.40 of the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with. The agreement shall be signed and submitted to the Planning Director prior to the approval of the building permit or other entitlement for use. Staff finds that the revised design is consistent with the Antenna Ordinance and recommends approval with the attached revised conditions. Attachments PC Resolution - Blue Page 3 Exhibit A: Revised Conditions of Approval for PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 7 Original Staff Report from January 17, 2001 - Blue Page 14 R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 1 Exhibits for PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 15 B. C. D. E. F. G. Vicinity Map Zoning Map General Plan Map Site Plan Elevations Landscape Plans Material and Color Board (viewing at the meeting) R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 WHEREAS, Tim Lencioni, representing Sprint PCS, filed Planning Application No. 00- 0257, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0257 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 00-0257 on January 17, 2001, January 31, 2001 and February 7, 2001, 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. 00-0257 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 00-0257 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, the applicable sections of the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. 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. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. R:\C U P\2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Repod.doc 4 C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for the (PI) Public Institutional district. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. E. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has previously been prepared and approved by the Planning Director for this same site on July 11,1996 for a facility with a potentially greater impact. Whereas the conditions under which the Negative Declaration and amendments were prepared have not changed substantially and the project is consistent with the environmental review pursuant to Article 11, Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Planning Commission has determined that no further environmental review is required for the proposed project and that the previous Negative Declaration will be re-cedified for this project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) request for a conditional use permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility located east of the Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-230-002, subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of February 2001. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 5 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 7th of February, 2001, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 6 EXHIBIT A REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA00-0257 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R:\C U P~2000\00~0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 7 CITY OF TEMECULA REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility. DIF Category: Potentially Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 940-230-002 February 7, 2001 February 7, 2003 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 Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. An environment review was completed for this application, which determined that a Negative Declaration with a De Minimus finding was appropriate. 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 permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 8 cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. 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. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Elevations), F (Landscape Ptans), and G (Material and Color Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the proiect shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 10. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 11. Any future proposal for antenna co-location, as allowed by the Antenna Ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and will require an additional Minor Conditional use Permit to be approved by the Planning Director at a Director's Hearing. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. R:~C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report,doc 9 14. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, and G", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Depadment Planning division staff. The applicant shall submit five (5) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of Exhibits "D" through "F", and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) to the Community Development Department for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 16. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance/facility removal agreement (per Chapter 17.40.210), or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure that the intent of Chapter 17.40 Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with. The agreement shall be signed and submitted to the Planning Director prior to the approval of the building permit or other entitlement for use. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 18. Ail previously existing landscape planting and irrigation shall be restored consistent with the previously approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, the Developer, at no cost to any Government Agency, shall complete all conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed properly lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 20. The lease area, as designated on the construction plans, shall be fenced. 21. A copy of the proposed recorded public utility easements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. 22. A compaction report shall be submitted to the Department of Public for review and approval for the mono-pine pole and all proposed structures. R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 10 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 23. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 24. Exterior service lighting shall comply with the prov!sions of Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 25. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 26. Provide structural calculations for monopole foundation, all concrete block walls, and concrete walls with chain link extensions with appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans for plan review. 27. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 28. Obtain a location street address number prior to submitting structural plans to Building and Safety for plan review. FiRE DEPARTMENT 29. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 30. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 31. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 11 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and 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. (CFC 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. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and /or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be instatled a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) R:\C U P\2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 12 41. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 42. Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 ½ X 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for acceptable file formats and approval. OTHER AGENCIES 43. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the letter from Rancho California Water District dated July 25,2000. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\C U P\2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report. doc 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 17, 2001 R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 14 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Tim Lencioni / Sprint PCS William Bennett/SBA, Inc. To design, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless telecommunication facility. Norma Marsha Reservoir Site, east of Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road (PI) Public Institutional North: Margarita Village Specific Plan South: Margarita Village Specific Plan East: Margarita Village Specific Plan West: (LM) Low Medium Density Residential GENERAL PLAN: Public / Institutional Facilities EXISTING LAND USE: Rancho California Water District Water Tank R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Report.doc 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS North: Apartments South: Temecula Valley United Methodist Church East: Detached Single Family Residences West: Detached Single Family Residences Lot Area: 743 square feet Mono-pine Height: 57 feet BACKGROUND The City of Temecula approved a 60' high monopole on this site in 1996. This approval expired on June 11, 1998. The current application was submitted to the Planning Department on June 30, 2000. The Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 27, 2000. The DRC meeting prompted various comments, which were detailed for the applicant in a letter dated August 21, 2000. There was a follow-up incomplete letter transmitted to the applicant on November 15, 2000, which addressed additional concerns. The project was deemed complete on December 5, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to develop an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility located at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site. The site will be leased from the Rancho California Water District and will obtain access from Margarita Road onto a 15-foot wide access/utility easement. The project proposes a 57' high Sprint (RV35XC100B) mono- pine pole with 6 antenna panels. Each panel is 54" long x 6" wide x 3.5" deep each. Three of the panels at this location will be provided for future antenna co-location. ANALYSIS Site Design The project is generally located on the east side of Margarita Road, north of Rancho Vista Road, south of Rancho California Road at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site. The mono-pine pole will be located approximately 30 feet southwest of the existing water tank east of Margarita Road. The equipment area will be located on a cement slab, within an 8'-5' high retaining block wall and a 5'-0" high chain link fence to be placed on top of the wall for safety. An Emergency Generator Parking area will be developed to the west of the equipment area, between the mono-pine pole and the equipment area. Access, Traffic and Circulation Access for the site will be taken from Margarita Road. The Public Works Department has reviewed traffic impacts associated with this project and has indicated that the impacts of the project will not be significant. Emergency vehicles are able to traverse the site to provide the appropriate fire and life safety services. R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Spdnt PCS\Staff Report.doc 2 Architecture, Color and Materials The design of the monopole is considered"stealth", indicating that the antennas will be adequately camouflaged from view by the use of multiple branches, which will be located on the pole as to effectively demonstrate a typical pine tree. The pole itself will be covered with simulated bark so as to provide the appearance of a living tree. The appearance of the proposed monopine and equipment shelter is contained in Attachment No. 3 / Exhibit "E". Landscapin,q The site is currently landscaped with a sufficient amount of landscaping. Some trees located in the proposed lease area are to be removed. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan(Exhibit F), that confirms that any trees removed for the project development will be replaced as necessary to provide an equivalent amount of foliage. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project, known as PA00-0257, is the second attempt to develop this site for an unmanned wireless communication facility. On July 11, 1996 a similar project, known as PA96-0063 was approved. The project approved a 60' high monopole, which was not camouflaged as a "stealth" facility. However the project was never developed and consequently expired on July 11, 1998. An environmental review was completed for this original application, which determined that a Negative Declaration with a De Minimus finding was appropriate. Because the current application proposes a shorter monopole that will be camouflaged as "stealth" no new environmental review will be conducted. To support this determination staff has reviewed Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines to determine if subsequent review is needed. According to CEQA, if the following conditions are not met then no additional review is needed. Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect. The applicant is not proposing any substantial changes which would adversely increase any previously identified significant effects. The project proposes mitigation measures that will camouflage the impact of the pole by the use of simulated pine branches and simulated tree bark. The height of the proposed monopole has also been reduced from 60 feet to 67 feet. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The circumstances that existed at the time the Negative Declaration was prepared have not changed significantly. The development that has occurred in the vicinity of the project is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted, is present. R:\C U P~000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 3 The project has no significant effects that weren't discussed in the previous Negative Declation. No new mitigation measures are proposed for the project. Based on the previous discussion, it has been found that the project will require no further environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is (PI) Public / Institutional Facilities. Existing zoning for the site is the (PI) Public Institutional. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality, and staff is recommending approval. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan end the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. 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. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for the (PI) Public Institutional district. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 4 5. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Development Plan The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no fish, wild life, or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife, or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Attachments- PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 9 Exhibits for PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 15 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Landscape Plans G. Material and Color Board R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- APPROVING PA00-0257 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Report.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 WHEREAS, Tim Lencioni, representing Sprint PCS, filed Planning Application No. 00-0257, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0257 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 00-0257 on January 17,2001, 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. 00-0257 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 00-0257 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, the applicable sections of the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. 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. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Reporl,doc result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for the (PI) Public Institutional district. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. E. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has previously been prepared and approved by the Planning Director on July 11,1996 for a facility with a potentially greater impact. Whereas the conditions under which the Negative Declaration and amendments were prepared have not changed substantially and the project is consistent with the environmental review pursuant to Article 11, Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Planning Commission has determined that no further environmental review is required for the proposed project and that the previous Negative Declaration will be re-certified for this project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) request for a conditional use permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility located east of the Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-230-002, subject to the project specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of January 2001. Ron Guerriero, 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 17th day of January, 2001, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA00-0257 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Report.doc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility. DIF Category: Potentially Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 940-230-002 January t7, 2001 January 17, 2003 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 Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. An environment review was completed for this application, which determined that a Negative Declaration with a De Minimus finding was appropriate. 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 permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 10 3. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. 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. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Elevations), F (Landscape Plans), and G (Material and Color Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Future co-located antenna panels, in conformance with this application, may be administratively approved by the Planning Director 10. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 13. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, and G', (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department Planning division staff. The applicant shall submit five (5) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of Exhibits "D" through "F', and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) to the Community Development Department for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 11 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 15. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 16. All previously existing landscape planting and irrigation shall be restored consistent with the previously approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 17. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, the Developer, at no cost to any Government Agency, shall complete all conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 18. The lease area, as designated on the construction plans, shall be fenced. 19. A copy of the proposed recorded public utility easements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. 20. A compaction report shall be submitted to the Department of Public for review and approval for the mono-pine pole and all proposed structures. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 22. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 23. Exterior service lighting shall comply with the provisions of Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 24. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 25. Provide structural calculations for monopole foundation, all concrete block walls, and concrete walls with chain link extensions with appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans for plan review. R:\C U P~000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Repo~.doc 12 26. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 27. Obtain a location street address number prior to submitting structural plans to Building and Safety for plan review. FIRE DEPARTMENT 28. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 29. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The 'Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 30. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 31. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 32. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 33. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 34. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 35. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 36. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Spdnt PCS\Staff Report.doc 13 After the plans ars 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. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 37. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 38. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 39. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 40. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 41. Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 % X 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for acceptable file formats and approval. OTHER AGENCIES 42. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the letter from Rancho California Water District dated July 25,2000. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\C U P~000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 20, 2000 VICINITY MAP R:\C U P\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Report.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PI) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 20, 2000 R:~C U P\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Report.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA _~ ~ ....... :~ / . '~..,~ CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - D SITE P~N P~NNING COMMISSION DATE - December 20, 2000 R:\C U P\00-0257 Spdnt PCS\Staff Report.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - E ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 20, 2000 R:\C U P\00-0257 Spdnt PCS\Staff Report.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA ..... , I CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - F LANDSCAPE PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 20, 2000 R:\C U P\00-0257 Spdnt PCS\Staff Report.doc 20 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\C U P~000\00-O257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- February 7, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PI) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Revised Staff Report.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 SITE PLAN R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Revised Staff Report.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA Pinus holepensis - ALEPPO PiNE - Low bronching (5) 36" BOX (2) 24" BOX Rhomnus cQllfornio - COFFEEBERRY (6) 5 GALLON 1. TOP ,PINES AT BO"CFOM 'OF ANTENNA 2. REPLACE EXISTING DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACE. \ \ \ PLANTING SITE PLAN Xylosm(3 c. Compocto (20) 15 GALLON - SHINY XYLOSMA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - F LANDSCAPE PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 200t R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc 20 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 7, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0416 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Rick Rush, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00- 0416 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0416 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,550 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (SCOTT'S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-047. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Davcon Development Inc., David Wakefield, 42389 Winchester Rd. Suite B, Temecula, CA 92590. Design and construction of a 13,550 square foot office/warehouse building on a 1.06 acre lot. At the north side of Roick [third pad (APN 909-282-013)]. BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) North: LI (Light industrial) South: LI (Light Industrial) East: LI (Light Industrial) West: LI (Light Industrial) R:~d P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Building Area: Building Footprint: Landscape Area: Hardscape Area: Parking Area: Parking Required: Parking Provided: 46,174 square feet 13,550 square feet 9,850 square feet 20,332 square feet 8,564 square feet 5,015 square feet (1.06 acre) 29.3% 21.3% 44.0% 18.5% 10.8% Habitable office area of 8,400 square feet and warehouse area 5,150 square feet = 34 spaces Warehouse 1 space per 1,000 square feet Office 1 space per 300 square feet 36 spaces (31 standard spaces, 2 handicapped accessible spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces equal to I space, and a bicycle rack that will hold 6 bikes equal to 2 spaces). Building Height: 28 feet BACKGROUND The application was submitted to the Planning Department on October 13, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on November 9, 2000, and the project was deemed complete on January 18, 2001. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to design and construct a two story, 13,550 square foot office/warehouse building referred to as the Scott Electric Building on a 1.06 acre site. Scott Electric and Temecula Building Company will occupy this office/warehouse building. ANALYSIS Site Desiqn and Circulation This project is located on a 46,174 square foot lot. The building is located on the third pad west of Winchester and on the north side of Roick. The project will have access from a single driveway off Roick Drive. Parking is provided along the south and west sides of the building. An outdoor employee patio area is being provided adjacent to the western portion of the building. The applicant has complied with the performance standards outlined in the Development Code and the Design Guidelines (i.e., circulation, architectural design, site planning and design and compatibility). R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 2 Parking Analysis As calculated by the City's parking standards for office and warehouse uses, there should be a minimum of 34 parking spaces. As designed, the applicant is proposing 36 vehicle parking stalls. Architecture The architecture is compatible with other buildings within the Westside Business Center. As proposed, the building will be constructed primarily of "Gray" split face concrete block, with three scored split face block being used for the base, second floor banding and a second floor cap. Single score block is being used above the first and second floor windows. The north elevation, which is visible from Winchester, has 13 windows towards the east elevation with an additional 6 false windows towards the west elevation. These false windows are proposed to break up the appearance of a long expansive wall that will be visible from Winchester. The east elevation, which is visible from Roick Drive, has numerous windows. The south elevation consists of windows for the first sixty feet that may be visible from Roick. The windows are framed with clear anodized aluminum window frames and are made up of Blue-Green clear vision glass. In addition, the front entry is accentuated by the 12" square steel tubing that is in the shape of an electric current. The steel tubing will be mounted on seven (7) nine foot pillars constructed of "Gray" split face concrete block and scored at the top and bottom with 3 score type. The paint schedule for the steel tubing is Frazee Green Luster # AC-089N. None of the elevations have expansive block walls as all elevations are significantly articulated which creates a considerable amount of interest. Landscaping Forty-four percent (44%) of the site has been landscaped. This exceeds the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The slope areas make up 77% of the total landscape area. The southern portion of the site has a 25-foot wide landscape buffer. This area of the site is thoroughly planted and will provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the Landscape Plan and the applicant has addressed those comments on the landscape plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons: · The site is 1.06 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Scott Electric building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Business Park (BP). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). A variety of industrial uses are permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with, the General Plan, Development Code and the Design Guidelines. R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 3 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards and guidelines. We believe it is compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding development, and will represent an attractive addition to the City's office/warehouse uses. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposal, an office/warehouse building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of office/warehouse development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: 1. 2. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 20 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Landscape Plan R:M P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00,doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0416 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,550 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/VVAREHOUSE BUILDING (SCOTT'S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-047. WHEREAS, Davcon Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. 00-0416, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0416 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. 00-0416 on February 7, 2001, 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 hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0416; 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. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00- 0416 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, an office/warehouse building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of industrial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 6 Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00- 0416 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following criteria: · The site is 1.06 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Scott Electric office/warehouse building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0416 for a Development Plan to build a 13,550 square foot office building on a 1.06-acre lot at north side of Roick (third pad), known as Assessors Parcel NO. 909-320-047. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 7th day of February 2001. Ron Guerriero, 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 7th day of February, 2001, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff repor~ 416pa00.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 8 Project Description: DIF Category: Assessor Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0416 (Development Plan) The design and construction of a 13,550 square foot office building on a 1.06-acre lot, located at the north side of Roick (third Pad) known as Assessors Parcel No. 909-320-047. Industrial Park 909-320-047 February 7, 2001 February 7, 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 1. 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 Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 9 The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount'with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused podions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0336 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28714). The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. c. The final landscape plan shall include locations of all ground mounted utility/ mechanical equipment and provide suitable screening of that equipment. Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Those lights shown on the elevation plan as "typical exterior building lighting" shall be a decorative type complimentary to the building. Details of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review prior to installation. All parking lot lights and other exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 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 Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 10 10. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file with the Community Development Department o Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. Material Windows, doors Steel Tubing Concrete Masonry Unit Metal (roll-up door and man door) Color Aluminum frames with Blue-Green Vision Glass Frazee Green Luster #AC-089N Split face (natural coloring light gray) Frazee # D-32 Jogging Path Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 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 return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 13. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall 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 16. All required landscape plan!lng and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. R:\D P\2000~00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 11 17. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan 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 Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 18. A permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, shall identify each parking space reserved for the handicapped. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches 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 space 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, dearly 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." 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. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 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 fudher review and revision. General Requirements 20. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 21. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 22. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 23. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 12 24. 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. 25. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 26. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 27. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works 28. 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. 29. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Depadment and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 30. 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. 31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 32. 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 criteria shall be observed: a. FIowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. The driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. The street light shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 13 f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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 Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 36. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 37. 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. 38. 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. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 38. 39. 40. 41. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 14 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site- disabled accessibility. 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. R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 15 53. 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 California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 54. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM fora total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix II1- A) 55. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 56. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 57. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 58. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 59. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 60. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 61. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2,2.6 Ord. 99-14) R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 16 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. Prior 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. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures, prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Cedificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shalt be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum tweive (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Depadment building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416paOO.doc 17 71. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft cudains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (CFC Article 81) 72. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developedapplicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 73. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA- 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. 74. Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 ¼ X 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for acceptable fi~e formats and approval. 75. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 76. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 78. Prior to issuance of building permits or installation of street lights, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program. OTHER AGENCIES 79. 80. 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated October 24, 2000, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 24, 2000, a copy of which is attached. ~ The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control's transmittal dated December 1, 2000, a copy of which is attached. R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 18 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center's transmittal dated October 30, 2000, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I fudher understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416paOO.doc 19 October 24, 2000 Rick Rush, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJ~ECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO. 5 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28471 APN 909-330-027 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0416 John F. Hennigar Phillip L Forbes E.P. "Bob" Lemons Director of En~nneering Dear Mr. Rush: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements (including all in-tract facilities) between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. D~strictsec~ta~V^~ini~tra"V~Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Ser~,ices Manager c..~,~a~ Co~e, Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Best Best & Krieger LLP General Co~msel If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00~SB:at208he012-T6~FCF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALT} October 24, 2000 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0416 Dear Rick Rush: 1. The Depamnent of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0416 and has no objections. Sanitacy sewer and water services may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropr ate water and seweriag agencies. b) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2. · Waste Reduction Management 3. Waste Regnlation Branch (Waste Collection/Lea). Sincerely, SM:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Bnilding Plan review fbr final Department of Environmental Health clearance. Cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Local Enforcement Agency * PO. Box 1280, Riverside, CA 92502-1280 * (909) 955-8982 * FAX (909) 781-9653 * 4080 Lemon S~eet. 9th Floor, Riverside. CA 9250~ Land Use and Water Engineering * PO. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 * (909) 955-8980 * FAX (909) 955-8903 * 4080 Lemon Sa'eet. 2nd Floor. Riverside. CA 925C~ DAVID P. ZAPPE · General ,Manager~Chicf Engineer ~' SIISO. I RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: ~ lC..1~. I~-U$~' · Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: ~/v~ 7_.. ~ /.4 "/ [ -~ (jP~ 00- 0/-.//~o) . c--rifi~s?i~r~eCtDdisOt~SctnO, t normally ¢ecgmm. end' c~..nd, ition.s for land divisions or other land use-cases in incorpo~ted · s~ c~ ese ooes not olan cnec~ dry rune use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood.haza ,rfS. repo, rts for such c~_ses. Dis~ct comments/recommendations for such cases ara normally limited to items or specific Lnterast to.the uistrict inc~udin, g District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other ragional flood con. tr._el and. d. raina£.e racilitie_s, wni. ch cou d b.e consioered a Iogi.cal componentor extension of a master plan system, ano .u. is,trict Area urainage ~'lan tees (deve opment mitigation tees) In addition, information of a general nature is prowaea. · ~Thres,D..,i.s~ct__h..a_s .n, ot,[r,e~'e.w, ed the p .reposed.project in. de.t.a, il and the fo! owing checked comments do .not in any way mute or ~rnp~y u~smc~ approva or enoorsemem or me propoeeo project with raspect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: v~ This pr.ojegt' would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regiona~ mmrast proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written raquest of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and ~Pu~reC~gn will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be 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 logical extension of the adopted ~M~s,~r,,D=~m. in~a_g_e..,~l_a~_ ._..'~_.e~D_istrict .wouJ8 .cgns_i.de. r. a. cc.e. pti.ng 9wnem. h_ip .m.s.u .ch taalmes on wntten raquest ~%~..,ff~., ~.~m_~m_us~ [~. cons_t~.c[eo.~o .uLsmct s.Lanaaros, anq .u~sm.ct plan check and insp~'tion will ~mlu,~u ~ u~sm~t acceprance. !"lan cnecK, inspection and administrative fees will be required. i/' _This project.._, is I. ocat.e~l, withn the Ii.mits of the Dist~crs ~Ul~,tE.'l'n ~.E6V,.I'I'E~F_,C,U/..,~ VR~.~-¥Area u, rain.ege Pmn mr .wnich .dm. ina. ge Le. es have been adopted; applicable tees snoula I~e pine Dy cashier's cnec~ or money omer omy to me ~-Iood uontrol District prior to issuance of building or gradingpermits whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actua permit. GENERAL INFORMATION t is project_may .mguire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water o~u__r?~ ~on.._t[o~l~oa_~ Clea. ran..ce to.r grading,..re.oordatio.n., or o~.er tin.al .approva/should not be given until the nas aeJermlne~ mat me projec[ nas ~een grantea a permit or is shown tO De exempt. . - Imf qthui~rePra~eeCtaipnpVl~lcaVen~ ~oFpe~l. roe~r~ldeE~al~st~l~s.M~ala~g~a~eonnts.Ag~ann~ss (F .F_.~IA) map .1~ fl ..opd plain, then the City should reauirements and shoul-~ = ........... = .~ ...,. p[a.n.s an~.. om..e..r ,m.o.rm.a. fion .mq_ uired to meet FEMA .~ . ~., _ .u. mm~er ~qulra ma[ me applicant Omaln a ~onoluonal Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pnor m graamg, recoroaaon or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is iml3acted by this project, the City should require the applicant to o_bta[n a Section 16..01.1160.3. Agreement fi'bm the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water ACt .~e,.ctJo..n 4.0.4 Pe .rm,~..~rom me..U.S...Army Co~s of .Engi.ne_e. rs, qr written correspondence from these agencies ma,c.a, angmepm, j.ectls, ex.empt~rommese_requlrements AgeanwaterAct Section401WaterQualityCertiflcation may De mquireo ~rom me local Califom a Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. 1995 MARKET STREE'I RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION ~YSTEM Eastern Information Center Department of AnthropoJogy university of CatifomJa Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 October 30, 2000 TO: Rick Rush City of Temecula Planning Department RE: Cultural Resource Review Case: PA 00-0416 NOV .1. 0 Z000 3y Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural resource{s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study is recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified one or more cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study IMF #224) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. There is a Iow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist due to its proximity to CA-RIV-237. The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservat/on Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. _ Phase I Records search and field survey _ Phase II Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.] _ Phase III Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] -- Phase IV Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center EIC\FRMS~TRANSMIT ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 2O CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:\D P\2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff repod 416pa00.doc CITY OF TEMECULA Project EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park) ZONING MAP Project EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 GENERAL PLAN R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00,doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA m..L SITE PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 SITE PLAN R:\D P~O00\O0-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416paOO.doc CITY OF TEMECULA SOUTH ELEVATION {, 4 ,) EAST ELEVATION ~ WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA PRELJMINARY PLAN11NG PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416paOO.doc