Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011701 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444, Notification 48 hours pdor to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35,104 ADA Title Ill AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER~,~ 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JANUARY 17, 2001 -6:00 P,M. Next in Order~ Resolution: No. 2001-003 Commissioner Chiniaeff Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS · A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address th~ 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 not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you ale 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 NOTICETO 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 Caler{dar for separate action. Aoenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 17, 2001. R:~pLANCOMM~Agendas~2001\01-17-01 .doc 2 Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of November 1, 2000 COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Harveston Workshop- Desitin Guidelines/Development Standards 4 Villaqes of Old Town'Workshop 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 op,positioh to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any c,f the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someo~te else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. 5 Plannincl Application 00-0257{'Conditional Use Permit) to desicln, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless communication facility located a~l the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site located at 41520 Mamarita Road - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner 5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIE;SION 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 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: January 31, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive ']emecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001 \01-t 7-01 .doc 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday November 1, 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 Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, and Telesio. Commissioner Webster, and Chairman Guerdero. Director of Planning Ubnoske~ Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Associate Planner Anders, Associate Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 1, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster and Chairman Guerriero who were absent. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of September 6, 2000. This Agenda Item was continued to the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Findin(~ of Public Convenience or Necessi~ for Ultramar Gas Station, located at 40720 Winchester Road (Outlot at the Promenade Mall) - Thomas Thornslev, Associate Planner Associate Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (of record), noting that the convenience market would provide a unique atmosphere, that the use does not serve an under-served population, that there will be no entertainment provided with the project, that the applicant was willing to modify the hours of operation; and relayed that with respect to the geographical boundaries, this use was located on the south side of Winchester Road and would be the sole business of this type on that side of the highway, that the proposed establishment was located in an area where there is a significant influx of population dudng the holiday season, and that the Police Department was not opposed to this use selling alcohol. Mr. Buck Ramsey, the applicant, relayed that he would adhere to an additional condition whereas the sale of single cans of beer would be prohibited; noted that he would cooperate with the City of Temecula with respect to training the sales personnel regarding the prohibition of sales to minors; relayed that he would be willing to agree to a condition whereby the license would be revoked or suspended if during any two-year period there were three violations regarding sales to minors; provided additional information regarding his discussions with Chairman Guerriero with respect to the number of licenses in the City of Temecula; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, confirmed that he was recommending the additional conditions to staff, and was in agreement with the use being conditioned as noted. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agenda Street, noted his opposition to this use being licensed to sell alcohol, relaying that in his opinion the sale of gasoline and alcohol was not a good mix; noted that he was pleased with the condition prohibiting the sale of single cans of beer; and relayed his concern regarding the proliferation of licenses in the City of Temecula, and the potential for minors to access alcohol. The Commission relayed concludin~ comments, as follows: Commissioner Telesio noted that as long as the appropriate controls were in place, reiterating the applicant's added conditions, that he would support the Finding; advised that he would be a proponent of the use terminating the employment of an employee found in violation of selling alcohol to a minor; and noted that he would be in favor of a stricter condition than the revocation of a license after three violations within a two-year period. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed concurrence with Commissioner Telesio's comments; commended the applicant for his willingness to add stricter conditions regarding the sale of alcohol; and noted his support of the Finding for this use. Vice Chairman Mathewson noted his appreciation to the applicant for his willingness to limit the hours of operation, to prohibit the sale of single cans of beer, and the willingness to add a condition whereby the license would be revoked if there were three violations within a two-year pedod, while relaying that these controls were not relevant to the issue before the Commission which was the Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity; relayed that with respect to a Finding of Convenience, that since there were licensed establishments on the opposite side of VVinchester Road, he would not support this Finding; and, with respect to the Finding of Necessity, noted that in his opinion there were sufficient numbers of establishments in this particular area selling alcohol, advising that he would not support this Finding. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve the Findings of Public Convenience and Necessity based on the criteria included in the staff report, justifying the Findings. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Vice Chairman Mathewson who voted no, and Commissioner Webster and Chairman Guerriero who were absent. 4 Harveston Presentation Associate Planner Anders relayed that staff has been working with the applicant for approximately a year and a half, advising that at this meeting the applicant would provide an introductory overview of the Harveston Specific Plan; noted that the applicant would desire the Commission to provide input with respect 1o concerns or questions regarding the plan; clarified that the EIR associated with this project would not be addressed at this particular time; and introduced Mr. Bill Storm, from Lennar Communities, who would be representing the applicant. Mr. Bill Storm, reiterated the applicant's desire for Commission input with respect to concerns, and issues to be addressed; relayed that Lennar Communities was a home builder, noting that this particular plan encompassed the development of a new community inclusive of churches, schools, daycare centers, a variety of housing types, and lots which would vary in size; p~ovided a brief history of the site this project would potentially be developed on; noted the debt the site has accrued due to the improvements associated with the Community Facilities Dislirict (CFD); specified that the overall density for the project was 3.48, reiterating the plan to develop a variety of housing products to meet the needs of a variety of potential buyers; and relayed a willingness to meet with community residents in the area. Mr. Mathew Fagan, representing the applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation; thanked staff for their diligent efforts with respect to this project; provided an overview of the project plan, noting that the lake feature was a focal point of the project; specified the location of the project site; noted the boundaries of the CFD map; presented an aerial photograph of the site and the surrounding properties, noting that this project was somewhat of an in-fill project; specified the existing General Plan Land Use designations on this property which was inclusive of Low Medium (LM), IVledium (M), and High (H) Zoning residential areas, Open Space areas, Public Institutional areas, a Service Commercial area, and a large portion of Neighborhood Commercial located at the southeast corner of the Date Street Extension and the Ynez Road Extension; relayed the proposed Harveston Land Use Plan, specifying the external circulation, the internal loop read which would provide access to the planning areas, the three entry points to the project, and a variety of Land Uses; noted that the LM range would be from 3-5 dwelling units per acre, the M-1 would be from 5-7, the M-2 would be from 7-13, and the High would be from 13-20; relayed the Village Center proposal located off of the loop road proximate to the major entry at Margarita Road; referenced lhe central park system which was inclusive of the lake, the Lake Lark, a Paseo park which connected to the Community park, a Village Green, and a series of mini-parks; noted the variations in the circulation with the Cherry Street alternative, relaying that Date Street would hook up to Cherry Street, Ynez Road would be 'S" shaped in order to meet the standards for this type of road; and provided a density comparison between this Specific Plan's densities and alternate projects in the City of Temecula. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it would be beneficial to provide information regarding land uses surrounding the property in order to demonstrate the land use densities in the City of Murrieta and the relation to the proposed land uses; and with respect to Planning Areas 9, 10, and 11 noted that these areas appeared to be isolated, acknowledging the drainage channel with the streambed, relaying that there should be consideration to place these proposed units on the Ynez Road side of the project proximate to the Service Commercial area. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that the developer did not own the commercial property although the developer would be processing and developing this area; and noted the challenges with respect to the referenced planning areas. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that it may be more appropriate to not include these areas in this community plan. Vice Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments with respect to the isolated areas. In response, Mr. Storm noted that the applicant was still working on specificity with respect to these planning areas, relaying that the applicant was open to recommendations. In response to Vice Chairman Mathewson's queries regarding the Cherry Street Option Alternative, Mr. Storm and Mr. Fagan provided additional information. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that staff has been in contact with the property owners of the land that would be condemned in order to construct the extension; and for Vice Chairman Mathewson, noted that specificity with respect to the type of residential units proposed in the M-l, and M-2 zoning areas would be addressed at a later point in time. Mr. Fagan noted that Planning Area 11 was placed in the designated location as a buffer area, noting that the applicant would take into consideration the Commission comments. in response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it may be appropriate to consider an alternate Specific Plan for this area, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the area surrounding Planning Area 11. Vice Chairman Mathewson relayed a desire to obtain additional'information regarding the CFD and the associated financial issues. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this issue was a business decision. In response, Vice Chairman Mathewson noted that it was solely his desire to gain background data. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Fagan provided an overview of the type of residential product types envisioned, noting the architectural forward design which would be potentially utilized in either the M-1 zone or in the LM zone; via photographs, relayed the visually pleasing streetscape, the sidewalk setbacks, the recessed garages, the rear access points, the design elements that create the appearance of a single-story unit on a two-story dwelling, the porch elements, and the proposed alleyways. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding the residential areas proximate to the lake; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that the road would travel half way around the lake on each side, noting that there would be a continuous pedestrian trail; for Vice Chairman Mathewson, relayed that the boating on the lakE; would be for private use only, while the public could walk around the lake, utilize the parks, and fish; and in response to Vice Chairman Mathewson's queries, advised that due 1:o the proposed front design elements, residents would be encouraged to gather at the front of the houses. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the garages depicted in the photographs, noting that there wa=s access to the front and the rear of the garages. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Fagan presented the multi-family type products which would be proposed adjacent to the Village Center area; noted the relationship of the buildings to the street. Mr. Storm advised that these photographs represented the theme of the architectural style (i.e., New England, Cape Cod style), noting that the Specific Plan would provide a clear definition of amhitectural styles and themes, relaying the potential for a commemial element to be tied in to the multi-family area (i.e., first floor offices). For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Storm relayed that in lhe multi-family area, the units would be facing the street, and that the parking would be in the rear. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that the manner of mixing the commercial element with the multi-family area had not bee,n determined at this point in time. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that there be consideration to separate the multi- family area in order to reduce the high concentration in one single area. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that he would investigate the matter. Mr. Fagan noted the wide variety of housing options this project would offer. For Vice Chairman Mathewsonl Mr. Storm concurred that l:here was a market for single- story homes, while noting that empty nesters were opting for two-story homes at this time, noting the desire for the master bedroom to be down:stairs, and additional bedrooms upstairs for their children and grandchildren; advised that he would be reluctant to dictate to the builders with respect to the construction of a certain percentage of single-story houses, while noting that single-story homes were encouraged; and relayed that there were numerous architectural treatments that could be implemented to provide the appearance of a single-story home with a two-story unit. Vice Chairman Mathewson relayed that single-story homes would meet the demands of individuals desiring a smaller starter home, and seniors who do not desire to travel up and down stairs in their home. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that he would investigate and bring back additional information. Mr. Fagan noted that in the LM Zone there would be various larger lots (up to 10,000 square feet), advising that if there was a market for one-story homes that there would be opportunities for the builders to construct large single-story footprints on the larger lots. Commissioner Telesio relayed a concern with respect to the final end product, noting that it was not the desire of the Commission to solely allow the market to dictate what will be constructed in the City boundaries, recommending that there be further definition regarding this matter. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Fagan advised that the Specific Plan would be a specific tool to create product similar to the product depicted in the photographs, noting that it was necessary to provide a certain amount of latitude to the builders to construct a saleable product; and advised that vadous elements which would be implemented into this project (i.e., the architectural forward elements, rear access features) were not currently being constructed in this area, relaying the market risks associated with these implementations. Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the potential for a differential between the housing depicted in the photographs (which were high-end products) and the actual housing developed at this project site, advising that the architectural features included in the Specific Plan would be of vital importance to him. in response, Mr. Storm noted that these elements were important to the developer, as well; advised that it was the intent to develop architecture similar to the products depicted in the photographs, relaying that in order to compensate for the lower market prices in this area verses in Orange County, that the builder might opt to not construct 4-sided architecture where certain areas were not visible; relayed that the builder would be directed to emphasize architectural elements where it was within view; noted that the Specific Plan would be very specific, relaying that one of the only elements not covered was a requirement to construct a certain percentage of one-story homes; and advised that when the Commission reviewed the amhitectural guidelines and the development standards that there would be a greater level of comfort. Vice Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Telesio, noting that the expectation level has been raised per the housing product presented in the photographs of the PowerPoint presentation; and relayed the importance of addressing the architectural elements in order to ensure that the final product was what was anticipated. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that the housing depicted in the photographs was for the purpose of demonstrating the concepts of the housing type, and not the exact housing product to be developed in the City of Temecula; and clarified that in his opinion, the photographs were presented in order to solicit comments regarding certain elements (i.e., the architectural forward element, the alleyway feature). Vice Chairman Mathewson clarified that the expectation was that there would be a variety of elements creating a diverse appearance, and that quality architecture would be implemented. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding required important design elements, while noting that various elements would be optional; and confirmed that the photographs were presented for the purpose of demonstrating concepts, noting the applicant's desire to achieve a final product similar to that depicted in the photographs. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that in response to the Commission comments, it might be necessary to hold a workshop addressing the process of development from the Specific Plan to the final product. Mr. Fagan relayed that the applicant would provide a PowerPoint presentation regarding the details of the project, noting that there would be efforts to clarify the process of going from Point A (the Specific Plan) to Point B (the final product). Commissioner Telesio provided additional information regarding the expectations of the product standards, relaying that the Commission would most likely request to have the Product Review conducted at a Commission level. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Fagan presented an overview of the Village Center type of Commercial Center, advising that this element was not included in the General Plan, but was a result of a decision by Lennar Communities to create a special element within this community; noted that the core of the Village Center would encompass up to 20,000 square feet of retail space, noting the plan to provide various services within the project to service the residents residing in the development, as well as visitors to the site (i.e., having a cup of coffee after visiting the lake); relayed that it was anticipated to place the multi-family area on the southern side of the Village Center; and noted the potential church and daycare site, the congregate care facility site, the roundabout (i.e., traffic circle), the private recreation facility, and the numerous pedestrian connections. Mr. Storm relayed that it was anticipated that the Village Center would be an active core in the community; and for Vice Chairman Mathewson, specified the potential parking areas. Mr. Fagan presented the Open Space Plan from the Specific Plan, noting the central park component, the lake, the lake park, the paseo park which connects the lake park to the community park, the green landscaped development zone along the loop road, the landscaped zones along the major entdes and streets; noted that the proposal along the major roads of Margarita Road, Date Street, and Ynez Road was to have the sidewalk separated from the street; relayed that on the outside of thE; loop road there would be a meandering walkway, and on the inside there would be a curb adjacent walk; advised that the lake, the lake park, and other facilities (the Village Club, the Village Green, the parks, the existing Winchester Creek Park, the open space trail areas) encompassed approximately 74.1 acres of open space. Mr. Fagan noted that based on touring alternate lake projects, that there appeared to be a lot of community activity around the lakes, noting the family activity, the people rollerblading, jogging, pushing strollers, and fishing; and vis~ an illustrative, noted that there would be a trail around the circumference of the lake with some housing products backing on to the lake, relaying that there would be pedestrian access to the lake and to the Village Center, noting that there would be transit facilities in the project, advising that the densities located in this particular area aided in supporting the transit proposal. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding the proposals proximate to the lake. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that the width of the sidewalk surrounding the lake would be approximately 10 feet. In reE;ponse, Commissioner 7 R:PlanComm/minut 8s/110 lCO Chiniaeff recommended that the sidewalk be widened and that there be a separation for walkers verses the bicyclists, and rollerbladers. In response, Mr. Storm advised that to widen the sidewalk would create a mass of concrete, relaying that there may be an alternate plan that could address this issue, noting that the applicant would investigate the matter. Via overheads, Mr. Fagan presented the proposed amphitheater located at the south end of the lake; highlighted the private recreation facility (the Village Club). Mr. Storm relayed that the facility would be in the 7,000-8,000 square foot range with a multi- purpose room, potentially a semi-commercial kitchen, office space, and the pool area, noting that the boats would be kept in this area. Mr. Fagan highlighted the proposed Community Park which would be a 16-acre facility, noting that the plan would be finalized as the road alignments were worked through (i.e., the selection on either the Date Street or Cherry Street connection), relaying that this park would provide a buffer between the channel commercial area; noted that the facility would be inclusive of lighted ball fields, concession stands, a tot lot, and parking provisions per TCSD's advisement; relayed that this facility would not only meet the active needs of the residents, but of the surrounding community, as well; via overheads, presented the Paseo Park plan which served to create a pedestrian link from the Lake Park to the Community Park; relayed the mini parks proposal, noting that these parks would be located at the entries to the neighborhoods and would be inclusive of sitting areas, and barbecues. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding the mini parks in the neighborhoods, relaying the concept to develop varied architectural themes in the neighborhoods (i.e., East Coast architecture, Cottage style architecture) which would be tied to the landscaping theme and reflected in the mini parks. Mr. Fagan relayed the expanded landscape development zones which would be a minimum width of 32 feet on the outside, and 20 feet on the inside and would be located along the loop road, noting that these areas would be separated from the road; and highlighted the proposed bike lanes in the street. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding efforts to create a pleasing visual affect on the loop road. Via overheads, Mr. Fagan relayed the proposed open-ended cul-de-sacs, noting that the Specific Plan would provide detailed standards with respect to these elements; highlighted the Arroyo Park which met the mitigation measures for the Resource Agencies, noting that this area would be maintained in a natural state and would encompass an approximate 13-acre site. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that the applicant was not certain as to the point in time that this area appeared as was proposed, reiterating the Army Corps of Engineers requirement for the applicant to restore the site to its original condition. Via overhead slides, Mr. Fagan presented an illustrative site plan, providing information regarding circulation, noting the encouragement of pedestrian travel. Mr. Storm provided additional data regarding the revised major entry way, noting that per staff recommendation modifications were made, relaying the 20-foot median located in this area, the loop road, and the relocation of the amphitheater. Via overhead slides, Mr. Storm provided an overview of the Maintenance Plan, noting that the Community Park would be maintained by TSCD, that the medians and signals surrounding the project would be maintained by the City, that the Paseo Park, the Lake Park, the amphitheater, and the landscaped area proximate to the loop road would be owned by the HOA, with a landscape maintenance easement that would entail the City maintaining this area via TCSD, clarifying that this maintenance would be paid for by the homeowners; relayed that the easement adjacent to the school site and the multi-family area would be maintained by the City with the cost being flmded by the homeowners; and noted that there were some areas which would be maintained by the Business Association, namely the Service Commercial area, and the, Neighborhood Commercial area. In response to the applicant's queries, Vice Chairman Mathewson recommended that the applicant sum up the concluding comments, noting tha't additional workshops would be held to address specific areas of concern, Commissioner Chiniaeff noting that two Planning Commissioners were absent from this meeting. Ms. Jane Morgan, representing the applicant provided an overview of the circulation plan, providing additional information regarding the parking standards on site; noted that the project has incorporated both the Date Street and CherTy Street connections into the EIR analysis since the City Circulation Element had not been updated which would designate a specific connection, noting the provision for arterial right-of-ways; provided additional information regarding both of the connections; relayed that in comparison to the average daily trips (ADT's) anticipated with the Winchester Hills Specific Plan at this site, that this project would generate 5,000 ADT's less than the anticipated ADT's; provided additional information regarding the proposal to include landscaped parkways and separated sidewalks in this project plan, noting the traffic calming measures that would be implemented (i.e., the roundabouts); relayed the plan for narrower residential streets for the purpose of slowing residential speeds; and advised that additional detail would be provided when the EIR was presented to the Planning Commission. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the potential Cherry Street connectio]r~, and the potential for the applicant to provide off-site mitigation if there was an inability for either of the connections to occur. Mr. Fagan provided concluding remarks, as follows: relayed the proposed bicycle plan, and the transit plan; noted that the four-stage phasing plan would be further addressed at a future point; presented the project components, noting the General Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement, the Specific Plan, an "A" Map which corresponds to the planning areas, and alternate areas which would be addressed in the EIR, which the Commission would most likely receive next week, along with the "B" map which would include Iottings for the LM, M-l, and M-2 Zoning, advising that additional maps would follow, along with Development Plans and Conditional Use Permits data; provided an overview of the project timeline, noting the plan to hold community meetings, additional workshops, and to present the project to the Planning Commission in February, and to the City Council in March; and relayed additional information regarding the applicant's continuing efforts. Mr. Ron Bradley, representing the applicant, provided a hisl~ory of this particular site, and the City's efforts with the developer with respect to this property; noted that it had been clarified at an early stage that no City staff member or Councilmember could commit to future Planning Commission or City Council actions; and noted the costs that the applicant has agreed to accrue in association with this site; and advised that the applicant has fulfilled all the promises made to the City regarding this property. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that subsequent workshops address the Design Guidelines, and the Circulation issues. Vice Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff, noting that an additional issue to be addressed should be the Village Center proposal. Commissioner Telesio concurred with the previous Planning Commission recommendations, COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. For Commissioner Telesio, Attorney Curley confirmed that it was the intent of the State that the Planning Commission's subjectivity be part of the review process while determining whether the Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity exist. B. Vice Chairman Mathewson noted that he would be out of town for the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. C. With respect to the Wolf Creek Project, Vice Chairman Mathewson requested to have the agenda packet distributed as soon as possible. D. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the status of the Wolf Creek Project, noting that a report would be provided at the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the agenda for the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting would be full B, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Department was conducting second interviews for a Senior Planner. ADJOURNMENT At 8:27 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, November '15, 2{)00 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ITEM #3 HARVESTON WORKSHOP DESIGN GUIDELINES/DEVELOPMENT S;TANDARDS CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commissioners Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning~ January 17, 2001 Harveston Workshop - Residential and Neighborhood Design Guidelines This item is the second of three workshops on the proposed Harveston Specific Plan. The topics of discussion will include the residential design guidelines and the layout of the neighborhoods. The applicant will be presenting material on the project to the Commission the night of the meeting. Staff requests that the Planning Commission receive the presentation and provide comments and concerns to the applicant and City staff. R:\S P\Harveston SP~Jan 17 PC Workshop.doc 1 ITEM #4 VILLAGES OF OLD TOWN WORKSHOP CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commissioners Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning~. January 17, 2001 Workshop on the Villages of Old Town The presentation on the Villages of Old Town project will be the first opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive basic information on the proposal. The applicant will be presenting the project to the Commission. Supplemental information on the applicant's presentation is attached to this memorandum. Staff requests that the Planning Commission receive the presentation and provide comments and concerns to the applicant and City staff. R:\S FAVillages of Old Town'Jan 17 PC Wonkshop.doc 1 ITEM #5 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 DE.~;IGN, 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: Tim Lencioni / Sprint PCS REPRESENTATIVE: William Bennett/SBA, Inc. PROPOSAL: To design, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless telecommunication facility. LOCATION: Norma Marsha Reservoir Site, east of Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road and no~h of Rancho Vista Road EXISTING ZONING: (PI) Public Institutional SURROUNDING ZONING: 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\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, 2O00. 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 wail 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~00-0257 Sprint 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 "1--". Landscaping 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 PA96o0063 was approved. The project approved a 60' high monopole, which ivas 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 application3, 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 151B2 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 n,~=eded. 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 change.,; 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 57 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 Negatiw.~ 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~00-0257 Spdnt 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 and 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\Q0-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Repo~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 Io 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\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- APPROVING PA00-0257 CONDITIONAL USE PERMI~' R:~C U P~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 200'1-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERIIt~IT 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 4t 520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-;!30-002 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 headng 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. Findin.qs. 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 (:'.ode 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\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 7 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 5. 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: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\C U P\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA00o0257 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R:\C U P'~00-0257 Spdnt PCS\Staff Report.doc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROW~,L Planning Application No: PA00-0257 (Condition~al Use Permit) Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to design, construct, and oper;~te an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility. DIF Category: Potentially Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 940-230-002 January 17, 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 lhe 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 pedod 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 pedod. 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\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Repor'cdoc 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 pedod, 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 bdng the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 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\00-0257 Spdnt PCS\Staff ReporLdoc 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 Co:les; 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 provisior~s 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 Deparl:ment of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as riot 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\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.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 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) 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. Pdor 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) 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) 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~00,.0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report, doc 13 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 ) 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, m, ulti-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\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff ReporLdoc 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R;\C U P\00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report. doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 17, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:\C U P\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Report.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PI) O, Oc~' EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -January 17, 2001 R:\C U P\00-0257 Spdnt PCS~Staff ReporLdoc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 17, 2001 SITE PLAN R:\C U P\00-0257 Spdnt PCS\Staff Report.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 17, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:\C U P\00-0257 Splint PCS\Staff Report. doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 17, 2001 LANDSCAPE PLANS R:\C U P\00-0257 Sprint PCS\Staff Report.doc 2O