Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090402 PC AgendaIn' compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, I ......... ~ce of the Ci~,, Clerk (909) 694-6A'~'~ Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting w~ll enable theI ~ please col,tulL L,,~ u,,, ., .... ' ' City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Titie II] I' AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE September 4, 2002 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2002-033 CALL'TO ORDER Flag Salute: Roll Call: Chairman Chiniaeff Guerrier©, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary pdor to the Commission addressing that item. There is a t~ree (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. I A,qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 4, 2002 R:~p LANCOMM~Agend as~2002L~-4-02.doc 1 2 Minutes 'RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from August 7, 2002. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Economic Development Presentation, Michelle Schierberl and Jim O'Grady PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written Comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the. time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Continued from August 7, 2002 Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility located. Requestin.q a continuance to September 18, 2002, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assi~tai~t Planner. New Items 5. Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0231, 0233, 0234 and 0236 (Development Plan/Product Review - Harveston, Rolfe Preisendanz: PROPOSAL: PA02-0231: A Development Plan I Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area No. 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection, of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 9t6,t60-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3; PA02-0233: A Development Plan I ProduCt Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area No. 4 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Parcel No~ 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29639; RAp LANCOMM'~,gend a s~2002\9-4-02.do~ 2 PA02-0234: A Development Plan /Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area No. 3 of the Harveston Specific Plan located west of Ysabel Barnett Elementary School, east of Harveston Lake, Assessor's Parcel No. 9t6-t70-010, 916-170-011 and 916-t70-007, Tentative Tract Map 29929-1; PA02-0236: A Development Plan I Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area No. 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located south of Oak Street, west of Margarita Road~ between Harveston School Road and Majo.r Entry off of Oak Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 9t6-160-004 and 916-170-0tt, Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3. Location: Generally located south of Date Street and 'west of Margarita Roads. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application(s) No. 02-0231, 0233, 0234 and 0236 (Development Plan(s) / Product Review(s)) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EI R's and Negative Declarations; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: 'PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO; 02-023t - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN I PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY'RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING.AREA NO. 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF. DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 9t6-t60-004 AND 9t6- 170-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-2 AND 29928-3; 5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0233 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DATE 'STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004 AND916-t 70-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29639 R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~2002~9-4-02.doc 3 6 5.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0234 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN I PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA NO. 3 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED WEST OF YSABEL BARNETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND EAST OF HARVESTON LAKE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 9'16-'170-010 AND 916-170-0'11 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29929- 1; Adopt a Resolution.entitled:. PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0236 - A .DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR. DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN pLANNING AREA NO. 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN .LOCATED SOUTH OF OAK STREET, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD AND MAJOR ENTRY OFF OF OAK STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004, 916-t80-008, 9'16- 170-01'1 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-'1 AND' 29928. · COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT · ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: September 18, 2002 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:'~PLANCOMM~Ag e nd as~2002~9-4-02.doc 4 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 7, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 7, 2002, 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 Mathewson. ROLLCALL Present; Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning UbnQske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Fire Captain McBride, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Rush, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, Senior Planner Hogan, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 7, 2002. 2 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update For July 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Planninq Application No. PA00-0507-Hampton Inn, for the desi.qn and construction of a 70-room four story hotel buildinq on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located to the adiacent west of .the Winchester freeway off ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza. - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Continue to August 21, 2002. · MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the August 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Planninq Application No. PA01-01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Appeal. An Appeal of the Planninq Director's decision to deny Planninq Application PA01-0601 a proposal for a Cin.qular Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility consistinq of replacing two existing wood poles with two identical metal poles (painted a wood qrain finish to match existinq poles) and a 10' x 20' BTS equipment enclosure. The proposed metal poles will internally house 6 antennas, located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road in Temeku Hills Golf Course. - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved); 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0120 - A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN UNMANNED CELLULAR ANTENNA FACILITY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA. ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 953-340-015. R: PlanComrWminut es~080702 2 Staff presents the proposed proiect By way of overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz provided an overview of the project plan (of record), relaying the applicant's plan to replace two existing wood poles with two new metal poles which will house the antennas, noting the equipment shelter the applicant is proposing to be located north of the antenna; presented the applicant's photo simulation of a view of the equipment shelter and the landscaping from inside the golf course; advised that when this project was presented at the May 9 Director s Hearing numerous residents spoke in opposition of the proposal, expressing that the project was not appropriate in a master planned golf community, recommending that the applicant explore other sites; noted that after hearing all the. comments, the Hearing Officer requested a continuance in order to obtain additional information; relayed that at the subsequent hearing staff was not satisfied with the proposed paint on the metal poles, recommending a wood-simulated finish; advised that ultimately the Hearing Officer denied approval of the project due to the applicant not providing sufficient justification for the location, nor exploring alternate sites as required by the Telecommunication Ordinance, as well as the Hearing Officer not being convinced that alternative non-residential sites were not feasible; cited the findings for denial (per the staff report); noted the three correspondences staff recently received which were submitted to the Planning Commission via supplemental agenda material; and relayed that if it was the Commission's desire to approve the project, staff was recommending that the item be continued in order to for staff to prepare the associated findings. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries regarding staff's recommendation for approval going into the Director's Hearing, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that as the Hearing Officer he had disagreed with the staff report, advising that it was his opinion that additional information was needed prior to making a determination. For informational purposes, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the Telecommunication Ordinance, noting the intent for the applicant to demonstrate the justification for locating in a certain area in order to balance the need for technolegy while minimizing the burden on the community. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Assistant City Attorney Curley referenced the Telecommunication Ordinance, noting the applicant's burden to demonstrate a clear need for the facility, and to stealth the antenna as much as possible if it was deemed not feasible to co-locate the antenna or locate the facility on a multiuse site. For Commissioner Guerriero, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that he knew of no City employees who were having trouble with their Cingular cellular reception when in this particular location; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the antennas would be mounted inside the pole; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that this site was designated as Open Space. Senior Planner Hazen noted that the design of the proposed painted poles was not similar to the existing telephone poles; and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the proposed pole design did not have a wood grain texture but was a smooth-faced painted galvanized pole. R: Plar~n~/mtnut es/080702 3 The applicant provides a project overview Mr. Marc Myers, representing the applicant, presented the proposed project plan, relaying that the facility would be completely stealth, removed from view, that there would be no visible change at the site from what is existing with the exception of the wall which was designed to be consistent with the appearance of the existing wall, and that the proposed plan met the requirements of the City's Municipal Code, the Antenna Ordinance, and the property owner; specified the proPOsed location for the poles, and the equipment enclosure; noted that per submitted data, the applicant has provided assurance that the paint would match the existing poles, relaying that a letter had been submitted to staff from the manufacturer stating that the pole could be painted to match the existing wooded pole; noted that the equipment area will be enclosed with a block wall (consistent with the existing wall), and landscaped; provided additional information regarding the view of the project from various locations, noting that the facility would not be visible, specifying that the nearest home was approximately 250 feet away; relayed the applicant's efforts to locate the facility at alternate locations, additionally noting the project's process with staff; advised that although over 200 residences were noticed, the applicant only received three letters from residents with concerns; noted that the site analysis documents were provided to staff at the time of the initial submittal, noting that at no time during the hearing process was the applicant requested to provide additional site alternative information which was part of the basis for the denial (per the findings); relayed the benefits of this particular project for the community due to the improved cellular service; and advised that an alternate finding had stated that the project was proposing a commercial facility in a residential area, reiterating that this site was designated Open Space. The applicant addresses the queries of the Commission For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Myers noted that the applicant had previously proposed an installation to be located at the Jiffy Lube site, relaying that staff was not pleased with the location due to the visibility of the site, additionally noting that after investigation, it was determined that there would be difficulty locating the equipment at the Jiffy Lube 'site; relayed that although .the apartment complex across from the post office was never identified, the post office and the water tank sites, as well as the Jiffy Lube site were investigated; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed the process of developing a site for location of a facility; and noted that the applicant did not provide a sample design of the painted pole at the Director's Hearing, but paint chips and a cross section of the pole. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he had not seen the site analysis data. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Myers specified the justification for the need for a facility in this particular area to improve cellular coverage; relayed that the post office was not interested in leasing to the cellular company, noting that he was not certain as to what height would be necessary for an installation at that location; relayed that maintenance of the poles would be addressed in the Conditions of Approval; confirmed that the proposed stucco wall would be the same height as the existing wall; and with respect to the shrubs, relayed that the applicant would be willing to install 1- gallon or 5-gallon sized shrubs. Commissioner Guerriero advised that in his opinion it was important that the Planning Commission review a sample design of the proposed pole, which was echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff. Commenting on other sites, which may be feasible for locating the facility, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that it appeared that the antennas could be aimed from the nodh side of the water tank and cover the same area, that the facility could be located proximate to Starlight Ridge Apartments site on the southwest corner, or the Margarita Apartments site. Mr. Myers clarified that the applicant provided all that was requested by staff at the hearing, e.g., paint chips, the computerized photo simulation, and the sample of the pole material; and with respect to the suggestion to locate the facility at an apartment complex, relayed that there would most likely be a conflict due to the residents located on site. Mr. James Herman, representing the property owner of the golf course site, provided an overview of working with the applicant's representatives and developing the proposed plan, noting the applicant's cooperativeness; and for Commissioner Olhasso, advised that the netting with the poles was the only product he had knowledge of which could restrict stray golf balls from going into the street. The public is invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: § Mr. Carl Merritt § Mr. John Shablow § Mr. David Hughes § Mr. Harold N. Ritter § Mr. Bill Miller § Mr. Tom Rabuczewski 30753 Links Court 30791 Links Court 30709 Links Court 30725 Links Court 30743 Links Court 30749 Links Court The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: · Question,.ed the need for the facility; · Fear that this project would set a precedent regarding co-location at this site, and other facilities opting to locate in areas proximate to residences; · That the property values would depreciate; · Maintenance issues, specifically concern regarding the appearance of the poles in five to ten years; · That the proposed site was inappropriate due to the proximity of the residents; · That the applicant was proposing to locate at this site based on the lower costs; · Commended the Hearing Officer for his professionalism at the Director's Hearing; · Noted that at the Director's Hearing there were questions regarding alternate sites, as well as line of sight issues which the applicant had denied; · That even if the project was stealth, it was not satisfactory; · That there were health risks associated with radio wave frequencies; · Fear that when selling homes in this area, there would be a requirement to disclose the location of the antenna; · McMillin and not the homeowners would benefit financially from leasing the site to the cellular comPanY; · Recommended that the Planning Commission deny approval of the project; That the facility would be better located in areas where there were other equipment . enclosures or industrial infrastructure, i.e., in front of the Jiffy Lube use, on the easement on the west'side of Margarita Road, or at one of the water tower sites; and · That the antenna should be co-located with existing antennas. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Merritt opined that there would be negative visual impacts associated with this project; for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that even if the poles were required to be maintained there would be visual impacts due to the inconsistency with a. few poles being wooden and others metal; and confirmed that the impacts would be lessened if all of the wooden poles were replaced with meta! rather than just two. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Shablow opined that the project would have negative visual impacts. The applicant provides rebuttal In response to the comments expressed, Mr. Myers relayed the following: · For Mr. Rabuczewski, and Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the antenna · would be concealed within the pole, and would be completely internal; For clarification, relayed that alternate site information was discussed at the hearing because he included it in his presentation, noting that although one of the'findings for the denial was based on a lack of alternate site analysis, staff had not requested additional data regarding site analysis or he would have provided it at the hearing; With respect to the line-of-sight issues, noted that although the antenna could not be blocked directly, e.g., a tree placed directly next to the antenna, that the antennas do not communicate directly with an alternate site via line-of-sight transmissions; Regarding maintenance, relayed that the project would be required to maintain the pole via the Conditions of Approval associated with the project, as well as in accordance requirements of the property owner; With respect to rents offered, relayed that a formal submittal was made regarding the Jiffy Lube site and the property owner had agreed to lease the site, clarifying that money was not the determining factor in choosing a location; · Regarding co-location, noted that co-locating was the cellular company's preference since the costs were lower and cites prefer it; · Clarified that no existing antenna site could meet the needs of coverage for this particular cellular service; · Confirmed that there was a possibility that if this project was approved, a second antenna may co-locate per the property owner's and another facility's determination; For Commissioner Guerriero, Fire Captain McBride relayed that the Fire Department's opinion regarding this matter would be neutral, and that there was support regarding telecommunications in general. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public hearing. The Planninq Commission offers closinq remarks Commissioner Guerriero advised that in order to determine whether the facility would be aesthetically pleasing the applicant should present a model replica of the proposed. poles; noted his concern regarding maintenance; relayed that co-location was the preference due to reducing the number of facilities, and thereby the impacts, specifying that he would desire additional analysis data regarding the justification for not co- ' locating; and noted that he would not support the proposed project at this time. Concurring wiih Commissioner Guerriero, Commissioner Mathewson noted his desire for provision of a more in-depth analysis regarding not being able to co-locate and the rationale for the need to locate at this particular site; with respect to maintenance issues, relayed a desire for a letter from the manufacturer providing assurance that there would be no fading, advising that it would be his hope that the conditions associated with the project would require maintenance during the life of the facility; with respect to aesthetics, opined that there was nothing the applicant could add to create a more stealth appearance; and concluded that it would be his recommendation that the applicant bring back add.itional information regarding the maintenance and alternate site location data, recommending that locating at apartment complex sites not be pursued. Commissioner Telesio echoed the previous comments regarding maintenance issues, advising that the contractJagreement would most likely best address this matter; with respect to site location, concurred with the desire for the applicant to provide analysis regarding the need to locate at this particular location; with respect to the concerns of the adjacent residents, clarified that this proposed site was not zoned residential, that a minimum distance of 250 feet to the nearest residence may be adequate, that he had difficulty understanding the concerns regarding the visual impacts of the project, and that the Planning Commission could not address concerns regarding radio waves; and concurred with the recommendation to continue this item in order for the applicant to provide additional information regarding the alternate sites, which were investigated, as well as material samples with a prognosis from the manufacturer regarding the appearance and durability of the painted poles. Since the easement proximate to the apartment complexes would not be feasible, Commissioner Olhasso concurred with not pursuing the investigation of apartment complex locations; queried whether this particular antenna could be installed in the flagpole at the Burger King use proximate to the Jiffy Lube site, or an alternate location in Palomar Village, advising that the facility would be better suited further from residential; and noted that she concurred with staff regarding the recommendation to deny the project, as proposed. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that if the existing wooden poles were replaced with metal poles with a similar appearance that the facility would not be visibly noticeable; with respect to the homeowners' concerns, noted the difficulties which have arisen due to the golf course being owned by McMillin instead of the HOA at this time; referencing the associated ordinance, relayed that previsions have been made for these types of facilities; advised that metal poles would most likely be more durable on a long-term basis than wooden poles; opined that if an antenna was needed in this particular area, the proposed plan would most likely be the most appropriate; concurred that the project should not move forward until the applicant has clarified the paint treatment on the poles, advising that the are specialty artists that are able to paint in a manner that resembles wood, e.g., at the Pechanga site; noted that the applicant should provide additional information regarding the alternate site location analysis, and the alternate wave length patterns in order for the Planning Commission to determine if this was the best location for the installation. With respect to the applicant providing additional data regarding alternate site locations, Commissioner Mathewson requested that the information include the proximity to residential areas, noting that Palomar Village (a recommended loCation to be investigated) was proximate to residential areas. Regarding the proximity to residential areas, Commissioner Telesio, echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the proposed location would most likely provide the greatest distance from residences. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Antenna Ordinance addressed maintenance of the facilities, noting that via a Maintenance Facility Removal Agreement or enforceable provisions in a signed lease this issue would be addressed, Assistant City Attorney Curley advising that not only would the project be conditioned as such, but a separate enforceable contractual document would address the maintenance elements; and for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the maintenance of the facility would be the telecommunication entity's responsibility. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that typically the City did not hire an outside consultant, or require the applicant to do so, in order that the Planning Commission would be provided an unbiased analysis of the applicant's data. in response to Assistant City Attorney Curley, Mr. Myers relayed that the applicant would be willing to utilize an engineer recommended by the City in order to eliminate concerns regarding a bias. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the September 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide additional information regarding the need to place the facility at this location, the rationale for not being able to co-locate the facility at an alternate location, a sample model of the treated pole, as well as an analysis engineer recommended by City staff. The motion was' seconded by Commissioner Olhasso. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) In order to provide clear direction to the applicant, Commissioner Telesio specified that the Planning Commission was requesting that the applicant provide data regarding the need to install the facility at the proposed location, and a sample of the painted pole in order to alleviate concerns regarding the visual appearance. For Mr. Myers, Chairman Chiniaeff confirmed that if the justification for not locating at various sites was due to the property owners not granting permission that it would be helpful, if feasible, to obtain data (i.e., a letter, an e-mail), demonstrating the property owner's unwillingness to allow installation of the facility. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. At 7:51 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:01 P.M. 5 Planninq Application No. PA 02-0252 (Development Plan) - to desiqn, construct, and operate a 61,200 square foot expansion to the existinq 132,883 square feet Milqard Windows buildinq located at the southwest corner of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway - Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0252 (Development Plan); 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02.0252, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 61,200 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING 132,883 SQUARE FOOT MILGARD WINDOWS BUILDING ON 15.83 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DIAZ ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-031 Via overheads, Associate Planner Rush provided an overview of the project plan (of record), highlighting the location, the zoning (Light Industrial), the access to the site, the expansion design plan, and the parking provisions (which would exceed the requirements); noted that the applicant has agreed to add shrubs at a five-foot height (and to maintain the shrubs at this height) in order to aid in screening the bay doors; relayed that while the project has been conditioned to provide drought tolerant plantings on the undeveloped west portion of the site in Condition No. 5, the applicant has expressed opposition to this condition, proposing to hydroseed this area which is not adequate in staffs opinion nor does the plan meet City ordinances regarding undeveloped pads; advised that staff was requesting a revision to the initial study due to the incorrect tables being utilized which was pointed out to staff via a letter from the Air Quality Management District (AQMD), specifying that the site will still have less than significant impacts with the new tables; and noted that staff was additionally recommending that Condition No. 2 be revised to read All outdoor staging areas shall be fully screened from public view. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Rush specified that staff was requesting the .applicant to install shrubs (which were drought tolerant) On the undeveloped pad rather than hydroseeding due to the long-term visual impact and the potential for this portion of the property to not be developed for a lengthy period of time. Mr. James Buxton, representing the applicant, clarified the applicant's opposition to Condition No. 5, noting that due to the site being located in a drought area, if this particular undeveloped portion of property is required to be planted the area will also have to be irrigated or the plantings will die; via a photograph, displayed the proximate use's undeveloped pads which had been hydroseeded; advised that ultimately the undeveloped pad will most likely be a parking area, additionally noting that the property will be screened due to increasing the berm on Dendy Parkway; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the undeveloped pad would not be developed for parking at this time due to budget constraints and the lack of need for additional parking, confirming that this future parking area will also be utilized for trailer truck parking, noting that initially one trailer will be parked in this area temporarily. Mr. Vincent Didonato, landscape architect representing the applicant, provided an overview of the landscape plan proximate to the undeveloped pad, noting the slopes on the outside edges, as well as the screening from the street; relayed that if this area was irrigated it would create difficulties when the pad was developed for parking; specified that this pad was a large area which would not be visible; and for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that it was his understanding that the Code ~did not allow Decomposed Granite (DG) in these areas, but an organic material. Mr. Paul Ramsey, representing Keeton Construction Company, further addressed the undeveloped pad area, noting that the area was approximately two acres and was not scheduled for any particular use at this time, and that the area was unbuildable but could be utilized for parking at a future point; and advised that due to the size of the pad it was the applicant's proposal that the area be hydroseeded. For informational purposes and the potential for the Milgard Company to add employees with the expansion project, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that Riverside County One Stop had funds available for on-the-job training for up to half the payroll, advising that it was located proximate to Fire Station No. 73. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Fire Captain McBride advised that if a meadow mix were planted on the undeveloped pad, the Fire Department would consider it landscaped and would not require abatement. In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding conditions imposed and the relationship to the Code requirements, noting that the intent of the Code regarding landscaping undeveloped pads was to keep the site tidy, weed-flee and debris-free; and advised that if the project were conditioned to install gravel or DG with intermittent landscaping, the spirit of the Code would be satisfied. For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Rush (referencing the Code) noted the intent to require landscaping on undeveloped pads for the purpose of soil and erosion control. Commissioner Olhasso noted that the Rancho Water District site provided a good example of drought tolerant landscaping. With respect to the undeveloped pad, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would not be opposed to the installation of DG pathways with some drought tolerant bushes. Mr. Didonato relayed that installing pathways on this particular pad could create a nuisance, advising that he envisioned screening the area and providing erosion control. The applicant's representative requested that the Planning Commission provide specific direction regarding the undeveloped pad. Commissioner Guerriero congratulated the Milgard Company for their growth; and noted that the undeveloped parcel will most likely be vacant for a shod period of time, recommending that whatever is installed in this area address dust control. Regarding the undeveloped pad, Commissioner Telesio recommended that the area be primarily gravel (to address soil and erosion control) with minimal plantings, Chairman Chiniaeff recommending a dust control solid type environment with additional landscaping along the edges, which could be irrigated via the existing adjacent irrigation system (changing.the spray field to 360 degrees). For the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske concurred that staff and Mr. Didonato could work together to implement a plan for the undeveloped pad per the Planning Commission's direction, advising that, if necessary, staff could obtain input from the City's landscape architect. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following: Modify- · With respect to Condition No. 5 (regarding landscaping the'undeveloped pad) that the language be revised to require the applicant to work with staff to develop a plan to install an appropriate level of organic and inorganic · materials to address this area; · With respect to Condition No. 2, that the language be revised to state All outdoor staging areas should be fully screened from public view;, and · That the initial study be revised to implement the correct table per direction provided via a letter from AQMD (as noted previously by staff). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if there were difficulties regarding staff and the applicant coming to agreement on a plan to landscape the undeveloped pad, the issue could be brought back to the Planning Commission. 6 PLanning Application No. PA01-0383 (Conditional Use Permit/Development PLan). To desiqn, construct and operate a thirty-five foot high-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility desiRned as a flaqpole and the installation of a one hundred forty four square foot equipment shelter located on the south side of Hiqhway 79 South and west of Redhawk Parkway at the existinq McDonalds site at 31853 Hiqhway 79 South - Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Applicati.on No. 01-0383 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 6.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0383, A CONDITIONAL USE- PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THIRTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGNED AS A FLAGPOLE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF A ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT SHELTER LOCATED AT THE MCDONALDS SITE AT 31853 HIGHWAY SEVENTY-NINE SOUTH AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 961-080-007 By way of overhead photographs, Associate Planner Rush presented the project plan (per agenda material), noting the location, and the proposal to replace the existing flagpole with a flagpole with antennas mounted inside; relayed that staff was opposed to the proposed lighting mounted at the base of the pole which was not consistent with the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance, advising that staff was recommending that the lights be raised to eliminate the direction of light into the sky, or that the lighting be eliminated; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the applicant has relayed no opposition to staff's recommendations; relayed that staff was requesting that Condition No. 9 (regarding fees) be deleted due to these fees having been paid; and that Condition No. 10 (regarding copies of the final conditions) be moved under the section Prior to Building Permits. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Credit Union in this center may also have a flagpole. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Rush confirmed that the applicant did provide siting analysis within the initial submittal package, which was adequate with respect to justification for locating the antenna at this use, advising that staff opined that this proposal was a suitable location; and noted that there were no existing antennas located proximate to this location. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hazen clarified that it was staff's opinion that this proposed location was more suitable than the Temeku Hills proposed facility, specifying that that applicant had been encouraged to explore different sites with that particular project, additionally noting that staff encouraged applicants to locate the facilities in existing architectural features. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that future .proposed facilities for alternate entities would be directed to consider co-locating. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that GIS staff was in the process of developing an exhibit denoting the existing antennas in the City. Mr. Marc Meyers, representing the applicant, presented the proposal, noting that the antennas would be completely sealed within the pole; relayed that the equipment would be located adjacent to the existing building and connected to the trash enclosure; relayed no opposition to the Conditions of Approval or to staff's recommendations; presented photographs of alternate similar facilities; provided additional information regarding co-location; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted a wiliness to move the lighting; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the antenna would extend to the top of the pole. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following revisions: Modify- · That Condition No. 9 (regarding fees) be deleted; · That Condition No. 10 (regarding copies of the final conditions) be moved under Pdor to Building Permits; and · That the lighting be moved further up on the pole and be in compliance with the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Planning Application No. PA01-0572 (Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan). To desiqn, construct and operate a twenty-six foot hiqh, fourteen- foot wide unmanned wireless telecommunication facility housinq six antennas and associated equipment, located at 27215 Nicolas Road (Chaparral Hiqh School Campus - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0572 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0572, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TWENTY-SIX FOOT HIGH, FOURTEEN FOOT WIDE UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY HOUSING SIX ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON THE CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS AT 27215 NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 911-760-007 Senior Planner HaZen provided an overview of the project plan (per the staff report), highlighting the location, the proposal to mount the antenna panels inside of the monument sign, the dimensions of the monument, and the reader board; advised that this proposal was being dealt with as a stealthing device for the telecommunication panels; presented the landscaping plan; noted staff's recommendation to place the Chaparral "C" on all four sides of the monument sign; advised that due to this monument sign being installed, the existing sign located further down on Nicolas Road would be removed; and with respect to the proposed lighting, relaying that staff was recommending that there be a reveal inset where the "C" was located and that the lighting either be placed at the top of the reveal inset, or be eliminated. Commissioner Guerriero recommended that there be specific language addressing the timing of the removal of the existing sign. For Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen provided additional information regarding the reader board; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that in allowing the 26-foot height the approximate 30-foot height of the existing sign was considered. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that due to the transportation easement on Winchester Road, the applicant would be required to sign an agreement stating that if in the future that easement was needed for transportation, the sign would have to be moved. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the focus of this action was the antenna structure, noting the applicant's plan to consider all the requirements of the antenna facility and subsequently create a useable structure to house the antenna, which in ffiis case was the monument sign. R: I~anCornm/rninutes/080702 14 In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen noted that consent of the property owner (the School District) was submitted as part of the initial application process. For the record, the applicant's representative, Mr: Marc Meyers, noted agreement with the Conditions of Approval, with moving the lighting from the ground, as recommended by staff, as well as creating a reveal inset for the Chaparral "C." MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the applicant moving the lighting, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS In response to Commissioner Olhasso's queries regarding the dead grass area depicted in the photograph associated with Agenda Item No. 7, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that the area was located on partial right-of-way and School District property. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske introduced the Planning Department's newest addition to staff, Mr. Dan Long. Associate Planner Long provided a brief' overview of his work history, noting that he looked forward to working for the City of Temecula. Commissioner Guerriero noted that he was pleased with Mr. Long being added onboard, that he would be a great addition to staff; and welcomed him. ADJOURNMENT. At 9:13 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, AURUSt 21, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ITEM #3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION BY MICHELLE SCHIERBERL AND JIM O'GRADY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA The City has had a very active and successful Economic Development Program and has achieved this through a variety of means. Dr. John Husing, noted economist in the Inland Empire region has conducted a number of studies of the economy of Temecula and our region. Dr. Husing has noted that: · "From 1991-1999, Temecula employment rose from 13,570 to 25,140 (up 11,570 jobs or 85.3%). In 1999 alone, the city's fares and agencies added 13.4% more workers (far above the Inland Empire's aggressive 5.7% rate".) He also noted: "Temecula's taxable retail sales record is the envy of most Inland Empire Cities". · The city's employment sector grew by 13.4% in 1999, while its populations rose by 4.9% durin, g the same period. In 1998 the city's job base rose 9.3% compared to a 6.4% population increase. By comparison, the Inland Empire's job growth was 5.7% in 1999 and 6.4% in 1998. · In 1999 Manufacturing/Utilities was the largest job sector in Temecula with over 5,800 jobs, Retail was the second largest sector with over 5,300 jobs. · Sales tax revenues are expected to reach over $17 million in Temecula this year as the City continues to attract retailers. Temecula has the third-highest per-capita sales tax totals in the Inland Empire behind Palm Desert and Montclair. · Temecula's industrial vacancy rate fell from 14.0% to less than 10% between 1992-1999, with the City attracting a high number of manufacturing/technology firms. According to Lee & Associates, Temecula has a 7.54% vacancy rate as of October 2001, while the county-wide average is currently 10%. A healthy vacancy'rate is considered between 5% - 9%, as some inventory is necessary to attract companies that need immediate occupancy. · The following information was compiled in a study conducted mid-year 2001: · Industrial land inventory in Temecula: 682 acres (total) · Retail/commercial land inventory in Temecula: 641 acres (total) · From 1990 - 2001, the city's total inventory of industrial space climbed fi'om 6.25 million to over 11 million square feet (multi-tenant sites included). · Total employment in 1999 was 25,140. This is an increase of 85% fi'om the 1991 figure of 13,570. · As of January 2001 the number of businesses located in the City of Temecula are 3,693. Samolinu of Business Relocations and Expansions Temecula continues to report strong growth in the retail, manufacturing, and high tech sectors. For example Scott's Lawn Care recently constructed a 410,000 square foot facility, which is the largest single building in Temecula, and employs approximately 400 people. In September of 2001 N/C Industries, a Brea company that makes parts for medical instruments, announced in that they will be relocating to Temeculm They will be moving to a 12,000 sq. iL building which will marly double its size. Trico Plastics, an injection-molding firm based in Aznsa, relocated its facilities to Temecula~ Trico Plastics shares space with its sister company, U.S. Thermoplastics in their 32,000 sq. ft. facility. Some local expansions have included: · Chemicon International which moved from its 30,000 sq. 1t. facility to a newly expanded 84,000 sq. f~. facility located across the street. · Milgard Manufacturing completed a $5.5 million expansion consisting of a 123,000 sq. ft. plant. · Plant Equipment expansion includes a new 25,000 sq. t~. research and development building located adjacent to its existing facilities. The company also operates two other buildings in Temecuia with 52,000 sq. fl. · Guidant Corporation, who employs over 2,600, has expanded its operation several times. Retail Development and Restaurants Temecula has one of the hottest retail markets in the Inland Empire. According to the economic report published by economist Dr. John Husing. Jobs and retail sales have doubled in the City of Temecula in the last decade, even without factoring in the presence of Temecula's new Promenade Mall. The Robinsons-May is undergoing a 34,904 sq. R. expansion to its 164,543 sq. 1~. building. Also, under construction is a 165,000 sq. ft. Macy's Department Store. Another 80,000 square feet of upscale retail will also be constructed at the mall site. The Bel Villaggio shopping complex at the Promenade Mall site will contain over 116,000 square feet of high-end retail. In September 2000, a 105,700 sq. ft. Home Depot opened and Costco warehouse expanded to a 153,000 sq. ft. building in September 2000, which is 35,000 sq. t~. larger than the former Temecuia store. Numerous restaurants have joined Temecula between 2000-01. A sampling of the restaurants include: Red Robin, Soup Plantation, On The Border, Roadhouse Grill, Rosa's Caf~ Tortilla Factory, Roda Viva Steakhouse, Outback Steakhouse, Johnny Carinos and Hometown Buffet. Economic Development Strategic Plnn On February 21, 1995, the City Council adopted the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan. The General Plan's Economic Development Element includes the Marketing Plan and the participation/support of the various partners in economic development. The purpose of this Element is to provide guidance for economic development within Temecula's jurisdiction to attain an economically viable community. Economically viable means providing a range of housing and employment opportunities that meet the needs of residents and workers alike, attracting families and businesses to create demand for planned land uses, and establishing and funding public service levels that preserve Temecula's quality o f life. The City has been an active participant in such groups as the Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance, Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County, Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, UCR CONNECT, Southwest Riverside County Manufacturers' Council, and the Temecula Valley Film Council. Through these professional aff'fliations many partnerships have been formed, which have helped to create a strong healthy economy and enhance our exceptional quality of life. The participation of the City's marketing partners and their roles in the plan is as follows. Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance (Business Attraction) Partnership between the Riverside County Economic Development Agency, City of Lake Elsinore, City of Murrieta and City of Temecula. The main emphasis of the Alliance is to promote the business development and economic opportunities of the region and the region's excellent quality of life. A total of 123 qualified leads have been generated as a result of the Alliance marketing efforts since August 2000. Approximately 2,900 inquiries from advertising and trade shows have been obtained by the Alliance fi.om August 2000 to October 2001. The Alliance has assisted three companies with their relocation/expansion needs and is currently working with several others. Activities include: · Participates at industry specific trade shows with California Trade & Commerce & IEEP. · Advertises through trade publications, radio and television. ' · Produces outreach materials - brochure, CD Rom, and Economic Profile. · Responds on Temecula's behalf to IEEP leads. · Puts on local commercial broker breakfast meetings - Temecula participates at these meetings · Hired a consultant to assist in marketing to the Silicon Valley and other regions (industries targeted include biomed, biotech and telecommunications). · Expanding GIS system to serve our region, which will enhance the area's site selection and business attraction efforts. Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County (Business Retention) The EDC is a public/private non-profit organization serving cities and unincorporated communities within the Southwest county area. Its mission is to enhance the business climate in and around the communities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula by promoting economic growth and supporting a business environment to encourage job creation and business expansion. The EDC has 49 members consisting of business and community leaders as well as city management representatives in the Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore areas. · The EDC's Business Relations Committee conducts the successful Visitation Program. (Refer to the Business Retention Efforts section listed below.) 3 The EDC hosts the Loopnet site, which provides links that will allow users to search the Southwest Riverside County area for available commercial property. Contact information is provided for the Brokers handling the pmperty. The EDC took the lead on organizing the successful Job Fair & Manufacturing Expo held in April 2001. The Press-Enterprise, cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Workforce Development Center, and the Southwest Riverside County Manufauturers Council provided assistance. The Business Resource Guide contains information ranging from sources of business financing to permitting information to educational programs. It has proven to be of great value to our existing business community as well as assisting in Temecula's economic development efforts. The EDC of Southwest Riverside County facilitated the project working with the cities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula as well as other agencies. This guide was made possible by a grant from the Riverside County Economic Development Agency Workforce Development Board in 2000. Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce The Chamber promotes the economic environment of all member businesses and supports the programs that preserve and improve the quality of life. The Chamber is active in education, government policies and economic development. The organization has over 1,200 members. City Promotions · Shop Temecula First campaign · Chamber Newsletter · Marketing Seminars Economic Development/Tourism · Demographic packets distributed in 2000:2,585 · Relocation inquiries serviced between July 2000 - June 2001:8,380 · Tourism inquiries serviced between July 2000 - June 2001: 42,420 · B2B Technology Expo in January 2001 - Over 40 exhibitors representing the latest in technology, l~om the Interact and wireless access to e-commerce software, laptops and palmtops participated in this Expo. Education/Government · Sponsored a Youth Job Fair with the Workforce Development Center UCR CONNECT The Temecula CONNECT program changed its affiliation with UCSD to UC1L Its mission is to assist high-tech industries get established and grow in Southwest Riverside County. The organization nurtures high-tech entrepreneurship through educational and networking programs, practical business seminars, technology transfer demonstrations, and international strategic and financing forums. UCR CONNECT provides programs focusing on financing, partnering, business acumen, presentation 4 discipline and technology updates. Over 75 CONNECT meetings have been held in the Temecula City Council Chambers, each attracting as many as 100 participants. The group also holds about a half dozen Springboard feedback sessions where a panel of business veterans evaluates a company's strategy for attracting capital needed to grow. are a means of matching emerging companies with a panel of volunteer experts to evaluate business plans and make introductions for capital sources and industry leaders. Springboard has helped over 120 entrepreneurs develop their business strategies besides serving as host for meetings. Southwest Riverside County Manufacturers' Council The mission of the Manufacturers' Council is to create a strong voice on bebalf of manufacturers in Southwest Riverside County. It seeks to provide a forum for issues relevant to manufacturers; to serve as a resource on community, government and human resource issues, and to educate the cormmmity about the contribution made by the manufacturing sector. The Manufacturers' Council has approximately 80 members and hosts regular informational meetings. The City of Temecula continues its involvement in this active organization. Temecula Valley Film Council "The purpose of the Temecula Valley Film Council is to attract and facilitate location production in the Temecula Valley by acting as a liaison between the film industry and the community. By actively seeking filming, video production, and still photography, direct economic benefit will be generated to the area through location fees and the purchase of goods, services and labor. Residual tourism benefits will arise from the area exposure in film, television and print." The Temecula Valley Film Council (TVFC) works in cooperation with the Inland Empire Film Commission (IEFC). Both organizations coordinate and follow-up on requests for locations in the Temecula area. All location scouting and filming in the Temecula area is reported monthly to the IEFC and is included in their report to the State Film Commission. City of Temecula Staffdevelops outreach materials which includes: Demographic Profile, produced by Dr. John Husing, is a comprehensive report on Temecula's economy, demographics, business and industry, real estate and community amenities. The data can also be obtained on the City's website. This is valuable information for businesses, developers, site selectors, media and residents. Demographic Quick Facts Brochure - The brochure provides a quick overview of our community, real estate costs, as well as utility and tax information. It is distributed through the City, The Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance, the EDC, Chamber and at trade shows. 5 Community Reference Guide - The Guide is designed to acquaint residents and businesses with the services and recreational amenities offered by Temecula city government as well as the many special events available in the community. It also provides the most fi'equently used phone numbers for City services, utilities, emergency services, transportation, general school information and business assistance & support contacts. Business Brochure - The 8-page brochure is an overview of the Demographic Report produced by Economist John Husing, highlighting Temecula's quality of life, housing, population, business climate, Education, and tourism. The City includes the brochure in the Business Kit, and it distributed through the EDC, Economic Alliance and Chamber. Business Kit - Provides detailed information on Temecula's business and tourism climates, programs, demographics, housing programs, and business opportunities. Fast Track Pamphlet - Provides a brief overview of the City's award-winning Fast Track program. This is pamphlet is included in the City's Business Brochure. Business License Listing - This is a searchable database on the City's web site that allows users to search for Temecula businesses by name or type of business. · Staffresponds to leads and inquiries that come to the City directly. Materials arc sent to thc prospective business and meetings are set up to discuss and provide assistance on their projects. · Staff assisted the EDC in producing a Southwest Riverside County Job Fair & Manufacturing Expo, · Holds local commercial broker meetings as well as participates at the Regional Broker meetings put on by the Economic Alliance. · Staffprovides information to include on the Riverside County Kiosk Network. The Riverside County Economic Development Agency and Workforce Development Board have established a multimedia, interactive kiosk network. This network of 40 kiosks, placed strategically throughout the county, is an invaluable resource for job seekers, employers, residents, visitors and tourists alike. Information on the City can be found on the kiosks. · Staff assists the Economic Alliance, EDC and Chamber in their business development and tourism activities and programs. Staff has provided assistance to local companies by providing Industrial Development Bonds and customized agreements. Businesses that have received this assistance include: Tension Envelope, NASCAL, International Rectifier, Chemicon International and Temeka Advertising. Tourism Promotion The City's Tourism Program has an emphasis on tourism promotion, which not only is instrumental in establishing Temecula as a tourism destination but also positions 6 events. Tourism related rack brochures are also included in the kits. Distribution includes travel writers, tour operators, and media in the tourism industry. Temecula Tourism CD Rom - (in production) is a marketing tool utilized for tourism attraction geared to travel agents, operators & media The CD Rom will feature Old Town and its events, Museum, Wine Country, golf, lodging, recreation, shopping, etc. Distribution will include press kits, trade shows, and travel media. Quarterly Calendar of Events - Major Temecula events (including Winegrowers & wineries) and activities are included on all monthly press releases sent out by the City to the media. Quarterly calendar of events are also sent to the San Diego, Anaheim/Orange County and Ontario Convention & Visitors Bureaus, which includes them on their calendar, newsletter and news media distribution. Anaheim/Orange County Visitor and Convention Bureau publishes Temecula events in their Quarterly Calendar of Events, which is sent out to media and bureau members. This is one of thc benefits provided to the City as a member. AAA Travel Guide for Southern California - Staffprovides tourism information for inclusion in this publication. Temecula Wine Country and Old Town are featured in Pechanga Resort & Casino's media kit. Staff provided photography for their use. Ontario Convention & Visitor Bureau's Marketing/Direct Mail Brochures - includes Temecula attractions & events Familiarization Tours (Tourism) Familiarization Tours - FAM tours targeting San Diego destination management companies, San Diego & Orange County concierges, bus and tour operators and travel media have occurred. The purpose of a FAM tour is to invite a selected audience and highlight our area by showing them the various tourism attractions, events, and venues that Temecula bas to offer visitors. · The Chamber Tourism Council conducted a FAM Tour in May 2002, which comprised of 8 travel writers. The FAM was a tie-in with the Wine Auction event. City staff participated on the planning committee and provided funding for lodging and gii~ baskets. Winegrowers Association participated on the planning committee and provided tickets to the Wine Auction event. * City of Ontario hosted a FAM Tour in June 2002 comprising of Mexico trade publications (travel & consumer), radio, television and Aero Mexico airlines. As a member, the City provided a video on Temecula for viewing as well as press kits and gil~ baskets to each of the attendees. · Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Business FAM Tour in June included the Temecula Wine Country and wine tasting/tours. 8 Tourism Trade Shows Temecula partners with the Inland Empire Tourism Council and the San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau on the following travel trade shows. The Chamber Tourism Council and City staff represents Temecula at the shows. Shows this year have included the following: California Travel Market, Los Angeles Times Travel Show, Orange County Register Travel Show, GLAMER Travel Show (senior group travel planners) and Group Tour Live. The target markets includes consumers and tour operators, travel agents and travel media. The City provides funding to exhibit at the shows. The City received booth space at the Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium for Temecula Community Day on June 2~a. Staff distributed tourism information including Winegrowers rack brochure, Old Town, Old Town events & Museum, as well as Community Services programs and event information. Tourism literature was distributed at the City/Chamber booth at the Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Festival in June. Winegrowers rack brochure was distributed. Advertising · The San Diegan (Annual) The City has placed an ad in this key San Diego tourism publication for the past 6 years. This year's chapter on Temecula was expanded 4 pages to include a section on the Temecula Wineries. The San Diegan targets the business traveler and vacationer. Over 225,000 copies are printed and the publication reaches 5 million readers annually. · San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau Visitor Guide (Bi-Annual) As a member of San Diego CONVIS, Temecula is offered the opportunity to advertise in the San Diego Official Visitor Guide. The guide is distributed to visitors when they actually arrive in San Diego, for a convention, on business, or on vacation. Over 400,000 are distributed. · San Diego North CONVIS Travel Planning & Conference Guide (Annual) This guide is distributed directly and by mail to the travel industries' familiarization trips, trade shows, through media kits, and through the North County offices. There are 50,000 copies distributed. · 2002 Official San Diego Travel Planner's Guide (Annual) This publication is sent to meeting planners throughout the U.S. The City was given the complementary ad as a "thank you" for advertising in the San Diego CONVIS Visitor Guide and Anaheim/Orange County CONVIS Visitor Guide. · Anaheim/Orange County CONVIS Official Visitors Guide (Annual) A comprehensive and attractive guide for visitors, travel agents, consumers and meeting planners. 405,000 are printed and distributed via consumer fulfillment, concierge desks, local airports, ground transportation companies, press kits, travel agencies and on-site meetings/conventions. 9 · Inland Empire Regional Visitor Guide and Meeting Planner (Annual) Distribution includes Inland Empire hotels, domestic and intemationai meeting planning & travel industry trade shows, all California Visitor Centers, Ontario International Airport, and Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau. · Ontario Visitors Guide (Bi-annual) 80,000 copies (40,000 each mn) - published twice a year. The guide is read by tourists, business people, conventioneers, relocating families and prospective visitors. It is distributed to Ontario Intcmationai Airport, Ontario Convention Center Concierge Desk, California Welcome Centers, California State Tourism Tmdeshows, and Inland Empire hotel rooms. The City of Ontario Economic Development Office distributes this issue in their business recruitment and relocation packages. · Temecula Newcomer and Relocation Guide The guide is printed bi-annually and 40,000 units are printed annually. The publication is published by Heritage Media. Distribution includes: Chamber of Commerces in the Temecula Valley, City, EDC, local hotels, rcai estate offices, and local businesses. · Old California Gazette - Distribution includes over 1,000 retail and high-end hotel locations throughout Orange, San Diego, Riverside and Inland Empire counties. Also, distribution includes merchant shops in historic quarters.and exclusive exposure to over 6 million visitors to Old Town San Diego. * Lake Eisinore Outlet 2002 Go West Outlet Shopping Travel Planner A total of 50,000 planners will be printed. The Travel Planner will assist tour operators, meeting planners and travel agents in planning and organizing their trips to the West. It will be targeted to the domestic and international travel trade industry via trade shows and mailings. (City received complementary ¼ page ad.) Co-Op Advertising Where Magazine - Orange County (Quarterly) (Co-op with local tourism businesses & Winegrowers Association) Where Magazine offers the most comprehensive in-room hotel distribution in Orange County. 300,000 copies per year with 25,000 copies delivered monthly to guests of 89 premier hotels and various tourism outlets in the Orange County area. Other benefits received include events listed in monthly concierge newsletter and one feature on Temecula, access to where's database, and the publication can be found on- line. · LA Times Experience SoCal - A Guide to Entertainment and Recreation (Co-op with Winegrowers Association) Advertising supplement featuring recreation and entertainment in the Southland. This was inserted in the June 27t~ LA Times issue. Circulation over 1 million copies. City & Winegrowers purchased a ¼' page ad Temecula. The publication is on-line at 10 www.latimes.com with the Temecula ad and a 50-word advertorial which is linked to the City's website. · As a member of the Inland Empire Tourism Council (IETC) the City benefits from advertising opportunities we could not afford to do including the Official 2002 California State Visitor's Guide & Travel Planner. Temecula's tourism attractions are included in the Inland Empire section courtesy of IETC at no charge. The guide is distributed at Welcome Centers throughout the state and through the California Division of Tourism offices. The City is considering participating in a co-op ad for 2003. Website City of Temeeula website - Visitors can obtain general tourism information including special and community events, things to do and see during their visit and general information. The City's website also provides links to the Chamber of Commerce and other tourism related non-profit organizations. Riverside County Kiosk - The multi-media, computer-based kiosk provides interactive access to over 20,000 records of information on jobs, training, education and entertainment. Temecula is included on this site. Temecula's marketing partnerships with the Chamber and other organizations coupled with the City's attributes, tourism-friendly environment and a publicity campaign have successfully heightened awareness of the City as a key travel destination and have enhanced its economic development. Promotional Items Trade show giveaways - corkscrews Old Town sport bottles, Temecula Valley wine glasses, writing pens, logo golf balls, polo shirts Gift baskets to travel media, writers, etc. BUSINESS RETENTION EFFORTS The Visitation Program, conducted by the EDC's Business Relations Committee, is very successful. Temecula's Business Retention Programs includes site visitations to local businesses on a regular basis. Businesses are contacted by phone, survey or personal visits. EDC members, City staff; Chamber members and volunteers visit local businesses. Information is compiled after each visit, which is utilized in the City's retention efforts. During visits, information on labor/education needs and available training programs that can be utilized as well as business issues relating to city services, permits and city programs are also discussed. There were 23 visits, 26 phone interviews and 39 questionnaires that were completed on companies in the Temecula/Murrieta area by the EDC Business Relations Committee for FY 2000-2001. Mayor's Business Lunch Meetings The meetings have included employment leaders, auto mall managers, manufacturers, bank managers, and hospitality industry and retail leaders. City officials, 11 city management, EDC of Southwest Riverside County, and the Chamber, also attend. Over the last two years there have been over 60 business/community leaders that have attended. The Mayor's Business Lunch meetings provide a helpful forum in many ways. They include: 1) Lets businesses know how much they mean to the City. 2) Allows people the opportunity to meet each other and exchange ideas. 3) Provides an opportunity for the Mayor, city officials and staff, the EDC and Chamber to learn more about the workings of a particular business industry and know what is occurring with that industry. 4) It enables City officials and staffto sit down with business leaders to discuss a number of important issues and developments including the explanation of the City's Capital Improvement Program as well as plans for the city's future. 5) Provides answers to concerns that the business community have. The lunch meetings have proven to be an effective way to respond to issues of concerns from business leaders. Following are a few examples of the kinds of issues the City has addressed. When meeting with some of the major retailers the issue on employment was brought up. Several of the major retailers in the Promenade Mall needed assistance in recruiting new employees. The City was able to inform the retailers of our Workforee Development Center located in Temeeula, which assists businesses in job recruitment. The Economic Development Department at the Workforce Development Center contacted Mike Doblado, Manager of the Promenade Mall, to set up a holiday job fair to assist with the seasonal hiring needs of the mall. While meeting with bank managers, they brought up bank security issues. The City listened to their concerns, found out what their needs were and took a pro-active approach. The following month the City worked with the Temecula Police Department and F.B.I. to provide an additional training program to all bank personnel in the. ares These are just a few examples of how the City was able to assist local business leaders. BUSINESS RESOURCES AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS OFFERED Companies cite Temecula's pm-business climate as one of its greatest assets. We provide personal customer service through a wide variety of business assistance programs and resources. The City of Temecula's award-winning "Past Track" program and Plan Check Process allows qualified projects to be handled quickly and efficiently. Business owners appreciate the rapid response for their business requests and the fast track processing of commercial and industrial projects they receive from the City. Businesses including Zero Golf, FFF Enterprises, International Rectifier, Professional Hospital Supply, Sorrento Development and Four-Sher Development have been extremely satisfied with this program and have produced testimonials on Temecula's behalf. As part of the business license renewal process, letters have been sent thanking businesses for their investment in Temecula and providing copies of the Business Resource Guide and a listing of City and other agency contact names and telephone numbers. 12 The Planning Department recommends that City staff as part of a pre-application process review new development projects. The City encourages developers to meet with staff early on in the process to identify potentially significant issues, which may affect the project. The Pre-application Review will better acquaint an applicant with the requirements, regulations, development processing timelines and procedures of the City of Temecula~ Temecula is sensitive to the needs and concerns of business and industry. It offers an experienced staff willing to embrace innovative approaches to development and provides personal customer assistance through such programs as its Small Business Assistance Program. In addition, the City of Temecula's Community Development Department holds Coordinating Committee meetings. The purpose of this group is to provide a forum to discuss issues of mutual importance to local architects, planning consultants, engineers and representatives l~om City Departments involved in the planning, engineering and building permit process. The City of Temecula is dedicated to making its permit process as user fi'iendly as possible. A number of resources are offered to inform and assist businesses, which include the Business Resource Guide, Tenant Improvement Handbook, and a Pre- Application Handbook. The City of Temecula's web site has made a significant commitment to e- government by offering timesaving, self-service access to city-related transactions. The "Doing Business in the City" section offers information on policies and procedures for becoming a vendor. There is information on application fees, commercial tenant improvement standards, permit applications, and on obtaining a business license to resources that will help you comply with all applicable City, County, State and Federal regulations. One can also view Case Processing Flowcharts, access Improvement Standards Drawings, and check the daily status oftbeir project in Plan Check. The City's website also offers a business license database that can easily be accessed. The Riverside County One-stop Workforce Development Center assists businesses and individuals with a variety of employment and job training services. The City was mental in setting up this center. In the Temecula office are representatives of the following: California Department of Rehabilitation · Center for Employment Training · Economic Development Corp. of Southwest Riverside County Employment Development Department · Mt. San Jacinto College Vocational Services · Riverside County Department of Public Social Services/Greater Avenues for Independence · Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance · Riverside County Office on Aging 13 The Southwest Riverside County 1999 Business Census booklet was funded through a grant from the Riverside County Economic Development Agency's Workforce Development Board. This project was organized by the EDC and co-sponsored by the cities of Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula. This report presents the major findings of what has become one of the most comprehensive business survey findings in Southwest Riverside County. Some 378 businesses provided a detailed look at their circumstances, plans, workfome requirements and technical assistance needs. Follow-up was provided to businesses expressing a desire for assistance and follow-up. HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Temecula's attractive housing market allows families to buy affordable detached single-family homes. This is of great importance to companies wanting to locate near their employees and firms that are recruiting nationally and asking workers to move to Southern California. Temecula offers extra advantages for workers choosing to live in the area including the Employee Relocation Program and First-Time Homebuyer Program for those that qualify. Employee Relocation Program - Employees of selected businesses who relocate or expand in Temecula may obtain down payment assistance for home purchases through this prograra. The program provides eligible employees with second trust deed loans of up to $15,000. Each business is reviewed for program eligibility on an individual basis according to new job creation, business size and size of the space occupied. First Time Homebuyer Program - This program is offered to assist lower income individuals in purchasing their first home. Funds may be used for the down payment and/or closing costs. The maximum amount of assistance is 20% of the purchase price, up to a total loan amount of $24,000. The income limits for the program were recently increased from the median income level to the moderate-income level (120% of median income), which is the maximum, permitted under state law for such programs. CITY'S GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM The City of Temecula's web-based Geographic Information System program enhances the City's public information capabilities and is accessible bom the City's web page. Individuals with an interest in obtaining geographic information relating to a specific piece of property may make a variety of inquiries and view a number of different maps of the City using this system. Areas include: property information, property notification, site selection and general mapping. SANDAG in partnership with WRCOG was awarded a grant through the State Department of Housing & Development to provide a study focusing on bringing in a better balance of jobs and housing in Southwest Riverside County. The survey will include a commuter and business component. CALTRANS will be involved in surveying commuting patterns. The City of Temecula facilitated this grant and is hosting ongoing meetings. This will be a unique oppommity to bring staffand leaders of San Diego and Riverside Counties working together on this project. 14 ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: planning Commission ~,~ Debbie Ubnoske / Director of Planning September 4, 2002 · Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility On August 7, 2002, the Planning Commission requested that the appellant's representative, Compass Telecom Services, provide staff the following items in order to render a decision regarding the Appeal of the Director's decision to deny PA01-0601: An alternative site analysis, as required by the Antenna Ordinance Chapter 17.40.030, which identifies all reasonable, technically feasible, alternative locations and/or facilities which could provide the proposed telecommunication service. A sample of the metal poles proposed to house the antennas. However, the applicant did not provide the requested items to staff within the appropriate time necessary to complete planning review. In order to allow the applicant more time to gather the information requested, they have agreed to continue the item from the September 4, 2002 hearing to September 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. This schedule will allow staff sufficient time to review the items requested prior to the September 18t~ hearing. R:~ C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~PC Continuance Memo.doc 1 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0231, 0233, 0234 and 0236 (Development Plan / Product Review) HARVESTON PRODUCT REVIEW Prepared By: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff · recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application(s) No. 02- 0231, 0233, 0234 and 0236 (Development Plan(s) / Product Review(s)) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0231 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ! PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004 AND 916-170-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-2 AND 29928-3. 3. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: ' PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-.__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0233 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004 AND916-170-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29639. R:~Product Review~Han/eston Product\Staff report.doc 1 4. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0234 - A DEVELOPMENT 'PLAN ! PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA3 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED WEST OF YSABEL BARNETr ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND EAST OF HARVESTON LAKE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-170-010 AND 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29929-1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0236 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ! PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF OAK STREET, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD AND MAJOR ENTRY OFF OF OAK STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 91.6-160-004, 916-180-008, 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29926-1 AND 29928. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPOSAL: Bill Storm Lennar Communities 24800 Chrisanta Drive Mission Viejo CA 92691 Bill Storm, Lennar Communities PA02-0231: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within planning area 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928- 2 and 29928-3. R:~Product Review~larveston Product~Stafl report.doc 2 LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PA02-0233: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within planning area 4 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Pamel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29639. PA02-0234: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 3 of the Harveston Specific Plan located west of Ysabel Barnett Elementary School, east of Harveston Lake, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-170-010, 916-170- 011 and 916-170-007, Tentative Tract Map 29929-1. PA02-0236: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within planning area 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located south of Oak Street, west of Margarita Road, between Harveston School Road and Major Entry off of Oak Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928- 2 and 29928-3. Generally located south of Date Street and west of Margarita Road Low Medium (LM) SP-13 (Harveston Specific Plan) North: South: East: West: City of Murdeta Community Commercial (CC) Public Institutional (PI) Medium Density (M) Low Medium (LM) Harveston Specific Plan (SP-13) Vacant Land North: South: East: West; Detached single-family homes Retail Commercial Chapparal High School Detached Single family homes Vacant Land R:~Product Review~--larveston product~Staff report.doc 3 BACKGROUND The applicant, Lennar Communities, submitted four Development Plan / Product Review planning applications to the Planning Department on May 6, 2002. The project was deemed incomplete on August 26, 2002. The applicant submitted revised plans on June 3, 2002. Subsequently, staff met with the applicant in order to discuss the need for additional architectural enhancements proposed. The applicant incorporated the comments resulting from that meeting and submitted revised plans on July 19, 2002. Staff reviewed the revised plans and provided continued comments regarding the architectural enhancements. On August 20, 2002 the applicant submitted final architectural plans addressing all of planning's comments and was subsequently scheduled for hearing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Application(s) PA02-0231,0233, 0234 and 0236, submitted by Lennar Communities, is a product review for 300 homes within Planning Area(s) 3, 4 and 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan, located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road. Each Planning Application is dedicated to one architect, who has provided three distinct plans with the following varying architectural styles: Dawson Hannouche Pate Architects (Planning Application PA02-0231): .Plan 1 American Farmhouse Spanish Colonial Craftsman Plan 2 Prairie Craftsman Colonial plan 3 Monterey Spanish Colonial Cape Cod Bassenian / Lagoni Architects (Planning Application PA02-0233) Plan 17 2 and 3 Spanish Colonial Cape Cod Craftsman William Hezmalhalch Architects Inc. (Planning Application PA02-0234) Plan 1 East Coast Traditional Craftsman Spanish Colonial Plan 2 Colonial Monterey American Farmhouse R:~Product Review~Haweston Product~Staff report.doc 4 Plan 3 Craftsman Colonial American Farmhouse Knitter& Associates Architecture (Planning Application PA02-0236) Plan 1 Colonial American Farmhouse East Coast Traditional Plan 2 Colonial American Farmhouse Craftsman Plan 3 East Coast Traditional Colonial American Farmhouse ANALYSIS Amhitectural Review The Development Plan / Home Product Review Planning Applications submitted by Lennar Communities proposes a number of plan types and architectural styles that are consistent with the Residential Architectural Guidelines found in the Harveston Specific Plan Section 10.4.3 and meets the purpose of the Guidelines, which state: The purpose of the architectural guidelines is to provide general design criteria and guidance for the development of the various neighborhoods at Harveston. The goal is to promote both visual compatibility and variety in a community setting achieved by utilizing a number of compatible traditional and contemporary styles, and through quality architectural innovation. Eight of the ten architectural styles recommended in the Harveston Specific Plan in Section 10.4.4 Architectural Styles have been proposed by the applicant. Those sbjles include: American Farmhouse, Cape Cod, Colonial, Craftsman, East Coast Traditional, Monterey, Prairie and Spanish Colonial. Each style offers a variety of exterior colors, materials and architectural enhancements consistent with the Inspirational Photos contained within Section 10.0 Design Guidelines. The various materials proposed include shingle siding, lap siding, ledger stone, brick veneer and a variety of stucco finishes. Enhancements, as described in the design guidelines, include entry porches with square columns, vertically hung mullioned windows, knee braces, outlookers, shuttem, broad flat chimneys with brick cap details, round tile attic vents, and wood balconies. The enhanced treatment will be provided on the homes with major street visibility. The livable square footages of these single story and two-story homes range from 1991 square feet to 3720 square feet. The architecture of the living spaces have been forwarded on the lots as a predominate feature and propose a variety of garage layouts, which will reduce their negative impacts. The applicant has incorporated porte-cocheres, tandem garages, split garages and side- on garages to meet the intent of Section 10.4.3 Architectural Fon~ard Standards R:~Product Review~-iarveston P~oduc~Staff report.doc 5 Product Placement The proposed product placement meet the Residential Amhitectural Guidelines of the Harveston Specific Plan in that the applicant has incorporated the amhitectural enhancements on all rear and side elevations that face streets or other public spaces. The applicant has submitted a Public View Elevation Enhancement Identification Plan and Product Placement Map, which indicates which rear and side elevations will incorporate the various enhancements and assure that the product placements are staggered and provide visual interest. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is within the Harveston Specific Plan No. 13 for which an Environmental Impact Report (EiR) was prepared and certified. Under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) this project is exempt and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared for Planning Application No. 02-0231,0233, 0234 and 0236. Section 15162 applies when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. The affected area of the site development meets the criteria noted in that the development is consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan No. 13 land uses, which anticipated detached single- family dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemPtion pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. SUMMARWCONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards and guidelines. We believe, given the additional conditions placed on the project, it is compatible and compliant with the uses and quality of surrounding development, and will represent an aesthetic addition to the City's residential areas. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecuia and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Harvest°n Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. TheprojectisalsoconsistentwiththeLowMediumlandusedesignationcontainedin the General Plan. The site is propedy planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the single-family homes, including the site, building, parking, cimulation 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 R:~Product Reviev~--larveston Product\Staff report.doc 6 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 we/fare. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution (PA02-0231)- Blue Page 8 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 1 t PC Resolution (PA02-0233)- Blue Page 16 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 19 PC Resolution (PA02-0234)-Blue Page 24 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval- Blue Page 27. PC Resolution (PA02-0236) - Blue Page 33 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 36 Exhibits - Blue Page 41 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan R:~Product Review~-Iarveston Product~Staff report.doc 7 ATTACHMENT NO~ 1 PC RESOL.UTION NO. 02- (PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0231) PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0231 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ! PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE~.HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004 AND 916-170-011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-2 AND 29928-3. WHEREAS, Lennar Communities, filed Planning Application No. 02-0231, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 02-0231 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. 02-0231 on September 4, 2002 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 02-0231; NOW, THEREFORE, TH E PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH E CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:' Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby ir~corpOrated Section 2. Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-0231 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed single-family homes are perrnitted~in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Harveston Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designationcontainedintheGeneralPlan. Thesiteispropedyplannedandzoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. R:'~Producl Review~-Ia~veston Product~taff repprt.doc 9 The overall design of the single-family homes, 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. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0231 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report.(EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless thero are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0231 for a Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160- 004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of September 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie U bnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 02- was du y and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held On the 4t~ day of September, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~Product Review~Harveston Product~Staff report,doc 10 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R~ EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 02-0231 (Development Plan ! Product Review) Project Description: PA02-0231: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within planning area 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Pamel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928- 2 and 29928-3. DIF Category: Detached Single Family Homes Assessor Parcel No.: 916-160-004, 916-170-010, 916-170-011, 916-170-007, Approval Date: September 4, 2002 Expiration Date: September 4, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Not]ce of Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes 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 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 moneta~j 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 R:',Product Review~-Iarveston Product~Staff report.doc 12 (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. 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~ Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit(s) "A"-"R', contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division as amended by these changes: The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. o This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory or service agencies.from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. Fire Hydrants shall be installed pdor to the start of any construction at the site. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to 24' maximum. Driveways should curve and flare out from 24' maximum at curbs to a width to. accommodate the three-car garage. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall submit a Precise Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. R:~Product Rev[ewU-larveston Product~Staff report.doc 13 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 submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of Exhibit "N" the Color and Materials Board and of the Colored version of approved Exhibit "O", the colored amhitectural 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, 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. 15. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 16. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 17. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 18. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 19. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm syst6ms and exterior lighting. 20. 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. 21. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 22. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance 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 Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 23. All required landscape planting and irrigation.shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of R:~Product Review~Harveston Product~Staff reporl,doc 14 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. 24. Performance securities, in amounts to be deter'mined 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 applicant shall release the bond upon request. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept ail 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 Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:~Product Review~-Ierveston Product~taff repo~doc 15 AI-I'ACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- (PLANNING APPLICATION PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE crrY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0233 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DATE STREET AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916'160'004 AND916'170'011, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ~29639. WHEREAS, Lennar Communities, filed Planning Application No. 02-0233, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 02-0233 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner proscribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considerod Planning Application No. 02-0233 on September 4, 2002 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interosted 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. 02-0233; NOW, THEREFORE, TH E PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH E CIT~' OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by roference. That the above rocitations are true and corroct and aro hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-0233 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city, The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Harveston Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of tho residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. R:~Product Review~-Iarveston product~Staff report.dcc 17 The overall design of the single-family homes, 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. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0233 was made per. the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0233 for a Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 4 of the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160- 004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29639. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of September 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie.Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of TemeCula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4t~ day of September, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:- Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~Product Review~Harveston Product\~Staff report.doc 18 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 02-0233 (Development Plan / Product Review) Project Description: PA02-0233: A Development Plan / Preduct Review for detached single family residences within planning area 4 o~ the Harveston Specific Plan located southwest of the intersection of Date Street and Margarita Road, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29639. DIF Category: Detached Single Family Homes Assessor Parcel No.: 916-160-004, 916-170-010, 916-170-011, 916-170-007, Approval Date: September 4, 2002 Expi.rationDate: September 4, 2004 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 sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as previded 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 appreval 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 thevoters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is breught 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). R:~Product Review~-Iarveston Product~Staff report.doc 2O 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. 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. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit(s) "A'- il"contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division as amended by these changes: The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. Fire Hydrants shall be installed pdor to the start of any construction at the site. Dr veway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to 24' maximum. Driveways should curve and flare out from 24' maximum at curbs to a width to accommodate the three-car garage. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall submit a Precise Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. R:~Product Review~Harveston Product~Staff report.doc 21 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 submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of Exhibit "N' the Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "O", the colored amhitectural 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. 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. 15. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 16. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 17. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 18. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 19. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 20. 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. 21. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 22. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance 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 Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 23. Ail required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of R:~Product Review~Harveston Product~Staff report.dcc 22 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. 24. 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 applicant shall release the bond upon request. 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 0f approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:~Product Review~Ha~vest{~n product~Staff report.doc 23 A"R'ACHMENT NO. 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02: (PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0234) PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0234 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ! PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA30FTHE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED WEST OF YSABEL BARNETT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND EAST OF HARVESTON LAKE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-170-010 AND 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29929-1. WHEREAS, Lennar Communities, filed Planning Application No. 02-0234, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 02-0234 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. 02-0234 on September 4, 2002 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 02-0234; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-0234 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Harveston Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. R:~Product Review~tarveston Product~Staff report.doc 25 The overall design of the single-family homes, 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· Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0234 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0234 for a Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 3 of the Harveston Specific Plan located west 0f Ysabel Barnett Elementary School, east of Harveston Lake, Assessor's Pamel No. 916-170- 010, 916-170-011 and 916-170-007 Tentative Tract Map 29929-1. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4th day of September 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) · COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission', do hereby certify that PC Reso ut on No. 02-. was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4th day of September, 2002, bythe following. vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:. Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~Product Review~Harveston ProducflStaff report,doc 26 EXHI-BIT A CONDITIONS OF 'APPROVAL ATrACHMENT NO.4 PC F~ESOLUTION NO. 02- (PLANNING APPLICATION PA02-0234) · : R:~'tJ~roductRewew~la~/eston-Product~Staffreport.doc-. . ~ ~ ;~,~-~:~,~ '~-:~, ~.~,~-~ ~ EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 02-0234 (Development Plan I Product Review) PrOject Description: PA02-0234: A Development Plan Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 3 of the Harveston Specific Plan located west of Ysabel Barnett Elementary School, east of Harveston Lake, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-170-010, 916-170- 011 and 916-170-007, Tentative Tract Map 29929-1. DIF Category: Detached Single Family Homes Assessor Parcel No.: 916-160-004, 916-170-010, 916-170-011, 916.170-007, Approval Date: September 4, 2002 ExPiration Date: September 4, 2004 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 sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and Califomia Code df 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 The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumedtality 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 R:~Product Review~-Iarveston Produ~taff report.doc 29 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. 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. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit(s) "A" - "1', contained on file with the Commun!ty Development Department - Planning Division as amended by these changes: The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director o'f Planning. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory or service agencies from .applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. 9. Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site. 10. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to 24' maximum. Driveways should curve and flare out from 24' maximum at curbs to a width to accommodate the three-car garage. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall submit a Precise Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. R:'~Product Review~arveston Product~Staff report.doc 30 12. 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 retum one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of Exhibit "N' the Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "O", 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. All design components shall comply with applicable previsions 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. 15. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals pdor to commencement of any construction work. 16. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 17. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 18. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 19. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 20. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and odginal signed by an appropriate registered professional. 21. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 22. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the p~oject that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Sectior~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 pom. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 23. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of R:',Product Review',Harveston Product~Staff report.doc 31 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. 24. 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 applicant shall release the bond upon request. 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 chan{~es I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Name printed Date R:'~Product RevievAHarveston Product~Staff report,doc 32 A~-~ACHMENT NO.4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02, (PLANNING APPLICATION PA02~02:~6) PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0236 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ! PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF OAK STREET, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD AND MAJOR ENTRY OFF OF OAK STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004, 916-180-008, 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-1 AND 29928.. WHEREAS, Lennar Communities, filed Planning Application No. 02-0236, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 02-0236 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. 02-0236 on September 4, 2002 at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persops 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. 02-0236; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 02-0236 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use designation standards contained in the Harveston Specific Plan and the City's Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential development proposed. Tho project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design. Guidelines, and fire and building codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. R:~Product Review~Harveston Product~Staff report.doc 34 The overall design of the single-family homes, 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. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice o{ Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0236 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless them are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0236 for a Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within Planning Area 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located south of Oak Street, west of Margarita Road, between Harveston School Road and Major Entry off of Oak Street, Assessor's Pamel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011 Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 4t~ day of September 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairpemon Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 4t~ day of September, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~Product Review~-Iar~eston Product~Staff report.doc 35 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 02-0236 (Development Plan / Product Review) Project Description: PA02-0236: A Development Plan / Product Review for detached single family residences within planning area 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located south of Oak Street, west of Margarita Road, between Harveston School Road and Major Entry off of Oak Street, Assessor's Pamel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928- 2 and 29928-3. DIF Category: Detached Single Family Homes Assessor Parcel No.: 916;160-004, 916-170-010, 916-170-011, 916-170-007, Approval Date: September 4, 2002 Expiration Date: September 4, 2004 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 sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 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 R:~Product Review~Harveston Product~Staff report.doc 37 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 appJicant 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. 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. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit(s) "A" -"1" contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division as amended by these changes: The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building and other necessary permits and approvals for the project. The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department. 9. Fire Hydrants shall be nstalled prior to the start of any construction at the site. 10. Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards. In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited to 24' maximum. Driveways should curve and flare out from 24' maximum at curbs to a width to accommodate the three-car garage. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall submit a Precise Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department. R:~Product Review~Harveston Product~Staff report.doc 38 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 submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of Exhibit "N" the Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "O", the colored amhitectural 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. 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. 15. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 16. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 17. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 18, Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 19. Provide house-electrical meters at each building [or the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 20. 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. 21. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 22. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance 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 Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 23. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the · approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of R:~roduct Review~Harveston Product~Staff report.doc 39 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. 24. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to gharantee 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 applicant shall release the bond upon request. 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 Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Name printed Date R:~Product Review~-Iarveston ProducflStaff report.doc 4O A'~'rACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA ect Site PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0231, 0233, 0234, & 0236 EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 4, 2002 (Development Plan Product Review) VICINITY MAP R:~Product Review~-Iarveston Product~Staff report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SP-13 (Harveston Specific Plan) EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - LM (Low Medium_)_ ._~ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0231, 0233, 0234, & 0236 (Development Plan / Product Revi PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 4, 2002 R:~Droduct Review~-larveston Product\Staff report.doc