Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
100202 PC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours p.dor to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title III AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE October 2, 2002 ~ 6:00 P.M, Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2002-039 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Roll Call: Commissioner Mathewson ~ Guerriero, 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 no..._[t on the Agenda, a pink "Request t° Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When ybu are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be *rOutine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members Of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed fro~ the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of October 2, 2002 COMMISSION BUSINESS R:~PLAN C O M M'~Agendas~2002~l 0-02-02,doc 1 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 21, 2002 Planninq Application No. PA00-0507 Hampton Inn, for the desiqn and construction of a 70- room four story hotel buildin.q on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located' to the adiacent west of the Winchester freeway off ramp next to the comf~3rt Ihn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza. - Michael McCoy, Proiect'Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the submitted design changes and make a final decision on the proposed project. The original Staff recommendation was for denial or redeSign. Continued from September 18, 2002 3 Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility consistin.q of replacinq two existinq qolf ball nettinq wood poles with two metal poles, which will contain the antennas located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Mar.qarita Road in Temeku Hills Golf Course, Plannin.q Area 46 of the Marqarita Villa.qe Specific Plan 199 - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 3.i Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the requested information and make a final decision on the appeal. 4 P~lanninq Application No. PA02-0217 Development Aqreement that would .quarantee the ability of Guidant Corporation to expand their operations in Temecula, by developinq up to 481,260 square feet of buildin.q area, allowinq an increase in the maximum buildin.q heiqht to 80 feet and establish a supplemental buildinq setback zone adiacent to public streets; establishinq future buildinq and landscape quidelines, and .quaranteeinq the riqht to expand for 15 years located north of Solana Way and west of Marqarita Road - Dave H0qan, Principal Planner 5 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the October 16, 2002 meeting. Planninq Application No..PA02-0318 Development Code Amendment: Modular Structures and Other Chan.qes, Dave Hoqan, Principal Planner: R:~PLAN COMM~gendas~2002',l 0-02-02.doc 2 RECOMMENDATION; 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO, 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED '!AN ORDINANCE OF THE cITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ' ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE'? (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318) New Items 6 planninq Application .N0. PA99-0382 Larqe Family Day Care Facility Ordinance to adopt an ordinance amend nq the Development Code to modify the standards re.qulatinq Lar,qe Family Day Care Home facilities - Dave Ho,qan. Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0382 (Large Family Day Care Facility Ordinance) 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN 'ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING TITLE 17 RELATING TO THE STANDARDS ~ FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES" (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0382) 7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0339 {Tentative Tract Map No. 30264) proposal to subdivide Planninq Areas 15, 17, 20, 21,22, & 23 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 830 lots located northeast of Pala Road between Wolf~ Valley Road and Deer Hollow Way - Rolfe' Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption based on the Determination of Consistency for which an Environmental Impact ,Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section, 15162; and . 7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:~PLAN COMM'~Agendas~2002\10-02-02.doc 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0339, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30264 SUBDIVIDING PLANNING AREAS 15, 17, 20, 21, 22 & 23 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC pi.AN INTO 830 SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS FOR SPRING PACIFIC PROPOERTIES ON 1285.4 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF PALA ROAD BETWEEN WOLF VALLEY '' ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS' PARCEL NO. 962-010-001,003 & 004 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0197 (Development Plan) to construct,-operate and establish a 15,489 square foot multi-tenant office/warehouse bu!ldin.q on '1:01 acres located at 27430 Bostik Court, on the southwest corner of Winchester Road and Bostik Court - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0197 (Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and 8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0197, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND ESTABLISH A 15,489 SQUARE FOOT MULTI- '.TENANT :INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 1.01 ACRES, LOCATED AT 27430 BOSTIK COURT,'ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND BOSTIK COURT, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-007. COMMISSIONER's REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: October 16, 2002 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:\pLANCOMM\Agendas~002~lO-02-02.doc 4 ITEM #2 TO: FROM: DATE: Subject: CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Commissioners Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning October 2, 2002 PA00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites PREPARED BY: Michael McCoy, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the submitted design changes and make a final decision on the proposed project. BACKGROUND: At the August 21, 2002 public hearing the Planning Commission voted to continue the proposed project until the meeting of October 2, 2002. As a separate motion, the Commission unanimously voted to deny the proposed floor area ratio (FAR) above the target FAR, and requested that the applicant return with additional enhanced design detail and a reduced FAR by removing building square footage. Some of the Commission's key recommendations to the applicant are summarized as follows: Relocate the trash enclosure away from the property line with the adjacent Comfort Inn; Consider a pitched tile roof instead of the proposed flat roof design; Add decorative balconies across the front of ail air conditioning vent covers of each guest room; Reduce the building square footage to get closer to the target floor area ratio by removing the fourth floor or reducing the building footprint; Provide more accent trees along the eastern property line; Provide an exterior courtyard seating area; Provide design details of the water fountain; Provide a revised color elevation plan showing the stone veneer exterior treatment. ANALYSIS: Staff does not believe that the applicant has fully met the request of the Planning Commission. In addition, the applicant has indicated that they are not prepared to reduce the proposed floor area ratio. R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~Supplementa110-2 PC Stf Rept Version #2.doc The applicant has submitted a revised site plan and conceptual landscape plan, along with a colored building elevation plan and additional design details of the proposed water fountain at the building entrance, as the Planning Commission had requested of the applicant at the August public headng. The revised site plan shows the trash enclosure relocated further south along the eastern property line behind the rear building entrance. The motorcycle spaces on the east side of the building are relocated further north behind the east side of the building to provide a larger landscape planter area near the pedestrian path at the south building entrance. The proposed floor area ratio at .71 (42,000 square feet of building area) is the same as the original plan FAR. The revised conceptual landscape plan shows three additional 24-inch box Fern Pine trees along the eastern property line and a 36-inch box Deodar Cedar tree replacing a 24-inch box Fern Pine within an enlarged landscape area et the former location of the trash enclosure on the northeast corner of the site. Two 3S-inch box Deodar Cedars have replaced 24-inch box Fern Pines in adjacent planters at the building entrance and a 24-inch box Fern Pine was added within the landscape planter at the north side driveway entrance. Two exterior plaza areas with circular wall seats and decorative paving are shown within planter areas on the west and south sides of the building. These two plaza seating areas are not shown on the revised site plan for consistency with the revised landscape plan. The revised color elevation plan shows the stone veneer design on the vertical building offsets but does not show the decorative false wrought iron screens in front of all air conditioning vent covers below the guest room windows as staff and the Commission recommended to the applicant. However, the applicant's representative stated at the August 21, 2002 public hearing that the applicant would be agreeable to add the decorative screens in front of all guest room windows if that is what the Commission preferred. CONCLUSION: Staff has attached a draft resolution of approval and a draft resolution of denial for adoption depending upon the outcome of this meeting. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution of denial of PA00-0507- Blue Page 3 2. Draft Resolution of approval of PA00-0507 - Blue Page 6 3. Revised Exhibits- Blue Page 10 A. Site Plan Reduction B. Site Plan blueprint sheet SD1 C. Elevation Plan color reduction D. Preliminary Planting Plan blueprint E. Preliminary Planting Plan color reduction sheet F. Water Fountain design reductions G. Fountain and Sign Plan H. Fountain and Sign Elevation 4. August 21,2002 Planning Commission Staff Report packet- Blue Page 12 5. Signed Minutes from the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting - Blue Page 13 R:"~D P~2000V30-0507 Hampton inn Suites'~Supplementa110-2 PC Sff Rapt Version #2.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__ R:",D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Version #2.doc 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. WHEREAS, Dinesh Patel filed Planning Application No. PA00-0507 (Development Plan), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) on June 5t~, 2002, August 21 st, 2002, and October 2"d, 2002, at a dulY noticed public hearing as .prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended denial of Planning Application No. 00-0507; subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY 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 denying Planning Application No. 00- 0507 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.08.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code: FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that at least one of the three criteria be met to justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio. The Planning Commission cannot make the required findings for the following two criteria: 1. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. The proposed project, a 70-room hotel building, will not provide any outstanding or exceptional employment, fiscal, social or economic benefits to the city other than the 8 % Transit Occupancy Tax (i.e. bed tax) generated and a very small number of lower paying new jobs. R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplernenta110-2 PC Sff Rept Version ~2.doc 4 2. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect an attractive image and character to the city. Although the proposed project's architecture and landscape design meets the minimum design standards of the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code objectives, it is not considered to be of exceptional quality to justify an increase above the target FAR. The building amhitecture appears to have no more design enhancement than similar buildings that did not require an FAR increase, or the Extended Stay America hotel building design, that received a much smaller FAR increase. In addition, the proposed project only provides the minimum 20 % landscape coverage. This coverage is less than what the Extended Stay America project provided, and other than offering a water fountain feature near the main entrance, the landscape plan does not create an exceptional landscape entry statement. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission on this 2r~ day of October 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) )ss ) 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 2"d day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~Supplementa110-2 PC Sff Rept Version #2.doc A'I-rACHMENT NO. 2 PC APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 2002- R:~D P~2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Stf Rept Version #2.doc PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) 'TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. WHEREAS, Dinesh Patel filed Planning Application No. PA00-0507 (Development Plan), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecuia General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered Plann ng Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) on June 5 h, 2002, August 21 st, 2002, and October 2n~, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. 00-0507; subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY 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. 00-0507 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F and by Section 17.08.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code: FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Section 17.05.010 F) A. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Highway/Tourist Commemial (HTC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The proposed project effectively reflects the objectives of Goal 2 of the General Plan Community Design Element through design excellence in architecture and landscape architecture. The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project meets one of the criteria for an Floor Area Ratio increase pursuant to Section 17.08.050 of the development code through outstanding architecture and landscape design that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The site is properly planned and zoned for the type of development proposed, and is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards of the City's development code. The financial contribution that the applicant will make to a future traffic signal on Jefferson Avenue to the north of the project site will help to offset the increased number of vehicle trips the proposed project may generate in and around the project area. The project, as conditioned, is also R:'~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Vemion #2.doc ? consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and'regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project, as conditioned, meet~s all State and local fire and building safety codes and requirements to ensure maximum protection of the public health and safety. FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must be met to justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect an attractive image and character to the city. The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those required mitigation impact measures. The proposed project meets criteria number two for justifying an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) pursuant to this Section of the development code by providing outstanding amhitecture and landscape design qualities that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The addition of the water fountain feature, exterior seating areas, additional accent trees, decorative air conditioning vent covers, and stone veneer exterior finish around the entire building produce an exceptional design that should complement and enhance the area's surrounding commercial development. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0507 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following criteria: · The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0507 for a Development Plan to build a 42,000 ' square foot hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200-feet north of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the existing Comfort Inn motel building, known as Assessors Pamel NO. 910-282-007. The Conditions of Approval are in Exhibit A. R:~D P',2000V:)O-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 102 PC Stf Rept Version #2.doc Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the citY of Temecula Planning Commission on this 2~ day of October 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) )ss ) 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 2nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'~D P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\,Supplementa110-2 PC Sff Rept Version #2.doc A'R'ACHMENT NO. 3 REVISED EXHIBITS R:~D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Stf Rept Version #2.doc 10 CITY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0507 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- October 2, 2002 SITE PLAN REDUCTION R:\D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'Supplemental 10-2 PC Stf Rept Version #2.doc l! ATFACHMENT NO. 4 AUGUST 21,2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT PACKET R:~D F%?.000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Vemion #2.doc RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 21,2002 Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) Hampton Inn Suites Prepared By: Michael McCoy, Project Planner The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00- 0507 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 41,900 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Dinesh Patel, 916 Erie Street Oakland, CA 94610. Design and construction of a 41,900 square foot 70-room, 4- story hotel building on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel. Approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and approximately 200-ft. north of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the Comfort Inn motel (APN 910-282-007). HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial) HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial) North: South: East: West: HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial) HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial) HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial) HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial) R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 1 EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Hotel Vacant Freeway Commemial Shopping Center PROJECT STATISTICS Total Lot Area: Total Building Area: Building Footprint: Landscape Area: 58,925 square feet 41,900 square feet 11,400 square feet 12,750 square feet (1.35 gross acres) .71 FAR 19% 20% net coverage Parking Required: 74 vehicle spaces, plus 3 motorcycle & 4 bicycle spaces and two 10' x 25' loading spaces. Parking Provided: 71 spaces, that includes 4 handicap, 6 motorcycle stalls (equivalent to 3 vehicle spaces), 4 bicycle spaces, and two 10' x 25' loading spaces. Building Height: 50-ft. maximum (4-story) BACKGROUND The application was reviewed at the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting and the Commission voted to continue the application to the August 7th meeting, in order to review revised site plan, landscape, and ADA access plans. The applicant was unable to have revised plans prepared in time to make that schedule, and the Commission continued the item to the August 21 st meeting. The applicant submitted revised plans on July 30th~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed four-story 70-reom hotel building will be centered on a triangular-shaped 1.35-acre pamel located in the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza commercial center, adjacent of, andsouth of the three-story Comfort Inn motel. The site is bordered to the east by the 1-15 Winchester Road off ramp. Access to the site is provided via a 24-ft. wide driveway from Jefferson Avenue and the adjacent commercial center through a center access point that leads to the hotel's main entrance. Two additional 24-foot wide access points are provided at each front corner of the site off a 24-foot wide parallel driveway that extends across the site frontage from the rear of the commercial center. The parking lot provides 67 full size and 4 disabled vehicle-parking stalls distributed on each side of the building. Two 10-foot x 25-foot loading spaces are located in front of the concrete masonry trash enclosure at the northeast corner of the property. Pedestrian access is provided within the project site with a 4-foot wide decorative paved concrete walkway that extends across the building frontage between the parking row and landscape planters. Additional pedestrian access points are located on each side of the building from the parking lot to the side and rear entrances. Landscaping will be provided with planters adjacent to all sides of the building and around the perimeter of the project site. The building specific and foundation landscaping contains a variety of 24-inch and 36-inch box trees and 1-gallon and 5-gallon shrubs around the building perimeter. A R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc decorative raised water fountain will be installed within the landscaped area fronting the porte- cochere facing the west building entrance. Landscape coverage for the project site is listed at a total of 20 pement net. The building architecture is a contemporary raised vertical style that maximizes its footprint on the lot. The main hotel lobby entrance is facing west, directly in line with the center ddveway off Jefferson Avenue. The front center section of the building will be the only visible part of the building from Jefferson Avenue. The front entrance is highlighted by a 20-foot high by 34-foot wide cornice capped porte-cochere extending outward from the lobby entrance and fronted by landscaping. A secondary entrance is provided on the east side (rear) of the building, accented with a smaller porte- cochere structure as requested by Staff. At the previous public hearing, the Commission had concerns with the building design treatment, landscaping, and ADA access. Those items have been addressed in the resubmitted set of plans. ANALYSIS Floor Area Ratio The Development Code specifies a target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .30 for the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district. This project is requesting an FAR of .71, exceeding the target FAR by 0.41. Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one.of the following three criteria must be met to justify an increase over the target FAR. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community; or The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect an attractive image and character to the city; or o The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those required mitigation impact measures. Based upon the revised building elevations and conceptual landscape plan, staff believes that the project does qualify for an FAR increase based upon outstanding architecture and landscape design that enhances the character and image of the City. Staff believes that the addition of the stone veneer and wrought iron false balconies across the air conditioning vent covers, as well as the water fountain, decor{~tive paving, and evergreen tree additions, justifies the request for an FAR increase. The proposed project as a retail commercial category will pay $3.614 per square foot in development impact fees (DIF). At 41,900 square foot of floor area, the project will contribute approximately $151,400 in development impact fees. The Attorney representing the owner of the adjacent Comfort Inn has submitted a letter to staff dated July 29, 2002 (reference Exhibit L) expressing opposition to the City approving the FAR increase above the target FAR. The adjacent property owner contends that the proposed project does not meet any of the development code criteria for approving an FAR increase and that the project site is inadequate for the location, lot size, and intensity for this project. Landscapinq The project proposes to landscape 11,822-square feet or 20% of the site, which meets the minimum coverage requirement for the HT (Highway Tourist) zone. The City's landscape consultant has R:~D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc approved of the conceptual plan based on minimum standards per the Development Code. The addition of the decorative water fountain and larger evergreen trees along the east properly line facing the freeway off-ramp enhances the conceptual landscape plan ands helps justify the FAR increase. Overall, the landscape plan meets the intent of the City General Plan Land Use Element Highway/Tourist Commemial development objectives for well-landscaped and visually attractive new development projects. Condition #13(a) requires submittal of an accurate design detail of the proposed water fountain for staff review and approval with the construction landscape plans. Buildinq Architectural Desiqn Staff believes that the revised building elevations showing the decorative stone veneer on the relief sections and the wrought iron false balconies across the majodty of air conditioning vent covers are a significant improvement over the elevations brought forward to the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has revised the elevation plans to show a wrought iron false balcor~y covering the A/C vent covers on each guest room which has a window awning. However, this design revision still leaves all guest rooms at each end of the building, as well as the center of the front and rear sides with exposed vent covers. Staff believes that all guest moms on the front and rear sides, aside from the ground floor moms, should have the false balconies for design consistency and effective vent cover screening. Condition #10 requires that the construction elevation plans show the false balconies across the face of all guest room windows other than the ground floor guest rooms. Pedestrian ADA Access and Traffic Circulation Staff and the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide a pedestrian walkway between the parking row and landscape area on the building's west side to provide customers with a safe access from the parking lot to the main lobby entrance. The revised site and landscape plans show a five-foot wide concrete pedestrian sidewalk along the length of that parking mw and extending to the main hotel entrance. In addition, the revised site plan shows a four-foot wide pedestrian access pathway connecting the east parking area to the west parking area through the landscaped area. The City Building Official also had expressed concern over the lack of a dedicated ADA accessible pedestrian pathway from the Rancho Temecula Plaza entrance off Jefferson Avenue to the hotel entrance. After further review of the ADA regulations, the Building Official has eliminated the requirement, due to the constraints of the pamel's land-locked location and the existing access easements already provided throughout the commemial center. Off-site ADA access will be accomplished by vehicular arrival via the private road fronting the project site. The Planning Commission expressed concern about the existing and future traffic circulation problems within the Rancho Temecula Plaza development and along the Jefferson Avenue corridor fronting the proposed hotel property. Public Works has studied the situation and has concluded that an approved CIP project (PW00-27) will include a median along the site frontage that will restrict turning movements at the primary driveway entrance to the site to right-in/right-out. The median project is expected to be constructed by the end of fiscal year 2003-2004. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons: R:~) P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 4 · The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the.existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, ram, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The proposed project is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) General Plan land use designation goals and objectives and with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards as a permitted use. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff believes that the applicant has properly satisfied the design change requests of the Planning Commission and staff recommends that the application be approved based on the findings for approval and attached conditions. FINDINGS - Development Plan (Section 17.05.010 F) 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 proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) development in the City of Ternecula General Plan. The proposed project effectively reflects the objectives of Goal 2 of the General Plan Community Design Element through design excellence in architecture and landscape architecture. The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project meets one of the criteria for an Floor Area Ratio increase pursuant to Section 17.08.050 of the development code through outstanding architecture and landscape design that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The site is properly planned and zoned for the type of development proposed, and is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards of the City's development code. The financial contribution that the applicant will make to a future traffic signal on Jefferson Avenue to the north of the project site will help to offset the increased number of vehicle trips the proposed project may generate in and around the project area. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton inn Suites~C)C STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 5 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. The proposed project, as conditioned, meets all 'State and local fire and building safety codes and requirements to ensure maximum protection of the public health and safety. FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) inCrease (Section 17.08.050) Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteria must be met to justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect an attractive image and character to the city. The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those required mitigation impact measures. The proposed project meets criteria number two for justifying an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) pursuant to this Section of the development code by providing outstanding architecture and landscape design qualities reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The addition of the water fountain feature, exterior seating areas, additional accent trees, decorative air conditioning vent covers, and stene veneer exterior finish around the entire building produce an exceptional design that should complement and enhance the surrounding commercial development. Attachments: PC Resolution Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D - Blue Page 7 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11 Proposed Project Statement of Operations - Blue Page 24 Applicant Letter of Justification for FAR increase - Blue Page 25 Adjacent Property Owner Attorney Letter of Opposition July 29, 2002 - Blue ' Page 26 Exhibit E Rancho California Water District Letter dated January 3, 2001 - Blue Page 27 Exhibit F County Department of Environmental Health Letter dated January 2, 2001 - Blue Page 28 Exhibit G California Department of Transportation Letter dated May 29, 2002 - Blue Page 29 Exhibit - Blue Page 30 Go H. I. J. K. L. M. Vicinity Map Zoning Map General Plan Land Use Map Site Plan Elevation Plan EL1 and EL2 Floor Plans Preliminary Planting Plan R:~D P\2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~C STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__ R:'~D P~000~00~)507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-.__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. WHEREAS, Dinesh Patel filed Planning Application No. PA00-0507 (Development Plan), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) on June 5th and August 21,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. 00-0507; subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. 'Findin.qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0507 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F and by Section 17.08.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code: FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. The proposal, a hotel building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The proposed project effectively reflects the objectives of Goal 2 of the General Plan Community Design Element through design excellence in architecture and landscape archite, cture. The architecture and landscape design of the proposed project meets one of the criteria for an Floor Area Ratio increase pursuant to Section 17.08.050 of the development code through outstanding architecture and landscape design that reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The site is properly planned and zoned for the type of development proposed, and is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT) zoning district development standards of the City's development code. The financial contribution that the applicant will make to a future traffic signal on Jefferson Avenue to the north of the project site will help to offset the increased number of vehicle trips the R:'~D P~2000't00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~C'C STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 8 proposed project may generate in and around the project area. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, 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 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. The proposed project, as conditioned, meets all State and local fire and building safety codes and requirements to ensure maximum protection of the public health and safety. FINDINGS - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase Development Code Section 17.08.050 requires that one of the following three criteda must be met to justify an increase the Floor Area Ratio. The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community. The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which reflect an attractive image and character to the city. The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those required mitigation impact measures. The proposed project meets criteria number two for justifying an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) pursuant to this Section of the development code by providing outstanding architecture and landscape design qualities reflects an attractive image and character to the City. The addition of the water fountain feature, exterior seating areas, additional accent trees, decorative air conditioning vent covers, and stone veneer exterior finish around the entire building produce an exceptional design that should complement and enhance the surrounding commercial development. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0507 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following criteria: · The site is 1.35 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Hampton Inn Suites hotel building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. R:~D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~J:'C STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8~21-02.doc 9 Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecuia Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0507 for a Development Plan to build a 41,900 square foot hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200-feet north of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the existing Comfort Inn motel building, known as Assessors Parcel NO. 910-282-007. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission on this 21~ day of August, 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 st of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21 day of August, 2002, bythe following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 10 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8~21-02.doc EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) Hampton Inn Suites Project Description: The design and construction of 41,900 square foot 70-room 4- story hotel building on a 1.35-acre lot, located approximately 200-feet east of Jefferson Avenue and 200-feet north.of Winchester Road to the adjacent south of the existing Comfort Inn motel and adjacent west of the Winchester Road 1-15 off- ramp, known as Assessors Parcel No. 910-282-007. DIF Category: Retail Commercial Assessor Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-282-007 August 21, 2002 August 21,2004 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 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 mason of failure of Condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the Ci~ and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or.any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resoumes 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, R:'~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 12 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, concerning Planning Application No. 00-0507. 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. In order to avoid being classified as a residence, the maximum occupancy of any unit by any customer shall not exceed 30 days. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 00-0507, or as amended by these conditions, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. A minimum of sixty-seven (67) automobile parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. c. A minimum of three (3) motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided. d. A minimum of four (4) class 1 or class II bicycle racks shall be provided. e. A minimum of two (2) 10 x 25 loading spaces shall be provided. f. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. g. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. h. The final landscape plan shall include locations of all ground mounted utility/ mechanical equipment and provide suitable screening of that equipment. i. A design detail of the exterior plaza seating areas shall be shown on the final construction site plan with an enlarged detail of the wall seats and decorative paving for review and approval of the Director of Planning. Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. AIl building and exterior landscape lighting shall be a decorative type complimentary to the building. Details and cut-sheets of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department with building construction plans for review prior to installation. All parking lot lights and other exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits "E' (Building Elevations sheets EL1 & EL2) and Exhibit "F (Color and Material Board), or as amended by these conditions, contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to , be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. 10. The final water fountain design detail on the west facing side fronting the entrance porte- cochere shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval of the Director of Planning [ The canvas awnings over the guest room windows shall be maintained to a new appearance at all times. The awning shall be replaced with a new one to match if it becomes faded, cracked, weather worn, or visibly damaged in any manner. 11. Each guest ro(~m window and side building windows, except those guest rooms on the first floor, shall have decorative wrought iron false balconies across the entire face of the air conditioning vent covers. The design and color shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to installation. 12. Air conditioning units and exterior vent covers for individual rooms shall be effectively screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 13. All roof drainage downspouts shall be internalized and architecturally integrated within the wall of the structure so as not to be visible from the outside of the building. 14. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved revised Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "F' (Preliminary Planting Plan Sheet L-1 ), or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the propertyowner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Additionally, the following revisions to the conceptual landscape plan shall be made and reflected on the construction landscape plans prior to issuance of building permits: a. The final water fountain design on the west facing side fronting the entrance porte- cochere shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval of the Director of Planning and shown on the construction landscape plans. b. Enlarge the 15-gallon Chinese Pistache trees to 24-inch box size within the east and north perimeter landscape planters. 15. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials, with the colored Elevation Plan Exhibits "E" and with the Color and Material Board Exhibit "H', or as amended by these conditions, 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. R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc Material Stucco Base Finish Stucco Field and Porte-Cochere Finish Stucco Column Fascia and Ornament Bands Aluminum Storefront Entrance & Window Frames Canvas Awnings Exterior Stone Veneer Exterior False Balconies Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits Color Dryvit #392 "Coconut Shell" Dryvit #116 '¥ictorian Lace" Dryvit #102 "Bright White" "Dark Bronze" Sunbrella Firesist #8620 'q'oasty Beige" Belgian Castle Stone by Cornado "Sunset Blend" Wrought Iron by Outwater '"70/5/5 Dark Bronze" 16. 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. 17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid, 18. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board Exhibit "H" and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", 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 19. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 20. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially to the approved revised Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit"F", or as amended by Condition No. 14 and any other related conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula ~ee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Trash enclosure and all utility equipment shall be screened with landscaping and shown on the Construction Landscape Plans. d. Plantings shall not interfere with traffic sight lines or utility lines. e. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). f. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the' approved plan). R:~D P~2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 15 A Landscape Contingency Plan and Arborist Assessment shall be required if it is determined that the existing slope trees and landscaping within the Caltrans right-of- way on the east side of the property is determined to be unhealthy. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 21. 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 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. 22. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 23. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inch apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. 24. A permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, shall identify each parking space reserved for the handicapped. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 25. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 26. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. R:",D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 16 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation .Fees. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,1998) Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. A sound transmission control study shall be prepared and submitted at time of plan review in accordance with the provisions of Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A, of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbihg schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. R:",D P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suitest, PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02,doc 17 43. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 44. Show all building setbacks. 45. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the houm of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Rivemide 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 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS General Requirements 46. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 47. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 48. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of- way. 49. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 50. A Grading Plan shall be prepaied by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 51. 52. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A Soil Report shall be prepared by'a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 53. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identity all existing or proposed public or private R:\D P~000\00-0507 Hampton ~nn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 18 drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 54. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 55. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 56. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 57. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 58. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 59. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.' paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the'applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at, 90 degrees. 50. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. R:~D P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21~2.doc 61. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 62. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed median on Jefferson Avenue in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 63. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 64. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 65. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 61, Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed, when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. 62. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1875 G PM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1600 GPM for a total fire flow of 3475 GPM with a 3-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 63. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 4 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). R:'~D P~000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~'C STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 2O 64. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 65. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision Ord 16.03.020) 66. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 67. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 68. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 69. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 70. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 71. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 72. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 73. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 74. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 75. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a R:'tD P~2000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21~2.doc contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall have a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 76. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for hotel, apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex, which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. 77. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 78. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 79. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 80. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 81. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Special Conditions 82. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 83. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Eire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 84. All perimeter landscaping and parkways shall be maintained by the property owner or private maintenance association. R:~) F52.000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 22 85. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 86. Developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure area(s). OTHER AGENCIES 87. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal letter dated January 3, 2001, a copy of which is attached. 88. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal letter dated January 2, 2001, a copy of which is attached. 89. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department of Transportation's transmittal letter dated May 29, 2002, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:~D P~2000~0-0~07 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-O2.doc 23 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED PROJECT STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS R:'tD P~000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02,doc 24 559/439-~)3~3 559/439-2298 FAX LEE GAGE .& ASSOCIATEs, INC, · 7636 N. INGRAM. * S. UITE 107 FRESNO, CAUFORNIA 93711-6200 architecture engineering planning . September.6 2000' Re: 'Hampt0n Inn - '~. 4 st9~ t 73 Room Hotel Jefferson_AVe.. · APN: 910-282~0Q~-1 ' ' ' 'F__xisti'ngiand:isVacant...' ' : . . . r ~u~ro-:-e~:' ." ' '' '' . . A ;t Story, 73'guestr°om h6tel'building, t.otal of'411100.Sq. Ft'..With related 0ms te · "., parking: Th~ proje~t'wi' ncu~e nte~ro~'.pool~' Spa '~nd'0ther st~nda[~l hotel ' .. . amenmes----='"--,. ' ' "- : ' ' ' The normal business hours will be 24 tiours per day, ~'g.days:per Maximum number of employees at.0ne time` is 5~" ... 83 parking stalls required.... . ,.. ~ .. · ' No haza~'dous materials Will be 'utilized in this project.. - '.' temecula.opl EXHIBIT C APPLICANT LET~'ER OF JUSTIFICATION FOR FAR INCREASE R:~D P~000~90-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8~21-02.doc 25 M May 30, 2002 Chairperson Dennis Chinlaeff City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 MAY 3 0 2G02 By. Subject: PA 00-0507 FAR Target Exceedance Justification Patel #1037 Dear Chair Chinlaeff, Initially let me state that all of the hotel/motel projects approved by the City of Temecula after the adoption of the Development Code have required a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) target exceedanee, with the only exception being the Temecula Creek Inn, which is a part of a larger golf course project. The Development Code did not adequately address or anticipate two land uses with regard to FAR, hotels/motels and mini~storage facilities. Those land uses are inherently a higher FAR by thek design nature and are not economically viable at the target FAR. This particular project is on an inffll parcel that was created before citYhood and before the Development Code adoption. This parcel is bounded by reciprocal ingress/egress easements, with a single point of access and with an extremely irregular geometric shape. The requested FAR is 0.71, which is within the range of 0.30 to 1.00. The City Engineer has not expressed any concern relative to traffic Or utilities. The applicant is required to meet at least one of the following criteria (see attached). 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590-5614 (909} 296-3466 Fax: (909) 296-3476 vea~.markhamdmg.com The hotel project will generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) -8%) which the City of Temecula will receive 100%. Additionally, the project will provide employment and added sales tax to the surrounding restaurants, service stations and other service businesses. The applicant has revised the architecture with extensive cornice detailing, building mass offsets, window awnings and decorative grilles over the 1-1VAC units. The landscaping provides for 35 of the 50 trees to be 24" or 36" box trees and total shrub planting of 891 plants with 525 being 5 gallon size. The applicant feels that this is exceptional quality and meets the design guidelines and the landscape code 20% requirement. The applicant had originally proposed the use of a community meeting room, but based on the most recent Ex~ended Stay America approval, staff declined. The other examples are not avaihible to this type of land use, or not in a proximity to be able to provide that type of amenities. Any decreases in the FAR could only be accomplished by reductions in rooms in groups of 2/4/6/8 or 4/8/12/16 for one end, and/or both ends of the building. The building geometry of width is set by room dimensions and the length by the number of rooms per floor. The reduction of 8 or 16 rooms (i.e., one/two building ends) would only yield 832 or 1664 SF of additional landscape area with a reduction on FAR fi.om 0.71 to 0.60. Based on these facts, the applicant requests the Commissioners concurrence on the FAR request and to provide the applicant with specific guidance relative to the architecture. Sincerely, l~a~DeveJl~nent Management Group, Inc. ,Earry iL Markham President D. Patel L. Gage, Lee Gage &Associates V. DiDonato, Alhambra Group EXHIBIT D ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER A'I-I'ORNEY LETTER OF OPPOSITION JULY 29, 2002 R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 26 POPOV & MCCULLOGH, LIP July 29, 2002 Regents P~'k Financial Centre 4180 La .lolla V'dlage Drive, Suite 450 La Jolla, California 92037 Tel: (858)457-2900 Fax: (858) Temecula Planning Commission Attn: Michael McCoy 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590' Re: Planning Application No. 00-0507/Hampton Inn Suites Dear Mr. McCoy: This letter is in reference to Planning Application No. 00-0507, Dinesh Patel's proposal to build a Hampton Inn. Our Office represents Mr. Jim Lin, the owner of the Comfort Inn that is located in the lot adjacent to the propgsed Hampton Inn project, ' ' We urge the Commission not to compromise' the standards set forth'by the City and to deny this project that is clearly in violation of the Temecula Development Code. Table 17.05~040A sets forth the target floor area ratio as .30 for this type of development. The Hampton Inn is asking for an increase in the floor area ratio to .71. This is more than twice the allowed floor area ratio on a 1.35-acre lot, significantly the highest of all alternative hotel projects in the area. · Moreover, the Hampton Inn does not meet the requirements for a variance in lot coverage. According to section 17:08.050, an applicant may be eligible for a variance in the floor area ratio only if it meets at least one of three particular requirements. First, if the project includes a use that provides outstanding and exceptional employment, fiscal, Social or economic benefits to the city, the planning commission may consider a variance. Examples given in the code are providing affordable housing that is easily accessible to and within close proximity to convenient shopping and employment, accessibility to mass transit facilities and creative mixtures of land uses, housing types and densities. The proposed Hampton Inn is a hotel and not a housing facility. Additionally, while any new business will hopefully provide new employment and fiscal benefits to the city, the benefits that the proposed Hampton Inn promises fall far short of outstanding or exceptional. The City of Temecula has seen an increase recently in applications for hotel development and, thus, the economic benefits will be found elsewhere or would be just as great if the Hampton Inn built a hotel on a larger lot that is more amenable tO its design needs. The Hampton Inn may offer some employment and economic benefit, but none so exceptional as to permit a variance that more than doubles the allowed floor area ratio. POPOV & McCULLOGH, LLP July 29, 2002 Page 2 The second oppommity for an applicant to receive a variance is if the project provides exceptional architecture and landscape design amenities that reflect an attractive image and character for the city. Because the proposed hotel would take up 71% of the 135-acre lot, the applicant has left very little room for landscaping. Additionally, as noted by at least one city Planner in the past, the project's architectural design does not offer anything exceptional enough to warrant overriding consideration of the land-use guidelines. The third exception is for projects that provide enhanced public facilities'that are needed by the city. Examples of this include city parking structures or fire department buildings or public recreational areas. The proposed Hampton Inn is a for-profit enterprise that will add nothing of the like to the city. In particular, the size of the proposed development on this small lot precludes any provision for public recreational facilities or common parking areas. Therefore, the applicant does not meet this third requirement. In addition, section 17.08.050 states that if the Community Development Director determines that the increase would create an unmitigatable impact on traffic circulation in the area, the increase should not be granted. The proposed site is in Rancho Temecula Plaza. Traffic flow in and out of the plaza is already at capacity and is already an inconvenience for guests at the Comfort Inn. As an illustration, the Plaza currently provides more than 20 parking spaces on the proposed Hampton Inn lot. These parking spaces are essential for commerce at the Plaza, but they will be lost if the hotel is built. The addition of a 70-unit hotel will push the Plaza above its traffic capacity and drive away business by creating an unnecessary hassle for potential customers. Furthermore, the lot on which the Hampton Inn proposes to build is part of a small subdivision consisting of 7.9 acres that already had 8 businesses. The area is already overcrowded. The addition of a four-story hotel will have a detrimental impact on daily life in the subdivision. It will also have a detrimental impact on the business at the Comfort Inn. For example, the Comfort Inn already has complaints that potential guests can only see the'ir sign from Interstate 15 and not from Winchester Road or Jefferson Avenue. If the Hampton Inn erects a four-story building on the lot between the Comfort Inn and Interstate 15, it will block any visibility of the Comfort Inn from the overpass. Also, the Plaza is suffering from an overabundance of foot traffic already. A 70-unit hotel would increase this foot traffic and destroy the remaining landscape. . One of the major policies of the Temecula Development Code is, "to encourage, classify, designate, regulate, restrict and segregate the most compatible and beneficial location and use of buildings, structures and land." The Hampton Inn is simply not compatible with the Rancho Temecula Plaza and the businesses currently there. Again, we urge the Planning Commission not POPOV &: McCIJLLOGH, LLP July 29, 2002 Page3 to compromise the policies behind the Development Code by overburdening this already burdened Plaza. We encourage the Planning Commission to disapprove of the plans for the Hampton Inn. Very Truly Yours, Chris Popov CP/lc cc: Client EXHIBIT E RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT LE'I'I'ER DATED JANUARY 3, 2001 R:~,D P~2.000~00~)507 Hampton Inn Suites'~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 27 January 3, 2001 Michael McCoy, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO. 7 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 216.70 APN 910-282-007 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0507 Dear Mr. McCoy: Please be. advised that the above~referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water serVice, therefore, would be available upon .completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property oWner. If fir.e protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and reqmrements. ~~'a'~Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management fights, if any, to RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. - Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. .~ .: Development Engineering Manager 01 xSB:at003~F012-T6~CF EXHIBIT F COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LE'I-FER DATED JANUARY 2~ 2001 R:~D P~2000\00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 28 Cu431XlTY OF RIVERSIDE HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTI January 2, 2001 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0507 Dear Michael McCoy: 1. The Department of Environmental Itealth has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0507 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b)' Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure ~ompliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 600-6330). Sincerel~ ' (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review, for. final Department of Environmental Health clearance. Ce: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Local Enforcement Agenc~ * EO. Box 1280, Faverside, CA 92502-1280 * (909) 95.%8982 * FAX (909) 781-9653 * tt0~0 Lemon Stree[ 9th Floor, R3~rside, CA 925C Land Use and Water Engineering * P.O. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 * (909) 9554~ * FAX {909) 9~ * t!080 Lemon Sheet, 2nd Floor, Rive~ide, CA 925( EXHIBIT G CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LE']-rER DATED MAY 29, 2002 R:\D P~2000',D0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 29 ,~TATE OF CALIFORNIA~UStNESS, TRANSPO~I'ATI~ 4D HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 464 W Fourth Street, 6th Floor MS 726 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 {~I~HONE (909)383-6327 ~AX (909) 383-6890 May 29, 2002 08-Riv-15-6.619 Mr. Michael McCoy Planning Department City of Temeeula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Mr. McCoy: Case No. PA00-0507, Hampton Inn, D. Patel, Applicant We have received the Development Review Committee transmittal for the above project, abutting Interstate 15 (I-15) at Winchester Road. Project development proposes construction of a 73 room 4-story hotel on a 1.35-acre parcel of prnperty. Because the easterly project boundary abuts I-15 right-of-way (R/W), we have concerns with potential impacts to existing slopes and nearby drainage facilities that may result with project grading and drainage construction. Although no direct encroachment is shown, the need for a Caltrans permit cannot be established with the information provided. Therefore, prior to issuance of construction permits, an opportunity to review project grading and drainage plans should be provided so that we may better evaluate impact mitigation and permit requiremedts. We recommend that such review be incorporated as a condition of approval for this hotel project. Other comments addressing possible impacts to State facilities may follow upon our review of the requested materials. 'Thank you for providing us this opportunity to review and offer our comments on the Hampton Inn development proposal. If this proposal is later revised in any way, or if you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Marc A. Centeno at (909) 383-6321 for assistance. Sincerely,' LINDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Forecasting/IGR-CEQA Review Transportation Planning Division 15Tern_PA00-0507 A'I-rACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R?D P~2000~00~0507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21,02.doc 30 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 EXHIBIT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT :'. ~ DESIGNATION - HT HIGHWAY TOURIST/COMMERCIAL ZONING MAP Project Site EXHIBIT DESIGNATION - HT (HIGHWAY TOURIST/COMMERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 GENERAL PLAN R:XID P~_000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CiTY OF TEMECULA 15 oFF ._3 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) pE~AHIBIT - ~ NNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 SITE PLAN R:~D P~2000~)0~)507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OFTEMECULA , iitiI PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT' K · ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21,2002 R:~D P~2000~00~)507 Hampton Inn Suites\PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT ~. , PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 ELEVATIONS R:t,D P~2.000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites'PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 FLOOR PLANS R:~D P~20OO~DO-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21~2.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 FLOOR PLANS R:~D P~2000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc 3'/ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION'NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT ' L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 FLOOR PLANS R:~) P~'000~0-0507 Hampton Inn Suites,PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 FLOOR PLANS R:~D P~2000~X~-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~OC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT L PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 FLOOR PLANS R:XD P~.000'~3-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc CITY OF TEMECULA III A PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (D~wlopm~nt Plan) EXHIBIT,' /~ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 21, 2002 R:',D P~000~00-0507 Hampton Inn Suites~PC STF REPT REVISED ARCH 8-21-02.doc q~ ATFACHMENT NO. 5 SIGNED MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 5, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING R:~D P~2000~00~0507 Hampton inn Suites\Supplemental 10-2 PC Sff Rept Vemion #2.doc MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I A.qenda Commissioners Guerriere, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Senior Engineer Alegria, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Senior Planner Hazen, Senior Planner Hogan, Project Planner McCoy, Project Planner Rush, and Minute Clerk Hansen. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve theAgendaofJune 5, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS la Crowne Hill Elementary School Site Review Noting that State Law requires that School Districts have school sites reviewed by the Planning Commission in that jurisdiction in order to encourage community planning, Senior Planner Hogan provided a bdef overview of the proposed Crowne Hill Elementary School site, specifying the location, the access, the proximate park site, and the surrounding residential area. Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing the School District, provided additional information regarding the proposed school site, noting the site constraints, relaying that as the site currently exists it would not be possible to have two-road access, or sewer facilities; relayed the plan to bring in dirt to raise the site to allow for two-road access and so that the site can be sewered; noted the benefits of the location in particular since ultimately there will be 700 students that would not have to cross Butterfield Stage Road to access school, the majority of students being within walking distance to the school; for Commissioner Guerriero, relayed that Old Kent Road would remain a cul-de-sac; for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that the park referenced which was proximate to this school site was not Butterfield Stage Park; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that this site was at the eastern portion of Crowne Hill Development; noted that he was not aware of a road being proposed through the estate lots to tie into the road coming out of County Road Estates; advised that the vast majority of students attending this school would be coming from the Crowne Hill development which is why the site was referenced as a centrally located; and reiterated that the site could be sewered after approximately 200,000 yards of dirt was brought in. In response to Mr. Gallaher, Chairman Chiniaeff confirmed that it would be his recommendation that the access road to the school be connected to the road coming out of Country Estates, if feasible. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Gallaher advised that the majority of the new school sties have a separate bus drop-off zone, as does this one; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the School Distdct had the funds to purchase this particular site at this time, and that the school construction costs would be dependent upon the November School Bond; and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the proximate park site was approximately two to three acres, and would be a level site. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to make a determination that this site was appropriate for the development of an elementary school. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2 Planninq Application No. 01-0307 (Development Plan) - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner Development plan to construct, establish and operate a 24,170 square foot Industrial warehouse building on 1.50 vacant acres. Generally located on the south side of Zero Drive, west of Diaz Road known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-360-034. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Applicant requests more time for revisions - continue to June 26, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the June 26t~ meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3 Planninq Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) - Michael McCoy Development Plan to design and construct a 42,000 square foot, 4-story, 70-unit hotel (Hampton Inn Suites). Generally located on the northeast comer of Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road at the 1-15 off-ramp to the adjacent south of the Comfort Inn hotel at 27330 Jefferson Avenue known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-282-007. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the project for design revisions. Staff provided a project presentation Project Planner McCoy provided a detailed overview of the project plan (of record), as follows: Highlighted the location, the three access points, the t~vo loading spaces located at the northeast comer of the property, the Zoning (Hotel Tourist Commercial), and the General Plan Designation (Hotel Tourist Commercial); · Specified the concerns of staff regarding this padicular project, as follows: o The request for an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), o The landscape design and coverage, o The architectural design, The ADA access from the public right-of-way, and The pedestrian circulation to the building entrance; Referencing the Development Code, noted the criteria warranting a FAR increase, as follows: o Exceptional financial or social benefits provided to the City, Exceptional architectural and landscaping amenities, and o Enhanced public facilities; o Advised that staff could not make the findings to approve any of the criteria for supporting a FAR increase; With respect to the landscape plan, relayed the gaps within the tree line landscaping at the northeastern portion of the property which does not provide an adequate buffer to the parcel from the freeway offramp, noting additional gaps at the southeastern portion of the project, advising that staff was of the opinion that the project should have an adequate landscape buffering plan on its own merit and not depend on the existing Caltrans eucalyptus trees; relayed that the landscape plan encompassed a net total landscape coverage of twenty percent (20%); noted that the 24-inch and 36- inch boxed trees proposed on the north and east perimeter of the project are not staggered or plentiful enough to provide an adequate buffer, nor are the five-gallon shrubs proposed along the planter, advising that staff was recommending that the planters be enlarged, the trees staggered, and that there be additional larger evergreen trees, as well as larger shrub plantings; with respect to qualifying for exceptional landscaping in relation to the FAR increase, noted that staff has suggested adding raised decorative planters, and water fountain features with a paved seating area with landscaping, advising that the building footprint would have to be reduced, as well as 400 square feet of the floor area in order to provide for greater landscape coverage; and relayed the higher percentage of landscaping on alternate hotel projects; With respect to the building architecture, noted that per the Commercial Performance Standards, larger commemial buildings were required to be setback further, relaying that the tower features on the west and east elevations emphasize the buildings verticality, and the horizontal stucco-scored base does not significantly reduce that mass, advising that staff was recommending that these two elevations be articulated to create visual interest, that the stucco wail base have a slate/tile, stone veneer, or flagstone material, as well as on a portion of the most forward vertical columns for greater accent; relayed that it was staff's opinion that the air conditioner vent covers would be visually obtrusive, noting that it was staff's recommendation that the air conditioning system be internalized, relaying altemate options that staff has explored; and clarified that it was staff's opinion that this proposed plan did not provide exceptional architectural design, and ergo did not meet the criteria for the FAR increase; With respect to ADA access issue, noted that the Deputy Building Official had relayed to the applicant the need for provision of a dedicated separate pathway for ADA access, advising that since the applicant did not meet that request dudng the review process the Building Department cannot recommend approval of this particular design or offer Conditions of Approval; and advised that the Deputy Building Official has recommended alternative design measures to address potential access/easement issues which the applicant has not opted to implement; With respect to the pedestrian access provisions to the building from the western parking area, relayed that the Commercial Performance Standards circulation policies recommend that separate access for pedestrians (to the buildings) be provided for safety purposes; Referencing a comparative table (on page 4 of the staff report), compared the FAR for alternate similar hotel projects in the area, to the proposed FAR for this project which revealed that this project was significantly the highest; Concluding his presentation, noted that based on the specified concems regarding this project, and the proposal not qualifying for a FAR increase, staff could not make the findings for approval. Addressing the queries of the Commission, for Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hazen confirmed that it was staff's opinion that unless the building footprint was reduced, the additional planter along the freeway could not be implemented, advising that staff has been relaying recommendations to the applicant since the pre-application phase of the project in 2000; and for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that the rationale for staffs recommended 10-20 feet of additional buffer was due to the concern with respect to relying on the existing eucalyptus trees, additionally relaying staff's desire to implement a plan which would provide a more natural appearance of trees. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner McCoy noted that the proposed tree planting plan was not measured with the consideration of the gaps in the existing tree line, Senior Planner Hazen relaying staff's concern regarding the expected height of the trees at full growth only reaching the second story of the building with an underlying concern regarding the health of the existing eucalyptus trees; and confirmed that it was staff's desire to screen the view of the hotel site project from the freeway offramp, reiterating that this project was proposing the minimal landscape plan while requesting a FAR increase. Chairman Chiniaeff commented on alternate approved hotel projects, noting that this particular parcel was a difficult site. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner McCoy relayed that the mullions would be a bronze metal matedal while the air conditioning vent covers would be metal louvers painted to match the wall color, and on the first floor to match the stucco base; and confirmed that it was staffs recommendation that there be a sidewalk along the back of the western parking stalls to tie into the main entrance to the building, Senior Planner Hazen noting that this recommendation was for safety purposes. The applicant provided additional information reqardinq the project Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided the following information: With respect to the ADA issues, noted that this map was created in 1984-1985, specifying the parcel lines, the reciprocal easements, the connection driveways, advising that if the proposed plan was not acceptable, the applicant would be required !o get the proximate property owners' permission to demolish their existing sidewalks in order to install ramps, flatter sidewalks and handrails to Jefferson Avenue, the parcel would become an ADA landlocked parcel, or a waiver for these particular ADA requirements would have to be requested, advising that the applicant had not been made aware of these requirements by the Building Department; and noted that the applicant would meet with the Building staff to further address this matter. With respect to staffs recommendation for a pedestrian sidewalk, relayed that the implementation would necessitate a reduction in landscaping, advising that the applicant had no knowledge of this concept until tonight's headng. With respect to the landscape issue, noted that there was no remaining turf on this parcel, but only trees and shrubs with 891 shrub plantings being proposed, 50 trees, the majority being either 24-inch box and 36-inch box sizes, clarifying that it was not the applicant's intent to rely on the existing eucalyptus trees, advising that Landscape Architect Elliott had signed off on the landscape plan pursuant to the Development Code; With respect to staff's overall recommended revisions, specified the changes the applicant has implemented over the project's process in response to those recommendations; · For informational purposes, noted that as a member of the Property Owner's Association the applicant was required to meet certain requirements; · With respect to the air conditioning units, relayed that the installations were typical with respect to alternate similar uses; Noted the constraints of this particular site; provided comparative information regarding the Temecula Valley Inn's and the Extended StayAmedca's sites, advising that this particular proposal was landscaped similarly to these similar uses; and relayed that it was a desirable feature from the applicant's perspective if the use could be seen from the freeway, and the offramp; With respect to the setback issue, noted the difficulties associated with staff's recommendation to set back the upper floors; With respect to staff's recommendations regarding landscaping, relayed the applicant's willingness to add a landscape/water fountain feature at the main entrance while not desiring to add a seating element; For informalional purposes, noted that if it was the Planning Commission's desire the hoters meeting teem could be made available to the public, that the room count has been reduced twice since pre-application submittal, and that the compact parking spaces have been removed; and · Provided additional information regarding the history of the Embassy Suites project site. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the constraints associated with staffs recommendation for revising the ADA access. For Commissioner Guerfiero, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that the Extended StayAmerica Hotel use was conditioned to submit an acoustical report with construction plans which would demonstrate that the interior noise level meets the level requirements. Mr. Markham noting that the applicant would be agreeable to be conditioned as such. Commissioner Guerriero commented on the existing negative traffic impacts regarding this area. Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape engineer representing the applicant, specified the landscape plan, as follows: · For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted the location of the proposed crepe myrtle trees; · Relayed that this was an intedor parcel with existing landscaping on the perimeter of the building; Noted opposition to staff's recommendation to place additional plantings proximate to the freeway, in particular since the building had enhanced architectural features on this elevation; · Advised that the tree plantings were staggered, and that a wide vadety of trees have been proposed (i.e., deciduous, evergreen, tall and small trees); With respect to staff's recommendation to increase the size of the trees, clarified that the difference in height between a 36-inch box tree (which could be planted by hand or with a tractor) and a 48-inch box tree (which required a crane to install) was approximately a foot, advising that a 24-inch box tree was a good starting size for trees, noting that 15-gallon trees were better suited in some situations; and advised that a good landscape plan did take into consideration the existing planting around the site; and Regarding the size of the proposed plantings, noted that 14% of the trees would be 36-inch box, 56% would be 24-inch box, clarifying that long-term, a 15-gallon tree will outgrow a 24-inch box or a 48-inch box tree. Mr. Lee Gage, architect representing the applicant, presented additional information regarding the project, as follows: With respect to the referenced ADA requirements, specified lhat typically what was required was access from the building to a public right-of-way which would be Jefferson Avenue in this particular case, noting that the applicant was being permitted to provide a four-foot wide continuous walkway with truncated domes (which would address the needs of the blind), noting that if the slopes are less than fifteen pement (15%) handrails were not required; Regarding the window treatment, advised that the Hampton Inn franchise prefers an integrated bronze-finished window with a bronze window frame with an architectural grill to cover the air conditioning unit, noting that to add depth on other projects a foam band has been added to the windows, advising that this option was available; Providing information regarding the architectural features, noted that the columns were approximately two feet deep and two feet wide; relayed that while at various alternate Hampton Inn uses there were raised/pitched roofs which was a Hampton Inn prototype design element, the applicant has opted to keep the costs lower for this particular project and proposed a horizontal type of design; Noted that the building has been articulated with offsets, advising that the entry treatment projects approximately ten feet, as well as a porter-cochere treatment being proposed; with respect to the recommendation to add additional material for articulation, suggested that the application be a faux rock/stone treatment. · For informational purposes, noted that in alternate municipalities hardscape treatments were calculated as part of the landscape plan; per the property owner's edict, relayed the goal for the color application of this project to be consistent with the surrounding uses located within the center; relayed that canvas awnings were proposed on both sides of the buildings which was an additional feature not added on most of the Hampton Inn uses; and for Commissioner Mathewson, specified that the awnings would be a tan color projecting approximately three feet. For Commissioner Olhasso. Mr. Gage noted that there were alternate architectural treatments uses utilized at other sites to screen the air conditioning units (i.e., wrought iron), opining that with this particular design plan the simple grill would be the most appropriate; and provided additional information regarding the process of creating the rock fac~ade treatment. The public is invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project: o Mr. Jim Lin o Mr, Ed Pike o Ms. Ofelia Esqueda o Ms. SeanGoad o Mr. Aaron Henry Mr. Ken Westmyer 27338 Jefferson Avenue 612 Corte Elegante 27338 Jefferson Avenue 41624 Margarita Road #236 45888 Jeronimo Street 27338 Jefferson Avenue The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: · The height of the building, · Opposed to the FAR bonus, · Opined that this particular hotel should be relocated and not coexist in the same subdivision as an hotel, · The additional traffic this project would generate, · The noise impacts, in particular construction traffic which would disturb the adjacent hotel's sleeping guests, · Parking impacts, This project would obstruct the view of the Comfort Inn from the freeway which would negatively impact business, and · The dust and debris impacts generated during construction of the project. The applicant relayed concludinq comments Mr. Larry Markham noted that it was the applicant's desire to obtain input from the Planning Commission regarding the FAR increase, the architectural design, and the landscaping issues; referencing page 6 of the staff report, noted that the project was found to be consistent with the Zoning, and the General Plan designations as well as consistent with the existing development in the area; and with respect to concerns raised during the public comment period, noted the following: · Advised that within this Property Owner's Association there were no restrictions regarding two hotels being located on this subdivision; · Regarding construction impacts (i.e., noise, and dirt), advised that these issues were governed by existing ordinances; With respect to the visibility concerns, relayed that there were no view shed guarantees for commercial, industrial, or residential uses; With resPect to parking, clarified the parking spaces which were part of this parcel; With respect to traffic, concurred that congestion in this area should be addressed, advising that the applicant would be contributing substantially to Development impact Fees, part of which would be utilized for medians on arterial streets; · With respect to the ADA issue, reiterated that lhe applicant would meet with the Building and Safety staff to address this issue. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Markham noted that he would forward the recommendation for the addition of stone veneer on the first floor of the hotel to the applicant; for Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that he would provide at a future point statistics regarding the projected occupancy rates and Average Daily Rates (ADRs); and in response to Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that funding the cost of a signal would be explored. Commissioner Olhasso queried whether this project's portion of the DIF could be applied towards medians in front of the project on Jefferson Avenue. At 7:50 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:55 P.M. The Plannin,q Commission relays concludinq comments Commissioner Guerdero relayed that in light of the traffic issues, and for application towards meeting the criteria for the FAR bonus, the applicant would need to consider some type of signal mitigation; with respect to the fa(;ade lreatment referenced by Mr. Gage (the applicant's architect), noted his preference for real materials (i.e., stone, brick) in lieu of a faux stone treab]nent; and recommended that there be additional enhancements beyond the first floor;, and opined that the landscape plan was adequate. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Guerriero that the traffic impacts needed to be considered; with respect to the FAR increase and the associated warranting cdteda, concurred with the applicant's representative that achieving an exceptional landscape plan does not necessarily encompass a greater quantity, recommending that to meet the exceptional standard that staff and the applicant consider off-site improvements; noted that he was not pleased with the Iouvered air conditioner vents, recommending that the applicant pursue alternatives; recommended that there be an additional veneer treatment on the base of the building as well as the columns; with respect to the ADA access issue, opined that a sidewalk was needed on site in front of the parking spaces (noting that the landscaping which would need to be removed could be installed off-site), recommending that there be decorative enhancements to the sidewalk, as referenced by the applicant's representative. Commissioner Telesio relayed the expectation for exceptional product in the City of Temecula; noted his hopes that as this project goes back to staff for additional work, that the discussions are productive, noting his support of staff's recommendations, advising that in most cases the Planning Commission will accept these recommendations and require more; noted that he was not opposed to the landscape plan; and with respect to the architectural treatment, recommended that there be improvements implemented. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she viewed this project as an improvement to the site; with respect to the traffic issue, recommended that staff and the applicant come back with creative solutions; advised that if the applicant brought back a conservative estimate of the anticipated Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) contribution, staff and the Council could make the argument that the project would generate enough funds to address the traffic impacts at this comer; with respect to the lack of parking, recommended that the project manager investigate the vacant parking lot adjacent to the car wash; with respect to the architectural design, noted her displeasure with the air conditioner vent covers, additionally recommending that real slone be utilized for the added articulation; with respect to the FAR, noted that if the TOT could address the circulation issues that may justify the FAR, clarifying that she had not come to a final determination regarding this issue; and with respect to the public comments, generated primarily from the employees and owner of the adjacent hotel, recommended that there be rehabilitation to the Comfort Inn. Chairman Chiniaeff noted his concurrence with respect to the recommendation to add articulation enhancements at the base as well as on the two tower elements; recommended that the applicant explore alternate designs used for other Hampton Inn uses; with respect to the landscape plan, suggested the addition of a couple trees along the freeway; and with respect to the FAR, relayed that he could support the proposed FAR as long as there were benefits to the area as a result of the project, advising that the installation of a signal would most likely be the most significant improvement which could be implemented in combination with medians. In response to the Planning Commission comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it would be problematic to condition this properly owner to implement off-site improvements; concurred that the installation of a signal would be a significant community benefit; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the rationale for staffs recommendation for a water fountain treatment was the desire to implement a unique distinctive statement at the entrance; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that staff would require the applicant to implement a unique landscaping treatment at the entry. For Commissioner Guerriere, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant would explore the additional of window boxes, additionally advising that the applicant would come back with architectural alternatives. In response to Mr. Markham's queries, Commissioner Guerriero noted that he would provide specific information to him regarding a Hampton Inn with pleasing architecture features, which he had visited in the southern part of New Jemey. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the August 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. For Mr. Didonato, Chairman Chiniaeff concurred that exceptional concrete treatments would aid in contributing to an overall exceptional landscape plan. 4 Planninq Application No. 02-0240 (Substantial Conformance) - Rick Rush RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this project. 4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0240, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0335, WHICH INCLUDES SUBSTITUTING THE APPROVED DOME SHAPE AWNING ALONG THE FRONT ELEVATION WITH PERMANENT AWNINGS AND A LARGER AWNING OVER THE FRONT ENTRY, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET SOUTH OF THE SANTIAGO ROAD/FRONT STREET INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-120- 010 Via overheads, Project Planner Rush presented the staff report (per agenda material), clarifying that the applicant was requesting to eliminate the only element of the approved project that provided any relief to the box-like design of the building, advising that since a retractable awning was not a permanent feature, it would only provide a break in the elevation when deployed; and relayed that staff was not opposed to substituting the permanent dome-shaped awning for an alternative design, but not a retractable awning, Mr. Richard C. Quaid, the applicant, noted that the retractable awnings were installed at the Loma Linda store location, advising that in response to staff's recommendations the applicant raised the awning by approximately two feet at the entry; clarified that the applicant was opposed to the dome shape of the awning; noted that the front, back, and sides of the building were articulated with real brick and stucco, and that the awnings serve to further break up the massing on the front and back of the buildings; via photographs, noted that this particular proposal was consistent with previously approved designs and had additional~enhanced articulation in comparison to numerous projects; and advised that while the intent was to have the awnings open the majodty of the time, they would be retractable for use when there were windy conditions. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Quaid confirmed that the awnings would be electrically operated. Mr. Jeff Coffman, architect representing the applicant, noted that when the project was presented and approved approximately two years ago, the dome-shaped awning had been added at the last hour, and it was his opinion that with the deconstructing design appearance of the building, the curved awnings would be inappropriate, and the modified proposed awnings with the sharper lines, which were discontinuous would be more pleasing. Mr. Bob Quaid, the applicant, provided additional information regarding the particular type of awning being proposed which was constructed of a special material, advising that it was the applicant's opinion that the curved awning would detract from the overall building design; relayed that additional features were added to this use to be consistent with the Old Town Western motif; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the awning was added by the artist of the rendering and not by the architect. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the modified proposed awnings appeared similar to an RV awning, recommending that if the applicant was opposed to the curved shape of the awning, that the architect modify the shape of permanent awnings, which could be installed in a discontinuous pattern. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Code did not require the building to have awnings but additional articulation to break up the box-like shape, which could be addressed with other materials. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was not opposed to changing the design of the awnings, or removing the awnings. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was pleased that the applicant determined to develop this project in the City of Temecula, noting that she would not be opposed to black square awnings with the breaks. Concurring with staff that the awnings aided in breaking up the box-like appearance of the building, Commissioner Guerriero advised that the shape of the awnings was not significant as long as permanent awnings were installed. In response, the applicant noted the desire to install the awnings but to revise the design to reflect a square shape in lieu of the dome-shaped awning. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that there be a greater massing of the awning structure with end treatments, in response, the applicant noted that permanent awnings were less costly. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff would need a copy of the revised design plan of the awnings. For the applicant, Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that the awnings could be a straight design rather than the dome shape, that they would be permanent, and broken up with each set windows, and that the revised design plan would be submitted to staff for review. For clar'r~'ication and in response to the applicant's queries regarding the Planning Commission's direction, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the resolution in the staff report would be revised to reflect approval of the plan subject to an added condition regarding the awnings (as indicated below in the motion); and advised that if the awning plan was COnsistent with the direction provided from the Planning Commission, the Planning Director subsequently would approve the plan administratively. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to approve this particular proposal with a finding of substantial conformance, subject to the following revision: Add- That a condition be added indicating that rectangular-shaped black canvas awnings would be installed modified to be permanent elements (permanent entailing an awning with end treatments, and a greater massing of the structure), with a larger rectangular awning over the entry in lieu of a dome- shaped awning, and that the canopies be broken up with each set of windows along the front of the building, and that this revised plan be subject to the review of the Planning Director. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 5 P ann n,q Application No, 01-0403 (Development Plan) - Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project. 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0403 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pumuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: 13 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0403 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,970 SQUARE FOOT FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (MACARONI GRILL), ON A 1.49-ACRE LOT, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE MALL'S ENTRY AT NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, WITHIN THE BEL VlLLAGIO CENTER, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 92t-830-001. By way of overheads, Project Planner Rush provided a bdef overview of the project plan (per agenda material), highlighting the site plan, and the parking provisions; relayed that the three conCerns of staff regarding this project have been reviewed with the applicant whereupon the applicant opted to implement the changes and have been reflected as Condition Nos. 6a, 6b, and 6c (regarding revisions in the parking lot plan); noted that the design of the building was reflective of an Italian countryside, advising that the building was finished with river rock stone, and stucco, and that heavy wood beams were proposed for the front of the restaurant, as well as wrapping around both comers. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner Rush further specified the revisions to the parking lot, which would allow for additional parking space and would aid in screening the vehicles in this area. Ms. Vandana Kelkar, architect representing the applicant, relayed that Phase I of the project was constructed, noting that the Macaroni Grill use was part of the footprint when the project was originally approved, advising that although the Code requires one parking space per 300-350 square feet, the applicant has proposed 10 parking spaces per 1000 square feet in this padicular area since it was known that there would be a restaurant use at this location, noting that overall in the shopping center there would be 5.7 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. Noting his disappointment, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that at the time this project was originally presented it had been conveyed that this would be a center with high-end uses, advising that Temecula does not need another stdp mall. For Commissioner Olhasso, Ms. Kelkar clarified that although marketing had aimed at attaining high-end tenants, some tenants were reluctant to locate in this particular area at this time. For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Cudey advised that the approved project was subject to conformance with the findings associated with the approval (i.e., conformance with the General Plan, and to the applicable ordinances), clarifying that if a subjective expectation had not been met and if there was not an identifiable performance level imposed it would be problematic to enforce that expectation. In response, Commissioner Telesio recommended that there be identified performance levels imposed on future projects. Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that it appeared that the project was providing the architecture that was expected, but may not provide the expected tenant mix, advising that the Planning Commission has never required specified tenants. Commissioner Telesio commented that if the architect implemented a high quality of architecture, but the tenant mix was not high end, the lessor would be the one who would bear the impacts. In response to the Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that it would just be a matter of time before the tenant mix the Planning Commission referenced would be in the City of Temecula; for Commissioner Olhasso, confirmed that at a future point, the Planning Commission could have an economic workshop which addressed the demographics; and noted that this particular center would be visually pleasing due to the enhanced landscaping and amhitecturel treatments. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation with the inclusion of the added conditions, as referenced in the staff report as Condition Nos. 6a, 6b, and 6c (regarding parking lot modifications). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriere who voted no. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Code Enforcement has consistently been addressing the blight at the furniture use on Winchester Road, noting that staff would provide additional follow-up on this matter. Bo Regarding ex parte communications, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission, staff could relay to applicants that the Commission does not desire to meet with applicants outside of the hearing, Assistant City Attorney Curley advising that a resolution could be adopted discouraging ex parte communications if it was the Planning Commission's desire. For Commissioner Telesio, Facility Maintenance Coordinator Kanigowski relayed that he had a cordless microphone, which could be utilized by applicants during presentations. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curiey advised that tenants have developed criteria, which must be met pdor to opting to locate in a certain area. Commissioner Olhasso noted a desire to have additional marketing information provided at the previously mentioned workshop, in particular the 5-, 10-, and 30- mile rings from the mall, and the criteria for the "lifestylev type tenants. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that potential tenants in a project might be attracted to a certain placement, or size of building, which could be an avenue for attracting the desired high-end tenants. Commissioner Olhasso suggested that a commercial/retail exped provide an opinion regarding the tenant matter to the Planning Commission. Additional discussion ensued regarding the expectation level of tenants at the Bel Villagio Center. Commissioner Guerriero noted the need for median installation near the Post Office on Rancho California, Commissioner Olhasso noting the need for medians proximate to the high school on Margarita Road. Chairman Chiniaeff requested that a meeting schedule be e-mailed to him. Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Olhasso noting that they only had knowledge of a scheduled meeting when they received the agenda which stated the date of the next meeting. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske ensured that efforts would be made to provide a meeting schedule, which would include the dates for joint meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and Committee meetings, additionally noting that the Planning Guide, which provided information regarding upcoming issues, was in the process of being reinstated. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional comments. ADJOURNMENT At 9:38 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular meetln.q to be held on Wednesday~ June 26~ 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Debbie Ubnoske. Director of Planning ITEM #3 CiTY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning October 2, 2002 Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility On September 18, 2002, the Planning Commission continued this item and requested the following information be brought back: Wdtten verification that the property owner of the Burger King site within the Palomar Village, located on Assessor's Parcel No. 921-700-001, has denied Compass Telecom's request to locate an antenna on this site. A staff analysis of the simulated bark cladding presented to the Planning Commission at the September 18th Public Hearing, by the applicant's representative for Compass Telecom Services. Findings provided in the City of Temecula's Development Code. Alternative Site Analysis In response to the Planning Commission's direction, staff has verified the latest information provided by the Geographical Information System (GIS) property information database regarding all the parcels located along Rancho California Road within the Palomar Village Shopping Center. The information provided by GIS reflects the latest information downloaded from the Riverside County Tax Assessor's office. The following is the data collected by staff: Assessor's Parcel Current Business Property Owner Number APN #. 921-700-001 Burger King Palomar Village Inc. Cio PM Realty Group Advisors APN # 921-700-002 California Bank & Trust Palomar Village Inc. CIo PM Realty Group Advisors APN # 921-700-003 The Wherehouse William Lee C/o David Lee APN# 921-700-004 Carl's Jr. Bernard Karcher Investments Inc. APN# 921-700-005 Jiffy Lube Palomar Village Inc. C/o PM Realty Group Advisors According to the applicant's representative, Compass Telecom Services, the decision not to locate the proposed antennas at Burger King, California Bank & Trust, and the Jiffy Lube sites R:~vl C U P~2001\0'~-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 1 (owned by Palomar Village Inc.), was based upon a denial from the owner in response to the letter dated May 18, 2001 (attached), from Compass Telecom Services, Site Acquisition Consu/tant. According to Mr. Meyers, Palomar Village Inc. denied their request even though Jiffy Lube had entered into an agreement (attached) with Pacific Bell Wireless LLC d.b.a. Cingular Wireless. Additionally, based upon a recent verbal conversation with Mr. Meyers, the Wherehouse site (APN# 921-700-003) and the Carls Jr. site (APN # 921-700-004), would not meet the needs of Cingular Wireless. According to Mr. Meyers there is not enough room on either site to accommodate the project unless existing parking and landscaping were removed. Material Analysis of Bark Cladding Staff has analy~zed the simulated bark cladding presented to the Planning Commission at the September 18 Public Hearing. The cladding proposed will be manufactured and provided by Solar Communications International, Inc. The texture of the cladding proposed will be cast from an actual telephone pole and manufactured with a modified urethaneo Although the bark cladding is not monolithic, it is seamed together so it appears seamless. The bark cladding is attached to the metal pole with a 3M two-part epoxy adhesive. Subsequently, the areas of the bark that are not next to the antennas are then fastened to the pole with the appropriate hardware. According to Solar Communications International, Inc. the simulated bark can be colored to match the existing wood poles, which would be added to the actual material used for the cladding. Conclusion Staff has provided a both a "draft" resolution to uphold the decision of the Planning Director to deny PA01-0601 (Attachment No. 1) and a draft resolution to approve PA01-0601 and overturn the decision of the Planning Director to deny PA01-0601 (Attachment No. 2) with the respective findings. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution to uphold the decision of the Planning Director to deny PA01-0601 2. Draft Resolution to approve PA01-0601 and overturn the decision of the Planning Director to deny PA01-0601 3. Letter from Compass Telecom Services to owner of Palomar Village 4. Letter of Interest from Telecom Services to CB Ellis 5. Lease Agreement with Jiffy Lube 6. Letter from Compass Telecom Services to United States Post Office 7. Letter and cost estimate from "A Brush With Life". 8. Company Profile for Solar Communications International, Inc. 9. Minutes from the August 7th Planning Commission Meeting. 10. August 7, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report 11. Propagation Map 12. Photographs 13. Minutes from the May 9th and May 30th Director's Hearing 14. May 9, 2002 Director's Hearing Staff Report R:\M C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hilts Wireless Commtm Fecility~Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY PA01-0601 R:\M C U P~001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC~doc 3 PC 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. 0t-0601 - A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / 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. WHEREAS, Compass Telecom Services, filed Planning Application No. 01-0601, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0601 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and WHEREAS, the application was processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director held a duly noticed public hearing on May 9, 2002 and May 30, 2002, to consider the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director considered Planning Application No. 01-0601 on May 9, 2002 and May 30, 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; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's Hearing and after due consideration of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Director denied Planning Application No. 01- 0601; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application PA01-0601 was properly filed by Compass Telecom Services on June 11, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal, staff report, Planning Director Minutes, and the complete public record at a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Planning Director's findings were consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all other applicable state and local laws; and WHEREAS, the appeal application failed to adequately present a "fair argument" and lacked sufficient evidence to overturn the Planning Director's decision; R:V~ppeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 8 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2; Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in denying the appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application No. 01-0601 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 and Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: Minor Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 17.04.010.E.1) A. The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general plan and the development code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has determined that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within the general plan and within the Development Code Chapter 17.4.110.A. Antenna Ordinance which states, No telecommunication facility or antenna that is readily visible from off-site shall be installed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication facilities or other public or quasi-public uses unless it blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner so as to be effectively unnoticeable or technical evidence acceptable to the approval authority is submitted showing a clear need for this facility and the infeasibility of co-locating it on another antenna or establishing a multi-user site. B. The proposed minor conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the proposed antennas will replace two existing wood poles and will receive sufficient camouflaging, the cellular site is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of the Temeku Hills Golf Course in that the proposed use will encroach into a residential area and insufficient analysis has been given to alternative sites. C. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within Goal 3, Policy 3.3 of the General plan which requires that the City, "Protect single -family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses." D. The decision to deny application for a minor conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. R:~Appeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 9 This application has been brought before the Director of Planning at a Public Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the Director renders her/his decision. Development Plan (Chapter 17.05.010.F) E. The proposed use is not in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within Goal 3, Po/icy 3.3 of the General plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect single -family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses." Additional/y, the development plan for the site is not consistent with the City's applicable sections of the Development Code (Chapter 17.40 Antenna Ordinance) in that the applicant has not shown, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that there is a c/ear need for this site and that it is infeasible to co-locate on another existing cellular site. (Chapter 17.40.010 General Requirements-Location and Facility Separation). F. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall development of the site has not been designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare in that the homeowners within the Temeku Hills subdivision have expressed that the development of the unmanned cellular site is not consistent with the intent of a recreational facility in which they live and will deter from the quality of life expected from their investment in the community. Section3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0601 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). This section applies when a public agency rejects or disapproves the proposed project Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of August 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} R:~Appeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 10 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 7th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'C, ppeal~01-0601 Appee, l',Staff Repod[.doc 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 DRAFT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE PA01-0601 AND OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DENY PA01-0601 R:\M C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OVERTURNING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0601, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ! DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILTIY CONSlTING OF REPLACING TWO EXISTING GOLF BALL NETTING WOOD POLES WITH TWO CAMOUFLAGED METAL POLES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MARGARITA ROAD IN THE TEMEKU HILLS GOLF COURSE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 953- 340-015 WHEREAS, Marc Meyers, representing Compass Telecom, filed Planning Application No. 01-0601, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0601 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Director held a duly noticed public hearing on May 9, 2002 and May 30, 2002 to consider the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director considered Planning Application No. 01-0601 on August 9, 2002 and May 30, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's hearing and after due consideration of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Director denied Planning Application No. 01- 0601; WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application PA01-0601 was properly filed by Compass Telecom Services on June 11, 2002;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal, staff report, Planning Director Minutes and the complete public record at a duly noticed public hearings on August 7, 2002 and September 18, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Planning Director's findings were not consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all other applicable state and local laws; and WHEREAS, the appeal application adequately presented a fair argument and provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate consistency with the City's Telecommunication Ordinance and to overturn the Planning Director's decision; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: R:'~vl C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~PC RESOLUTION AND COA.dcc 1 Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 01-0601 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010. E and Section 17.05.010. F of the Temecula Municipal Code: Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E) A. The proposed minor conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed minor conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. Goal 1, Policy 1.4of the General Plan requires that the City of Temecula "Consider the impacts on the surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development." The project as proposed has incorporated various construction techniques to reduce the impacts of the proposed antennas such as installing metal poles, which will be clad with simulated bark, matching the existing wood poles. Considering the stealthing proposed, the project as conditioned, will also meet the general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance, which requires that the City "Protect the visual character of the City from potential adverse effects of telecommunication facility development and antenna installation by maintaining architectural and structural integrity and preventing unsightly facilities." The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. As conditioned, the telecommunication facility is designed so as to completely screen the antennas and associated equipment. The proposed antennas will rep/ace two existing wood poles and will be compatible with the nature, condition and development of the Temeku Hills Golf Course. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The proposed minor conditional use permit for a wireless communication facility will be located within an existing golf course and will not impact the site substantially since it replaces an existing structure and because there is adequate space for the equipment enclosure. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General plan and Development Code. Goal 1, Policy 1.4 of the General Plan requires that the City of Temecula "Consider the impacts on the surrounding land uses and infrastructure when reviewing proposals for new development." The operation and radiation levels of R:'~I C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility'~PC RESOLUTION AND COA, doc 2 antennas are regulated by the Federal communication Commission (FCC) and are not detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Compliance with the general plan and development code assures that this end result is achieved. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a who/e, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Development Plan (17.05.010F) 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 site development for the proposed unmanned wireless cellular antenna facility is in conformance with the City's General Plan, the Specific Plan and the Development Code. The project as proposed has incorporated vadous COnstruction techniques to reduce the impacts of the proposed antennas such as installing metal poles, which will be clad with simulated bark, matching the existing wood poles. Additionally the equipment enclosure proposed will be screened from the public fight of way and will be screened from the existing Golf Course Community by the use of matching stucco block walls and additional landscaping. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed site development for an unmanned wireless cellular antenna facility is in conformance with the City's General Plan, the Specific Plan and Development Code. Section3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0601 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and meets the following criteria: · The proposed project is consistent the General Plan policies, as well as the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. · The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. · The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) a request to design, construct and operate an unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of replacing two existing golf ball netting wood poles located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road in the Temeku Hills Golf Course, Planning Area 46 of the Margarita Specific Plan 199. R:~I C U P~001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~PC RESOLUTION AND COA,doc 3 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 2nd day of October 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. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meetJng thereof held on the 2nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\M C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun FacilJty~PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc 4 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA01-0601 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:~I C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc 5 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: PA01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit / Development Plan) Project Description: Planning Application to design, construct, and operate an unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of replacing two existing golf ball netting wood poles that with two metal poles, which will contain the antennas. Project Location: Located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road in the Temeku Hills Golf Course, Planning Area 46 of the Margarita Village Specific Plan '199. Development Impact Fee: Service Commercial ProJect Name: Cingular Wireless Assessor's Parcel No: 953-340-015 Approval Date: October 2, 2002 Development Plan Expiration Date: October 2, 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 1. 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 R:WI C U P~2001\01-0601 Terneku Hills Wireless Cornmun FacilJty~PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc 6 agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action, and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. The equipment enclosure proposed for this cellular site shall be constructed to match the materials and colors of the existing monument sign on the northeast corner of Margarita Road and Rancho California Road. The proposed metal poles, which ~ill house the cellular antenna, shall be constructed to match the existing wood poles that currently support the golf ball netting for the golf course. The poles shall be clad with a similar wood grain texture and height of the existing wood poles as per the sample submitted and on file with the Planning Department. The equi. pment enclosure shall be properly screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Minor Conditional Use Permit / Development Plan. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. Within two (2) years of development plan approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 8. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shows all existing landscaping and any proposed landscaping to insure that the equipment enclosure is properly screened from view. 10. A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant and shall be R:'~vl C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility'~PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc 7. submitted to the Planning Director prior to the approval of the building permit or other entitlement for use authorizing the establishment or modification of any telecommunications facility. The agreement shall be in accordance with section 17.40.210 of the ordinance and comply with all provisions set forth in this section. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 11. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 12. All access to the facility shall be from the Temeku Hills Golf Course site. By pla(~ing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:~vl C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc 8 A~-~ACHMENT NO. 3 LETTER FROM COMPASS TELECOM SERVICES TO PALOMAR VILLAGE R:'~M C U P~001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 5 · Complete items 1, 2, ano dJA~so complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we ~an tatum the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 3. ~ce 3ype '~1~ R~C~i ,~all F1 Express Mail [] Retur~ Receipt for Memhanc[~se ' -.- r-i Insum_d Mai n C.O.D. ~ ~? ~:i.~i;~:~:: 5; ~;~*L-'!:~:~; ~?J. :~ . 2. Article Number (Copy from service la~n --____ . LJ Yes : UNITED STATES/'~STAL SERVICE / First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Perm t No. G-lO · Sender: Please print your name, address, an~ Compass Te~.o~, Ser'~es 17870 S~arkC,rc~, S~ ~, ~ 92614 May 18, 2001 Palomar Village, Inc. PM Realty Advisors, Inc. 800 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: Mr. Carey Levy Re: Jiffy Lube, 30690 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA Dear Mr. Levy: The referenced tenant, Jiffy Lube ( Elias Najjar), has entered into an Agreement with Cingular Wireless, for the installation of a telecommunications facility at the above referenced property for the duration of his Lease term. 'In accordance with the Lease Agreement between Jiffy Lube and Palomar Village, your approval of this installation is herein requested. Please provide your approval by siguiag below and retaining the signed original ia the enclosed self-addressed envelope. In the event you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (949)475-8950, ]Ext. 111 or (949) 300-6598. Sincerely, COMPASS Telecom Services, Inc. Tom Johnson Site Acquisition Consultant An authorized representative of Cingular Wireless APPROVED BY: Palomar Village, Inc. Date: ,SEP-24-2002 06:19 COMPASS TELECOM 9494?58949 P.01×07 COMPASS Ph: 949-475-8950 Fax: g49-475-8949 FAX COMMlYNICATION ATTENTION: COMPANY: FAX NUMBER: FROM: DATE: ~. ~,.y'..o ~. NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Cover Page):.:. ~ ~c?: ~.~,..~ ~,..~.~, ... Tho Info~AaUon contained In Ih15 lransml.~loA Js con6~ered c~nfldenlfeI and proprietary. Thle InPo~matlon Is Intended P~ely let the use O~the 8ddro4808. ~ LS 2002 SEP-24-2002 06:19 COMPASS TELECOM 9494958949 P. 02/0? COMPASS NOTICE OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: TO: FROM: September 23, 2002 Delivered by: MAIL Rolfe Presiendendanz Project Planner City of Temecula Marc Myers COMPASS Telecom Services Appeal of Planning Director's Hearing Action (Planning Application No. 01-0601) THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE ENCLOSED: One (1) info package for subject Burger King property PURPOSE / COMMENTS: Parsuant to our last conversation, please accept the items 1/sted above. Do not hesitate to contact me directly, should you have any questions regarding these materials or the project in general. I can be reached at 949-475-8950 ext. I 18. Thank you, ~m Services COMPASS Telecom Services, 17870 Skypadc Circle, Suite 102, ttvlne, CA 92614 Phone; 949.475.8950 l~ax: 949.47.&8949 COMPASS TELECOM Switchboard. co? jld find your high school fri, Itslfs thethe Yel~wYel~w Pages~~~y:.~,Pages, ElectrffledJ i-State- ~.~ ~ Letter of City- ~' ~' Yello~LEagaa ~' JCodlN Search New Search ~.~a. cch bv Distancq ~earch bv Phone # Search Nalio~wl~t Search Canada Honla ~ Yellow Peae~ W Matchlrtg Results Found: 2 businesses (1-2 shown) You searched for:. "Restaurants" and "Burger King" - Temecula, CA Show businesses that start with: # A_B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z t All Businesses ModiN Search I New S( Burger King 30534 Rancho Callfomta Rd Temecula, CA 02591-3277 Phons: (909)693-0899 Categories: Restaurants M~I~ I Directions I WharsNearby? I Research Th s. B.u~~JD.l~.S Burger King 40520 W~nchester Rd Temecula, CA 92591-5522 phone; (909)296-2215 Categories: Restaurants M.M_~I~ I [~j~ctlonq [ Whale Nearby? I Research This Business Show businesses that start with: # A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Modify Search Street Address I Include surrounding areas Business Name .sea.._r~ ~p~ city State SEP-24-2002 06:2~ COMPRSS TELECOM 9494?58949 P.04×07 .~, Property Details 30534 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591-3277 Ownership Information Owner(s): S[le Address; Mail Address', 921-700..001 PALOMAR VILLAGE INC 30534 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591-3277 2235 FARADAY AVE #O CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7215 P~ertv Lest Ueda~.~; $/9/2002 I0:06:06 AM ,Q~nty Lest Up~[~.~ 91312002 4:12:48 PM ~ pmDerty Histo~/ Sales and Loan Information Recording Date: 0~11001t995 Lender Name; N/A Sale Pdce: $12,200,000 Title Company: N/A Sale Code: U - UNKNOWN Loan Amt Other:. NIA Document #: 000000030555 Seller: NIA Document Type; GRANT DEED Prior Sales Price: N/A Deecl Type: UNKNOWN Pdor Sales Date: N/A Loan Ami I St; N/A Prior Doc #: NIA Loan type: UNKNOWN Prior Doc Type: UNKNOWN Assessment and Tax Information Assessed Value; $447,780 Improved: NIA% Land Value; $447,780 Improved Value: $0 Owner Sxempl: NIA Tax Yeac 200t Tax Amount: $6,040 Tax A~a: 13039 Property Description Uae Code: C1 - RE3TAURANT BUILDING Zoning: RI NIA Legal: .81 ACRES NET IN PAR 1 PM 1801023 PM 23472 Map Grid: PAGE 050 GR!D B5 Old Map-Grid (CA only): PAGE-GRID: N/A County: RI Municipality: N/A Tract: N/A Subdivision Nome: NIA Lot; NIA Bathrooms; NIA Lot Size: 35~,83 House Style: UNKNOWN Acreage: 8.81 Yr Built I Effective Yr Built; NIA I NIA Garage: UNKNOWN Pool: NO Fireplaces: NO Flood Zone ID: 0807420005B Census Tract: 043204 Census Block: 5 SEP-24-200~ 06:50 COMPASS TELECOM g494?$Sg4g P.05/07 .~i~ Plat ~ .'~,. ~Maps 1 Assessom Parcel Map for bhe parcel numbe~' 921-700~101 was found 30534 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA ~12581-3277 Map 1 of I SEP-24-2002 06:20 COMPRSS TELECOM PAGE .Property Search Properties No. Parcel No 1) ~21-700_-0.0.1. 2) 921.700-002 3) 921-700-003 4) 921-700,.004 5) 7) 8) 921.700-011 9) 92t -70~032 t0) 921-700-013 11) 92J...?oo..o15 12) 13) ,~drsss 30534 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591 30580 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591 30602 RANCHO CAUFORNIA RD TEMECULA. CA 92591 30636 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591 30670 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA~ CA 92591 30550 RANCHO CAUFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92991 30530 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591 30520 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591 Vacant Land or NIA Vacant Land or NIA 30630 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591 4:2225 MARGARITA RD TEMECULA, CA 92592 4,2197 MARGARITA RD TEMECULA, CA 92691 PALOMAR VILLAGE lNG PALOMAR VILLAGE INC LEE TRUST PT BERNARD RARCHER INV INC PALOMAR VILLAGE INC PALOMAR VILLAGE INC PALOMAR VILLAGE INC PALOMAR VILLAGE INC RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST MWD PALOMAR VILLAGE INC PALOMAR VILLAGE INC PALOMAR VILLAGE INC SEP-24-2002 86:20 COMPASS TELECOM 9494?58949 P.07×07 eplat Map~ 1 Assessom Parcel Map for the parcel number 921-700-001 W~S found 30534 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD TEMECULA, CA 92591-3277 Map 1 of 1 i' I I I I I I I I.IJl-lJ~l - J:Jllllll Rave/View In TIF format J ATFACHMENT NO. 4 LETFER OF INTEREST FROM COMPASS TELECOM SERVICES R:U~I C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 6 · Complete items i, ~; and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Pdnt your name and address on the mveme so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Dr. F1 Agent [] Addressee Permit No. G-lO I · Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box ° Composs ~o. m 17870 S. l~y. parkOrcle' Suit;-~/2~ ¥ ~rv~ne, CA ~)2614 ]~l JuL ~ · July 6, 2001 C.B. Ellis 4365 Executive Dr., Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92121 Attn.: Dick Shope 2. Use: Re: Letter of Interest CINGULAR Site No.: SD-461-01 Jiffy Lube Dear Mr. Shope: Pursuant to our conversation, the radio engineers designing the Pacific Bell Wireless LLC. d.b.a. CINGULAR Wireless telecommunications network throughout the San Diego Region, have identified your property located at 30690 Rancho Callfomle Road, Temecula, California, as a potential location for an antenna site. I have included some photosimulations from other sites to show some of the designs that can be done on the property. This Letter of Interest is being submitted on behalf of Pacific Bell Wireless LLC. d.b.a. CINGULAR Wireless to enter into a long-farm lease for one of these antenna facilities under the following business points: 1. Premises: An-area-of approximately 300 SF (12' ]~ 25') to be depicted and described in Exh~it ~B' of the lease. Construction, maintenance and operation of a wireless telecom- munications facility (including suppOrting structures) for the transmission and reception of radio COmmunications signals. 3. Cooperation: As required for CINGULAR'S uss of the properly by governmental authc,-t;Jc=, arno-expense to Landowner. 4. Initial Term: Five (5) years commencing on the earlier of (a) when CINGULAR beginsconstructior~or (b)-two (2)-years after full execution of the lease. 5. Options: F'we(5~eptions of five (5) years each. 6. Rent: $9600.00 per year paid in twelve (12) equal monthly payments, beginning thin'y (30) days-after lease commencement to allow for CINGULAR'S construction; increasedby three percent (3%) per year. 7. Testing: Prior-to-leasecommencement, Landowner shall provide access allowing CINGULAR to conduct any necessa~j inspections, surveys and tests to deten'ninethe-ssil~bility of the property for CINGULAR'S use. 8. Access: 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. 9. Improvements: Constructed at CINGULAR'S expense. 10. Utilities: Installed at CINGULAR'S expense, located On or across the property as necessa~/to sense CINGULAR'S communications facility. If CINGULARis-unable to have electricity supplied directly from the utility company, Landowner agrees to supply it at CINGULAR'S expense; initially estimated to be $110.00 per month. 11. Title: A Memorandum of Lease is to be recorded. For ClNGULAR'S benefit, Non-Disturbance Agreements are to be obtained from present or future deed of trust holders. 12. Contingency:. The lease is contingent upon CINGULAR'S ability to use the Premises as a communications facility. Rent payments am contingent upon CINGLS. AR receiving a Substitute W-9 Form filled out by Landowner. 13. Signing Authority; Documents. will need to be supplied-by-Landowner showing that the signatory has authority to sign the lease on behalf of Landowner. Landowner and ClNGULAR acknowledge that this Letter of Interest does not address all the essential terms of the contemplated Communications Site Lease Agreement and that such essential terms will be subject to further negotiation. Until a fo~matagreement addressing all of the terms of the Lease at the above-referenced properly has been developed end fully executed by all parties, neither party sha#haveany legal obligation or liability to the other with respect to the matters set forth above. Attached is a questionnairc t~t. we-requestyou completeio-order to assist us with vital information necessary to prepare a lease agreement. In order to start the process of obtaining govemmantal approvals,, a-Leber~of-Authorization-will-needt¢~ be-signed to allOW ClNGULAR to submit for land use approval. Time is.of the essences, themforeptease~all-mewith a reply onmy PC~ telephone (949) 500- 6123 or, if the terms are acceptable, sign below and fax this letter to my attention at (949) 475- 8949. Sincerely, Anna Giebe COMPASS Telecom Services an-iodependent, contractor representing Cingular Wireless Acceptanna and acknowledgment The terms and conditions of this Letter of Interest are hereby accepted. "Landowner" Name: Title: Date: Phone: Full name of Lanclo~er: Landowner Information (e.g., ABC Corp., a California corporation; ABC Company, e Ca~fomle generat pe~tnetship; Bob SmJh, a single men; Bob Sm~h and Jane Sm~h, es joint tenants) PersOn(s) au~orized to sign lease: Name: T~le: Name: Title: 1. Is Landowner ownedor contmllcd by-another entity?. Yes / No 2. If no, proceed to the Official Notices section. If yes, what is the name and type of entity? 3. Do the person(s) identified above represent the entity identified in number 2, above? Yes i No · If n~, what is thename and type of entity? 5. If multiple entities are involve,, please attach the signature Page from a recent contract, or another - .document, showing the proper format for your signature(s). .- Official Notices: Address for Notices: Attn:' Rent Payments: Make Checks Payable To: Payee Add mss: Attn: TaxID~ or SSN: The party identified above will be 1099'd for income tax purposes. Additional Requirements: You may also be required-to.provideor complete; (~t~signing authority documentation (2) a Substitute W-9 Form at lease execution, and (3) a Statement of Information (if needed to ~.lear up any real estate title issues)~ ATTACHMENT NO. 5 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH JIFFY LUBE R:~M C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC,doc 7 Compass Telecom Services, L.L.C. ,, 17870 Skypark Circle · Suite 102 · Irvine, CA 92612 Ph: 949-475-8950 Fax: 949-475-8949 NOTICE OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: TO: FROM: RE: July 16, 2001 Dick Shope C.B. Ellis 4365 Executive Dr., Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92121 Anna Giebe Cingular Site # SD-461 DELIVERED BY: PICK-UP: OVERNIGHT: Dear Mr. Shope, Enclosed are the latest drawings for the proposed Cingular Site. I have ordered a photo simulation and will forward it to you as soon as it is complete. Should you have any other questions, please give me a call at 949-475-8950 Ext. 114 or my cellular at 949-500-6123. Thank you, Anna Giebe COMPASS Telecom Services an independent contractor for Cingular Wireless PERM1T APPLICATION AUTHORIZATION Date: Candidate #: SD-461 To: Whom It May Concern Re: Letter of Authorization Pacific Bell Wireless~ LI~, &b.a. Cingular Wireless - Co~,mmnications Facility owner/agent of the below-described property, do hereby appoint Cingular Vf~reless or its authorized agents, as an agent un:my behal~ for the sole purpose of consuai~ting any application necessary to insure their ab'dRy to use the property for which~ Cinggla~ Wireless is-~ neggtiafing a lease for the purpose of ¢onstruvi~ug a commullioatiolls facility. I understand that thig application and/or site plan may be .denied~ modified, or- approved with conditions and ,that such conditions or modifications must be complied with prior t6 issmmce of building permits. Progerty Address.'..306~0 Rancho California Rd. Temecula, CA Assessor's Parcel Number: 921-700-05 By:. Date: Name: Title: By:. · Date: Name: -. Title: By: D~te: Name: .. Title: [ACKNOWLEI~EMENTS-FOLLOW]. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ) ) On before me, . , personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me n the basis of satJ~'actory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is~are subscribed to the within'instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same ~n his/he~/the~r authorized capacltyOes), and that by his/her/their s~gnature(s) on .the. ir~rument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. V~ITNESS my hand and official seal Signature: / STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ) ) On I~ore me, ~ , personally appeared ,personaflyknown tome.(or.proved to me n the bas/s of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) who~e name(s) is/are subscripted to the within instrument and acknowledged t/~mp that h~h~tl~exe~llted.flle_.qgm~ ill hj~h_pr/tJ~e/r authorized capacity(les), and that by hls~/thelr s/gnature(s) on the instrument the person(s), o~ the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. V~TNESS my hand and official.se31. Signature: STATE OF CALII~ORNIA ) CO~rrv Or ) On ' before me, , personally appeared ~ personally known to me (or proved to me n the basis of sa~sfactory evidence)~to~be theperson(s)x*~mse name(s)J~are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his~her/the/r authorized capacJty(ies), and that by high, r/their_ s/gnatu~e(s~on_the Jnstrumen~ the pe~s~n(~): or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESSmy hand and official seal Signature: coM Ss Tel ~c~. ,~.~c~ ~-'~Hr: res FAX COMMUNICATION ATTENTION: Dick Shope COMPANY: C.B. Ellis FAX NUMBER: 858-646-4747 FROM: Anna Giebe 7-13-01 DATE: 'NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Cover Page): 4 SUBJECT: Cingular Site #SD-461-01 The information contained in th s b'ansm ss on s cons dared confident/al and prophetary. This information is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the agent or employee responsible for delivery of such documents to the intended recipient, please notiPj the sender at the number above. Hi.Dick, Here are the drawings. If they are tdo difficult to read, I will send you a larger copy. Thanks f~ Anna Giebe ' COMPASS Telecom Services an independent contractor for Cingular Wireless COMPASS Telecom Ser~-[ces, L.L.C, }h-op ~¢ ary & Cotffid~ndal .ii LU COMPASS Telecom Services · 17870 Skypark Circle · Suitel02 · Irvine, CA 92614 May 18, 2001 Palomar Village, Inc. PM Realty Advisors, Inc. 800 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300 Newport Behch, CA 92660 Attention: Mx. Carey Levy Re: Jiffy'Lube 30690 Rancho California Road, Temecula, CA Dear Mr. Levy: The referenced tenant, Jiffy Lube ( Elias Najjar), has eniered into an Agreement with Cingular Wireless, for the installati°n ora telecommunications facility at the ab6ve referenced proper/y for the duration of his Lease term. In accordance with the Lease Agreemant between Jiffy Lube and Palomar Vii/age, your approval of this installation is.herein requested. Please prov/de your appro/,al by sJ~ning below and returning the signed orighaal in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. In the event you.have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (949)475-8950, Ext. 111 or (949) .... 300-6598. Sincerely, COMPASS Telecom Services, Inc. Tom Johnson Site Acquisition Consultant An authorized relxesentative~/Cingular Wkeless APPROVED BY: Palomar Village, Inc. Date: PERMIT APPLICATION AUTHORIZATION Date: March 20, 2001 Candidate #: SB-119-02 To: Whom It May Concern Re: Letter of Authorization Pacific Bell Wireless, LLC, d.b.a. Cingular Wireless - Comm~-lications Facility I, .~"/,;~ A/a..rao-r' owner/agent of the below-described property, do hereby appoint Cingular Wireless or its authorized agents, as an agent on my behalf, for the sole ptapose of consummating any application necessary to insure their ability to use the property for which, Cingular Wireless is negotiating a lease for the purpose of constructing a commuu/cafions facility. I understand that tb/s application and/or site plan may be denied, modified or approved with conditions and that such conditions or modifications must be complied with prior tcx issuance of building permits. · Property Address: Assessor's P, arcel Number: q~-I - ,o~-o~- By: Date: Nme: Title: By: Date: Name: Title: [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOLLOW] STATE OF CALEFORNIA COUNTY OF On before me, , personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me n the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. - WITNESS my hand and official seal~ Signature: SXAT CAO ORmA ) couyrY OF ) On before me, , personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me n the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in Ms/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed th~ instrtiment. WITNESS my hand and official seat. Signature: STATE OF CALUFORNIA COUNTY OF ) ) 011 before me, · personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me n the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me,hat he/she/they executed the same in hie/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: County of On f~'~'~" ~/ - before me, , personally appeared ~- [~ersonally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the oath/affirmation of who is personally known to me, to be the person whose name is sub. scribed to the within instrument, as a witness thereto, who, being by me duly sworn, deposes and says that he/she W~S present and saw 'the same person described in and whose name is subscribed to the within and annexed instrument in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), as a party thereto, execute the same, and that said affiant subscribed his/her name- to the within instrument as a witness at the request of Witness my hand and official seal. IsEAI~ ATTENTION NOTARY The information requested below and in the colum~ to the right is OPTIONAL. Recording of this document is also OPTIONAL and is not required by law. The collection of this information could, however, prevent fraudulent attachment document. of this certificate to any unauthorized Ties cr=mn~CA'mMus*r Title or Type of Documen ~c~- . ~,) oocua~n' e~SCRaE0 Number of Pages - / .. Date of Documeht AT RIGHT: ~(.~t Other.3'.han Named Above .... CAPACITY CLAIMED aY S)GNER(S) [] IN01VIOUAL($t [-~ CORPORATE OFFICERI$) [] PARTNER(S} {~ LIMITED [] GENERAL [] ATTORNEY IN FACT [] TRUSTEEIS) [] GUARD~ANICONSERVATOR [] OTHER ~1994 WOLCOTTS FORMS. INC, ATFACHMENT NO. 6 LETTER FROM COMPASS TELECOM SERVICES TO UNITED STATES POST OFFICE R:~VI C U P~001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facillty\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 8 · ~.-I~ceived by (Please ~'~Cle~iy) LB. Dat%ef gel~e,i~ : . . . , Complete items l, 2, and3. Also complete [. ~'~---~L-"~4~'~'~//07/0/' ' ' : item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ,.~ ~_ · ' so that we can return the card to you. '~_ .~ ~ [] Agent · :.~ ' · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ~..~.~ -..._...-- [] Addressee [ : ..i";~,:::.~'. i .... :. : ;.... ~: ~:. ~\., &~ O\ :~ ' · . ~_~,. ............ ...;. .... ;; .~.:, ~ ~.~OY"I i' · '!!!iii'":.:::;: :..'. ;i:.::": ':".': ~.:i( :. ~mn P,~ c~\~~ ~. ~,,co,~o [] Inl~ured aall [] C.O.D.: ':" ',::::?, .?...;: .:;,:::.~i::-:?: .:~ :;.:~:,:: ,:', ' ~:::.,:;~,.:, ~i~:::~:':'~::F~:.x':';~::;':;::.':.: .':" :~:. '~ ':: ~'.~) ;:' :' ~:; :: .:. -' ::.: .:' '..: ':';" : :'}:':;:." · :;:," :~:'~;;7~: ::~¢ r}.~¢~.'{~:::':. '.':': , . . · ' ' ~ UNITED STATES POSTAL SERV~CE¢,=.~ i~.~ First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid , , .. .: ' Sender: Please pnnt your name, address, an o~ Yahoo!. ~llow Pages -- Page 1 of t Yahoo! - Yellow Pages - M~ - Address Book - HE Y! Domains: Just 35 bucks! Click for Details Welcome, Guest User Temecula, CA Top > Community > Post Offices All Businesses Business Name US Post Office Address 30777 Rancho california Consumer I Busines Create My Favorite Locations - Sign I Chan,qe Location Showing 1 - 1 of I City Temeeula, CA Previous I Beyond Temecu Phone (800) 2754777 9oq3 Previous Matches Beyond Temecula Search by Name or Category (e.g. Hilton, Hotel or Hilton Hotel) I Business Information prodded by InfoUSA.com ®, Foster City, Califomia, Copyright © 2001. All Rights Reserved. Use Subject to License. Copyfight © 2001 Yahool Inc. All fights reserved. Held - Pdvacv Policy- Terms of Service .../ypResults.py?stp=y&stx=8104728&city=Temecula&state=CA&country=us&slt=33.493599&sI9/6/01 August 31,2001 COMPASS Telecom Services · 17870 Skypark Circle · Suite102 · lrvine CA 92614 United States Post Office 30777 Rancho California Rd. Temecula, CA 92591 Attn.: Belinda Olson Re: Letter of Interest CINGULAR Site No.: SD-461 Dear Ms. Olson: Radio engineers designing the Pacific Bell Wireless LLC. d.b.a. CINGULAR Wireless. telecommunications network throughout the LoS Angeles Region, have identified your property located at 30777 Rancho California Rd, Temecula, California, as a potential location for an antenna site. Cingular is proposing to replace the flagpole in front of the post office with one in which the antennas are inside the pole.(see enclosed photo) This Letter of Interest is being submitted On behalf of Pacific Bell Wireless LLC. d.b.a. CINGULAR Wireless to enter into a long-term lease for one of these antenna facilities under the following business points: 1. Premises: 2. Use: 3. Cooperation: 4. Initial Term: 5. Options: 6. Rent: 7. Testing: 8. Access: 9. Improvements: 'An area of approximately [300 SF (12' x 25') to be depicted and descdbe~l~ in E~hibit "B" of the lease. Construction, maintenance and operation of a wireless telecom- munications facility (including supporting structures) for the transmission and reception of radio communications signals. As required for CINGULAR, S use of the property by governmental authorities, at no expense to Landowner. Five (5) years commencing on the earlier of (a) when CINGULAR begins construction or (b) two (2) years after full execution of the lease. Five (5) options of five (5) years each. $12,000 per year paid in twelve (12) equal monthly payments, beginning thirty (30) days after lease commencement to allow for CINGULAR'S construction; increased, by three percent (3%) annually. Prior to lease commencement, Landowner shall provide access allowing CINGULAR to conduct any necessary inspections, surveys and tests to determine the suitability of the property for CINGULAR'S use. 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. Constructed at ClNGULAR'S expense. 10. Utilities: Installed at ClNGULAR'S expense, located on or across the property as necessary to serve CINGULAR'S communications facility. If CINGULAR is unable to have electricity supplied directly from the utility company, Landowner agrees to supply it at CINGULAR'S expense; initially estimated to be $110.00 per month. 11. Title: A Memorandum of Lease is to be recorded. For CINGULAR'S benefit, Non-Disturbance Agreements are to be obtained from present or future deed of trust holders. 12. Contingency: The lease'is contingent upon CINGULAR'S ability to use the Premises as a communications facility. Rent payments are contingent upon CINGULAR receiving a Substitute W-9 Form filled out by Landowner. 13. Signing Authority: Documents will need to be supplied by Landowner showing that the signatory has authority to sign the lease on behalf of Landowner. Landowner and ClNGULAR acknowledge that this Letter of Interest does not address all the essential terms of the contemplated Communications Site Lease Agreement and that such essential terms will be subject to further negotiation. Until a formal agreement addressing all of the terms of the Lease at the above-referenced propen'y has been developed and fully executed by all parties, neither party shall have any legal obligation or liability to the other with respect to the matters set forth above. Attached is a questionnaire that we request you complete in order to assist us with vital information necessary to prepare a lease agreement. In order to start the process of obtaining govemn3ental approvals, a Letter of Authorization will need to be signed to allow CINGULAR to submit for land use approval. ' Tir~e is of the essence, therefore please call me with a reply on my PCS telephone (949) 500- 6123 or, if the terms are acceptable, sign below and fax this letter to my attention at (949) 475- 8949. an independent contractor representing Cingular Wireless Acceptance and acknowledgment The terms and conditions of this Letter of Interest are hereby accepted. "Landowner" By: Name: Title: Date: Phone: Full name of Landowner: Type of entity: Landowner Information (e.g., ABC Corp., a California corporation; ABC Company, a Califomia general partnership; Bob Smith, a single man; Bob Smith and Jane Smith, as joint tenants) Person(s) authorized to sign lease: Name: Title: Name: Title: 1. Is Landowner owned or controlled by another entity? Yes / No 2. If no, proceed to the Official Notices section, if yes, what is the name and type of entity? 3. Do the person(s) identified above represent the entity identified in number 2, above? Yes / No 4. If no, what is the name and type Of entity? 5. If multiple entities are involved, please attach the signature page from a recent contract, or another - document, showing the proper format, for yeur signature(s). Official Notices: Address for Notices: Attn: Rent Payments: Make Checks Payable To: Payee Address: Attn: Tax ID# or SSN: The party identified above will be 1099'd for income tax purposes. Additional Requirements: You may also be required to provide or complete: (1) signing authority documentation, (2) a Substitute W-9 Form at lease execution, and (3) a Statement of Information (if needed to clear up any real estate title issues). -~ Page 1 of 1 NiteOwlPlus - Property DetaiB_ Property Details Vacant Land or N/A Ownership Information Parcel No: 954-020-007 Owner: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE CoOwner:. N/A Phone: N/A Site Address: Vacant Land or N/A Mail Address: 850 CHERRY FSC55t AVE N SAN BRUNO CA 94099 Sales and Loan Information f Transferred: N/A Document: NIA Last Trans w/o $: t 2/001t988 Last Document #: 0000363421 Sale Price: N/A Deed Type: N/A Loan Amt I St: N/A Loan Amt Other:. NIA Lender Name: NIA ~ Interest Rate Type: N/A Title Company N/A Assessment and Tax Information Assessed Value: N/A Improved: NIA Land Value: $0.00 Improved Value: $0.00 Tax Status as of Last Current Owner Exempt: N/A Yea~: Tax Amount: N/A Tax Area: 13039 Property Description Use Code: CY VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Map Grid: Page N/A Grid N/A Zoning: TMN/A Old Map-Grid:(CA County: RI onty) Page Grid 7.39 ACRES MIL IN POR PAR 10 PM 157J022 PM 21884 Room Count: N/A Legal: AMENDED Tract: 00000-00 Bathrooms: N/A Lot: 10 Bedrooms: N/A Square Feet: N/A $/SqFt: Lot Size: 32t,908 House Style: N/A Acreage: 7.39 Year Built: N/A No Of Units: NIA No Of Stories: N/A Garage: NIA Pool: N/A Cooling: N/A Heating: NIA Fireplaces: N/A View: N/A Census Tract: N/A Census Block: N/A New Search http://www.niteowlplus.com/content/profile/pDetails.asp?PROP=81157039 9/11/01 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 LETTER AND COST ESTIMATE FROM "A BRUSH WITH LIFE" R:'~I C U P~2001\01-0601 Terneku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 9 Eloise Lunde 714-565-0115 -- / k Faux Finishes td t/ Eloise Lunde ~./s~. faUx ~.fa. ntas¥ wall ~ '/~~ ~r~c~ w~ ~ ¢*)'E.S T' I~M, ATE For services described below * Any additions or changes may result in additional charges. * A 25% deposit is reque, sted on starting day. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 COMPANY PROFILE FOR SOLAR COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC. R:~Ji C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 10 Comp~nt~ ~Cl k,~s ~evelope~ Fr'oJucbs rxn,:] se*,vice.s '.:,:,h~J~ ,.:~ouv' ,;uccess ir', ,'ni~. ATrACHMENT NO. 9 MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 7~ 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING R:\M C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 11 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: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Cudey, 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. 2 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 7, 2002. Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update For July 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero 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 Inn1 for the design and construction of a 70-room four story hotel buildin~ 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, Project Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Continue to August 21, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero 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 Cinqular Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility consistinq of replacinq two existin.q wood pokes 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 Marqarita 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 PermilJDevelopment 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. 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 landscapin.~ from inside the golf course; advised that when this project was presented at the May 9'" Director's Headng 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 staffs recommendation for approval going into the Director's Headng, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that as the Headng 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 technology while minimizing the burden on the community. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Assistant City Attorney Cudey 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. The applicant provides a project overview Mr. Mare 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 wooden 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 appli~,ant 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 north 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 comer, or the Margarita Apartments site, Mr. Myers clar'~ied 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: · Questioned 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 Headng 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 compa, ny; · 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 metal 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 headng 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; · Cladfied 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 Guerdero, 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 with 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 applicanl could add to create a more stealth appearance; and concluded that it would be his recommendation that the applicant bring back additional 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 contract/agreement 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 concems of the adjacent residents, cladfied 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 Io 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 provisions 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 vadous 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 PIanninq 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 buildin.q located at the southwest comer 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 staff's 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) o.n 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 OIhasso 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 McBdde 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 Cudey 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-free 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 eresion 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 short 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 Planninq Application No. PA01-0383 (Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan). To desi.qn, construct and operate a thirty-five foot hiqh-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility desi.qned as a flaqpole and the installation of a one hundred forty four square foot equipment shelter located on the south side of Hi(~hwav 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 Application 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 Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Planninq Application No. PA01-0572 (Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan). To design, construct and operate a twenty-six foot hi(Ih, foudeen- foot wide unmanned wireless telecommunication facility housinq six antennas and associated equipment, located at 27215 Nicolas Road (Chaparral Hioh 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 ali 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 Guerdero, 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 this case was the monument sign. 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 Ao 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 Ao 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,(lular meetinq to be held on Wednesday, Auqust 2'1, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Director of Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 10 AUGUST 7, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT R:\M C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 12 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 7, 2002 Planning Application No. 01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit / Development Plan) 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 No. 01- 0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). 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 / 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. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT OWNER: Marc Meyers Cingular Wireless 6170 Cornerstone Court San Diego CA 92121 Temeku Hills Goff LLC 2727 Hoover Street National City CA 91950 R:Le, ppeal~01-0601 AppealLStaff Report.doc 1 PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: An Appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application PA01-0601 a proposal for a Cingular Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility consisting of replacing two existing wood poles with two identical metal poles (painted a wood grain finish to match existing 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. OS (Open Space/Recreation) SP-3 (Margarita Village Specific Plan) North: SP-3 (Margarita Village Specific Plan) South: SP-3 (Margarita Village Specific Plan) East: SP-3 (Margarita Village Specific Plan) West: CC (Community Commemial Golf Course North: Single family detached dwellings South: Post Office East: Single family detached dwellings West: Commercial Retail Shopping Center BACKGROUND: Minor Conditional Use Permit Application PA01-0601 was submitted to the Planning Department on November 30, 2001. The project was deemed incomplete on December 20, 2001, noting a number of deficiencies. On Mamh 12, 2002 the applicant responded by requesting that staff proceed to Director's Hearing with the application as submitted. Considering this request, staff scheduled the project for Director's Hearing on May 9, 2002. At the Director's Hearing on May 9, 2002 a number of homeowners attended voicing opposition to the project. The Planning Director continued the item to May 30, 2002 requesting a number of additional exhibits. On May 30, 2002 the Planning Director denied the application. On June 11,2002, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is an appeal of Director's Hearing decision to deny Planning Application PA01- 0601. Planning Application PA01-0601, denied by the Planning Director, is a proposal for a Cingular unmanned wireless telecommunication facility consisting of replacing two existing wood poles with two identical metal poles (painted a wood grain finish to match existing poles) and a 10' x 20' BTS equipment enclosure. The proposed metal poles will internally house the proposed 6 antennas. R:~,Appeal',01-0601 Appeal~Stafl Report.doc 2 ANALYSIS: At the Director's ~earing meeting on May 9, 2002 a number of homeowners, who resided in Temeku Hills spoke against the project. The main concerns raised by the homeowners were related to the incompatibility of the project with the Golf Course in terms of use and view impacts. The property owners emphasized that alternative sites should be considered that would be more compatible. Considering the concerns expressed by the homeowners and the purpose of the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance Chapter 17.40, adopted to: Protect and promote public health, safety and welfare of the citizen's of Temecula; and Protect the visual character of the City from the potential adverse effects of the telecommunication facility development and antenna installation by maintaining architectural and structural integrity and preventing unsightly facilities; the Hearing Officer continued the project to the May 30, 2002 Director's Hearing, requesting that the applicant provide the following additional information: A cross section detail, which shows how the homes closest to the proposed site will be impacted by this future development. A digital photo simulation, which shows the landscaping, proposed to screen the equipment enclosure. 3. A detailed landscape plan, which identifies the specific plant material being proposed. A sample of the material being proposed for the poles. The sample should identify the color and texture of the poles. Prior to the ensuing Director's Hearing on May 30, 2002 staff received a number of letters (attached) from various homeowners expressing opposition to the project. Again, the main concerns expressed by the homeowners related to the incompatibility of the proposed project with the Golf Course. At the May 30th Director's Hearing, three homeowners, who reside in Temeku Hills, spoke against the project raising the following concerns: 5. The proposed project does not belong in a master planned golf community. 6. The proposed project would impair premium lot views with an array of cell towers. Since a considerable amount of money was paid by the homeowner for view lots, the project would be a breach of contract between the homeowners and the developer, After closing the public hearing and discussing the application, the Hearing Officer denied Planning Application PA01-0601 for the following basic reasons: 8. The applicant did not provide sufficient justification for the location. The applicant did not thoroughly explore all alternative site possibilities as required by the City's Telecommunication Ordinance. 10. The Hearing Officer was not convinced that alternative "non-residential" sites were not possible. R:~Appeal~01-0601 AppeahStaff Report. doc 3 In denying the application, the following findings could not be made: Minor Conditional Use Permit {Chapter 17.04.010.E.1 ) The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general plan and the development code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has determined that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within the general plan and within the Development Code Chapter 17.4.110.A. Antenna Ordinance which states, No telecommunication facility or antenna that is readily visible from off-site shall be installed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication facilities or other public or quasi-public uses unless it blends with the su~ounding existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner so as to be effectively unnoticeable or technical evidence acceptable to the approval authority is submitted showing a clear need for this facility and the infeasibility of co-locating it on another antenna or establishing a multi-user site. The proposed minor conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the proposed antennas will replace two existing wood poles and will receive sufficient camouflaging, the cellular site is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of the Temeku Hills Golf Course in that the proposed use will encroach into a residential area and insufficient analysis has been given to alternative sites. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within Goal 3, Policy 3.3 of the General plan which requires that the City, ~Protect single -family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses." 1/~. The decision to deny application for a minor conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. This application has been brought before the Director of Planning at a Public Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the Director renders her/his decision. Development Plan {Chapter 17.05.010.F) 1 .~ The proposed use is not in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. R:'~Appea~01 -O601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 4 The project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within Goal 3, Policy 3.3 of the General plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect single -family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses.' Additionally, the development plan for the site is not consistent with the City's applicable sections of the Development Code (Chapter 17.40 Antenna Ordinance) in that the applicant has not shown, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that there is a c/ear need for this site and that it is infeasible to co-locate on another existing cellular site. (Chapter 17.40.010 General Requirements-Location and Facility Separation). The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall development of the site has not been designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare in that the homeowners within the Temeku Hills subdivision have expressed that the development of the unmanned cellular site is not consistent with the intent of a recreational facility in which they live and will deter from the quality of life expected from their investment in the community. APPEAL Subsequently, the applicant filed an Appeal (attached), listing the following issues, which the appellant alleges was wrongly determined: 1~'. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. 1/8~ The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses. The proposed project is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The decision to deny the application was not based or supported by substantial evidence. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the City's Telecommunication Ordinance. The proposed project is designed for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. Staff believes that although the applicant has provided reasons to overturn the Planning Director's decision to deny PA01-0601 they have offered no substantial evidence of justification. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny PA01-0601. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the appeal, staff recommends that the project be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to prepare the appropriate findings and resolutions. R:~Appeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 5 ATI'ACHMENTS: 1. PC Resolution-Blue Page 7 2. Exhibits-Blue Page 12 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan 3. Appeal Application-Blue Page 16 4. Appellants Cover Letter-Blue Page 17 5. Letters from Homeowners-Blue Page 18 6. Supplemental Information from the Appellant-Blue Page 19 7. Director's Hearing Staff Report May 30, 2002-Blue Page 20 8. Director's Hearing Minutes May 30, 2002-Blue Page 21 R:~Appeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2002- R:',Appeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 7 PC 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. 01-0601 - A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / 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. WHEREAS, Compass Telecom Services, filed Planning Application No. 01-0601, in accordance with the City of Temecuia General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0601 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and WHEREAS, the application was processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director held a duly noticed public hearing on May 9, 2002 and May 30, 2002, to consider the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director considered Planning Application No. 01-0601 on May 9, 2002 and May 30, 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; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Director's Hearing and after due consideration of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Director denied Planning Application No. 01- 0601; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application PA01-0601 was properly filed by Compass Telecom Services on June 11,2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal, staff report, Planning Director Minutes, and the complete public record at a duly noticed public hearing on August 7, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Planning Director's findings were consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all other applicable state and local laws; and WHEREAS, the appeal application failed to adequately present a "fair argument" and lacked sufficient evidence to overturn the Planning Director's decision; R:~Appeat~01-0601 AppeaEStaff Report.doc 8 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in denying the appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application No. 01-0601 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.010 and Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: Minor Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 17.04.010.E.1) A. The proposed conditional use is not consistent with the general plan and the development code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has determined that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within the general plan and within the Development Code Chapter 17.4.110.A. Antenna Ordinance which states, No telecommunication facility or antenna that is readily visible from off-site shall be installed on a site that is not already developed with telecommunication facilities or other public or quasi-public uses unless it blends with the surrounding existing natural and man-made environment in such a manner so as to be effectively unnoticeable or technical evidence acceptable to the approval authority is submitted showing a clear need for this facility and the infeasibility of ce-locating it on another antenna or establishing a multi-user site. B. The proposed minor conditional use is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. Although the proposed antennas will replace two existing wood poles and will receive sufficient camouflaging, the cellular site is not compatible with the nature, condition and development of the Temeku Hills Golf Course in that the proposed use will encroach into a residential area and insufficient analysis has been given to alternative sites. C. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project has been determined to be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within Goal 3, Policy 3.3 of the General plan which requires that the City, "Protect single -family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses." D. The decision to deny application for a minor conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. R:~,ppeal',O1-0601 Appea[~Staff Report.doc 9 This application has been brought before the Director of Planning at a Public Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the Director renders her/his decision. Development Plan {Chapter 17.05.010.F) E. The proposed use is not in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The project is not consistent with the goals and policies contained within Goal 3, Policy 3.3 of the General plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect single -family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses." Additional/y, the development plan for the site is not consistent with the City's applicable sections of the Development Code (Chapter 17.40 Antenna Ordinance) in that the applicant has not shown, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that there is a c/ear need for this site and that it is infeasible to co-locate on another existing cellular site. (Chapter 17.40.010 General Requirements-Location and Facility Separation). F. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall development of the site has not been designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare in that the homeowners within the Temeku Hills subdivision have expressed that the development of the unmanned cellular site is not consistent with the intent of a recreational facility in which they live and will deter from the quality of life expected from their investment in the community. Section3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0601 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15270 {Projects Which Are Disapproved). This section applies when a public agency rejects or disapproves the proposed project Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7th day of August 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} R:~Appeal~01-0601 Appea[~Staff Report.doc 10 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 7th day of August, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:',AppeaE01-0601 Appeal\Staff Report.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:~Appeal't01-0601 Appeal,Staff Report.doc 12 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 7, 2002 R:~Appeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.dcc 13 CITY OFTEMECULA ect Site EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION -Mar~larita Village Specific Plan ZONING Project Site EXHIBIT C GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION -OS O en S ace Recreation PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 7, 2002 R:V~ppeal~01-0601 Appeal~Stafl Report.doc 14 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan) EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 7, 2002 R:Wppeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 15 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 APPEAL APPLICATION R:~Appeal~01~601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 16 City of Temec )a " Community Development Department 43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula * CA * 92~90 P.O. Box 9033, Temecula * CA * 92.'589-9033 (909) 694-6400 ,, FAX (909) 694-6477 Appeal The pmlxX~ of the appeal procedure i~ to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or dissatisfied with an action taken by an administrative agency of thc City in thc administration or enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code. B. FILING REQUIREMENTS 1. Development Application. 2. Appeal Form. 3. Filing Fcc. C. NOTICE OF APPEAL - TIME LIMIT A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be acted upon unless filed within fifteen (15) calendar days af~ service of written notice of the dozision. D. Ncrnc~ oF ^PPnAL - com:n~rs (Specify Director of ?L~n~.~ or plannlnE Commisn'~ AND A~fioa Date) ReasOn or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must ~ubmit with this appeal each issue which the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement.and a copy of every of evidence. (Attach separate sheet of paper ff necessary). Desired action to be taken: ~ ~ ~' ~/~"~V ~/~""~' ~,.m~ ~(, ~ 7r~ IIn the event any Notice of Appeal applicant f~ils to answer any information set forth above, then the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of. the deficiencies. The appellant shah be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to refile the notice of appeal. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 APPELLANTS COVER LETTER R:~Appeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 17 COMPASS Telecom Sen, ices · 17870 Skypark Ciml¢* Suite 102 *In, ine, CA 92614 Ph: 949475-8950 * Fax: 949-475-8949 June 10, 2002 Debbie Ubnosk~ Director of Planning Community Development Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Appeal of Pl.a~ing Director's Hearing Action (Planning Application No. 01-0601) Dear Ms. Ubnoske, As authorized representatives of Cingular Wireless, Compass Telecom Services is requesting an appeal of a decision of the Planning Director (Director's representative). The appeal is regarding Planning Application No. 01-0601, a Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Development Plan for the installation of a wireless telecommunication facility on property located at41687 Temeku Drive, commonly known as the Temekn Hills Golf Course in the City of Temecula. Although the proposal is a "stealth" installation which will result in minimal, if any visual impact, and complies with all aspects of the City's Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), the Planning Director's (representative) at its meeting of May 30, 2002 denied the application. Denial of the request was arbitrary and capricious, and the findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The denial has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. We respectfully request the Planning Commission grant the appeal, overturn Planning Director's denial, and approve the Planning Application No. 01-0601. Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you require any additional information or have any questions regarding our proposal, please contact me directly at (949) 475-8950 extension 118. Sincerely, Regional Manager COMPASS Telecom Services Attachments ATrACHMENT NO. 5 LE'I-I'ERS FROM HOMEOWNERS R:~Appeal~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 18 PAGE 82 ~[annin$ Commission City of Tcmecula To The Honorable Members of the Plannin$ Commission: We are homeowners in Temeku Hills; Temecula. We were shocked to find out that there are plans in the works for some type of cellular tower or buildin$ to be erected adjacent to our ~olf course within the view of not only the ~3olfers but the many homeowners who live nearby. Apparently/this'will be a business venture as the owner of the Soft course will be paid for the use of his land where the tower will be erected. This is actually quite shameful as homeowners with any kind of decent view/and especially those with $olf course views/have paid considerable sums of money for the privile~3e of ownin!3 lots with desirable views. YVhile we do not Eve within viewin$ distance of the proposed cower in Temeku Hills/who is to say that these types of structures will not crop uP'all over our community if you allow them to place these type of structures on !3olf courses.7 What does this say about our community of Temeeula? We must have'intelli~3ent suidelines in place so that our City does not become a haphazard array of towers and suuctures placed with little resard for property values and aesthetic value. Please reconsider the placement of cellular towers and structures on ~3olf courses within our city and also within neishborhoods. Prope~y value~ will most definitely suffer and we will find ourselves Evins ami~t ~st centu~ s~uctor~ that ~ll cho~ the beau~ fi~ht out of our [iv~ and our ~munlties. ~ere most certaln[y is a better a~wev. $ in.cere|y/ __ , "Susan McCabe 41781 Vardon Drive 05/29/2002 16:30 FAX 909 694 { CITY OF TEMECULA 05/29/2e02 15:3~ 909-~7~-0~44-90 - ~002 PAEE 02 'I IIECgLA PUBUC HF. AIilNn May16~2002 ]P. MECULA CITY PLANNERS HAVE SCHEDULED AFOLLOW UP HEARING ON MAY 30 2002 AT THE SAME TIME AND LOCATION OF THE MAY 9, 2002 HEAP, INO DESCRIBED ON ATTACHED NOTICE. ~ I~IR~T NOTICE Ol~ PUBLIC I-IEARI~G W~ NOT CLEA~ Aa TIlE TWO AI~]~bNNAPOLES WHRE TO BE LOC. Aim), Sl~ X PRO31~CT Sit ~,. AND NOTE TEI~ TWO POLES MqD A 10 FOOT BY 20 STRUCTUP, B TO HOUSE TI~ EQUIPMENT WILL BE LOCKiI~O ON GOLF COURSE PROPERLY RIGHT BtR-IIND TIIE 52'1t WBHAVIiALLPAID ALARGB LOT PRILMII.)M TO EI'qlOY 'IH~GOLF COURSB VIEW, DO NOT WANT OUR. VIEW SPOILED BY THIS INSTALLATION. PLI~b'E A'l-l't~!D THIS VERY IMPORTANT Iv~ETI~G AND PP..O~CT VALUE OFYOOR HOM~ BOTIt NOW ~O]~ TI-IE ~-LrrosE YOUR NEIGHBORS HAROLD ~ PA'h-Il Kit IP-,~ ~S COUKT olfe Preisendanz - Re: Plannin. appl. From: Donald Hazen To: Miller, William Date: 6/3/02 9:11AM Subject: Re: Planning appl. 01-0601 Sir, thank you for your correspondence on this application. The application was denied at the May 30th Director Hearing meeting. The applicant has indicated that they intend to file an appeal to the Planning Commission. Your name will be kept on record and you will be notified when that hearinq occurs. Thank you. >>> '~A/illiam Miller" <wmrmiller@earthlink.net> 05/27/02 11:41AM >>> i live on Links Ct, in direct view of the proposed cell phone relay site (ref. plan 01-0601) and I am opposed to this construction. I also want to suggest a nearby alternative site for this phone station. (1) I am opposed to this cell phone station because it is not appropriate to be built in our "master planned golf community". We bought homes here expecting it to be approved and zoned by the city of Temecula for homes, parks, greenbelts, and a golf course. We did not buy a home in a "master planned business park". I am opposed to this phone station no matter how well it is hidden. (2) There is a nearby site for this phone station that is already zoned by the city of Temecula for a "business park" and that is across the street next to the 'Jiffy Lube'. There is a walled equipment enclosure approximately 50' by 50' and 6' tall. The phone station could be added to this existing equipment enclosure. There is also another site across the street adjacent to the walled area behind the US post office. Thank you Bill & Rosemary Miller Homeowner, Temeku Hills 30743 Links Ct 676-4893 CC: Preisendanz, Rolfe ATFACHMENT NO.6 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLELLANT R:~Appea~01-0601 Appeal~Staff Report.doc 19 C95 COMPASS Telecom Services ,. 17870 Skypark Circle * Suite 102 ,, lrvine, CA 92614 Ph: 949-475-8950 · Fax: 949-475-8949 May 29, 2002 Rolfe Preisendendanz Project Planner City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Subject: Director's Hearing/Planning Application No. 01-0601 De~ Rol~, At staff's request we have researched the manufacturers process for painting poles used for telecommunication equipment. The pole manufacturer in this case is Danley Engineering. The following information regarding the process which poles are painted is as follows: · Typically the pole is hot dipped galvanized steel · Galv-Etch (GE-123) · White Primer (QD 43-7) · Enamel Gloss or Flat Finish Paint (various colors) · All paint is Dunn Edwards Paint and hand brushed on the pole surface The manufacturer representative was confident that the exterior surface of the pole could be painted in a manner consistent with the look of a common wooden "telephone" poles like the ones at the subject location. The correct surface preparation of the pole, followed by a hand- painted, brushed-on finish paint, together with the high quality paint product provides a long lasting finish with a look comparable to that of the existing poles. Should you require any additional information or have any questions regarding our proposal, please contact me at (949) 475-8950 ext. 118. Sincerely, COMPASS Telecom Services Temeku Hills HOA Page 1 of 2 Proposed Cell Phone Tower At the May 16th board meeting there was considerable discussion regarding the proposed construction of a cell phone relay site on golf course property. At least part of the discussion re~/olved around the location, size and tower configuration described by the builder at the May 9th public hearing. This intrepid web site reporter has obtained a copy of the builder's plans, visited the proposed site and ridden with members of the HOA board as they assessed the visual impact that the site would have on neighboring homes. Here are the facts as we found them: Benefits to be derived from the towers Cell phone reception is notoriously unpredictable along Rancho California, particularly near the Margarita intersection. Cingular has stated that construction of this relay tower will solve this problem. They should know. This will be a benefit to our whole community. While not exactly a community benefit land use rental fees will provide income to the golf course. Site configuration The location: The proposed relay station would be located on the golf course side of the wall at the corner of Rancho and Margarita that supports the Temeku Hills sign. This is behind the 5th green on the course. Configuration: There are two parts to the site: the antenna poles and the electronics enclosure. The proposal isto replace the two northerly wooden poles that support the netting behind the green with antenna poles of similar size and color. These metal poles will both support the netting and contain internal antennae. This writer expects that the top section of the poles will have to be plastic since antennae do not work inside sealed metal enclosures! Since this is a relay tower and not a receiver site there will not be arms protruding from the sides of the structure. These will be smooth poles painted to match the existing wooden poles. These poles should have no impact on the visual scene that exists now. The electronics that operate the site will be housed in four metal cabinets approximately 4 feet high With a footprint of 2 by 4 feet. They will be set on a 10 foot by 20 foot concrete slab standing 5 feet from the existing stucco wall behind the fifth green. The slab will extend from a point 8 feet north of the nodhernmost existing wooden pole to a point 12 feet south. The electronics boxes will be enclosed by an 8 foot high stucco wall at the perimeter of the slab. The electronics boxes themselves will not be visible from anywhere on the course. The wall will be painted to match the existing 10 foot wall and surrounded with shrubs to mask its appearance. The golf course has said that they will plant additional trees in the vicinity if it will improve the visual effect. Who can see the site? http://www.temckuhoa.org/private/news_arotmd.htm 5/20/02 Temeku Hills HOA Page 2 of 2 · ~-) location sincei', )structure actually exists at · T'nis question is a b t more sut,j..ctive than the size and this time. The site will be well shielded by the trees in the vicinity, particularly the large evergreen on the right side of the green. Certainly the golfers will see the site as they ddve behind the fifth green. It should not interfere with play because it is on the side of the cart path opposite the green. The two houses at the end of the cul de sac on Crystalaire that can see down the cart path between the fifth and the sixth tee will see the end of the enclosure covered by shrubs. We drove in a golf cart along the fence line behind the houses on Links Court and it appears that the existing trees will shield the enclosure from these yards. Certainly there will be more shrubs, trees and other greenery in that vicinity if the site is built. It is a difficult choice, improved cell phone reception or an enclosure in a corner of the golf course. Please feel free to post your views on this web site. (30 to Menu>Homeowner's Forum, register (again) for the bulletin board and click on Community Improvements. You can read others comments and post your own by clicking on ,~Post Reply' at the end of the messages. The next meeting of the planning board at which this proposal will be discussed will be held at the Temecula City Hall, Main Conference Room, 43200 Business Park Drive on May 30 at 1:30 pm. http://www.temekuhoa.org/private/news-around.htm 5/20/02 16" AcCELLeratorTM 1850 MHz- 1990 MHz Introduction Drawing from more than 30 years in the development of high reliability systems, EMS VVTreless has applied that knowledge and experience to the needs of commercial wireless communication service providers. COMPLETE 2 or 3 SECTOR COVERAGE IN '1 ENCLOSURE Each 16" AcCELLeratorTM series antenna contains two or three EMS I~reless DualPol® antennas, odented 180° or 120° apad inside a single aesthetically pleasing enclosure. FASTER ZONING APPROVAL Having no visible cables or individual antennas makes zoning approval a breeze! AcCELLeratorTM series antennas can be mounted on unobtrusive monopoles or existing structures such as roof tops, utility poles and billboards. LOWER INFRASTRUCTURE COST Fewer antenna,~ngan reduced windloads, lighter duty towers,no anteisna platform, lower lease costs from landlords and fast6r site insta#ation. AcCELLeratorTM series antennas can be installed in most roof top applications with no additional screening required. JUMPER CABLES INCLUDED Each AcCELLeratorTM sedes antenna comes ready to install with factory attached and weatherproofed, high quality. % inch diameter, flexible jumper cables. CUSTOM TAILORED FOR YO[JR APPLICATION Select any two or three EMS W~reless 48 to 66 inch PCS antennas and the sector where' you would like it installed. Mix and match beamwidths, electrical downtilts and polarization options to rg~eet your exact needs. R~~N~NG DETAIL 3 PLACE~ Mountinu Interface 6" Side View Note: Please direct any ques§ons regarding configuration and/or opEons to Technical Support at + 1 (770) 582-0555 Ex~ 5868. www.emswireless.com +'~ 770.582.0555 Fax +1 770.729.0036 16" AcCELLeratorTM echanical 8c~t~toSectorl~olatio~ ~ ~ Dim~nsons: Hoi~ht I Jum~ ~ ~nn~om ~? 6 DJ~femal? Rated ~nd Vel~ 100 mph (161~h) I ~ng Pint,on ' ~s~m~n~ _., Side ~nd Load ~100 mph 160lbs (710 N) ~ ~1 air ~i~l ~) Weight 130 lbs (59 ~) F~ al o~r el~l peff~s [nd~ng mdia~on Mounang Hat,are 4ea.~- 10 ~son 12in~ ~m da~~~du~antenna da~ sh~L ~ drde ~K-~ ~r l~nal Uoh~n~ pmt~m ~ indudin~ 24 in. ~r t*minal and 20 ~ :~ topper pigtail. ' L~X-X-X ~Hi~er H~sing 16 ~. O.D. x 24 i~ ~ mni~ f~ ~si~ ~e I~ noi~ ~ mpl~. ~ ~su~~ ~ a~ ~ ~ 10 [ Moun,ng mast plus bm~e~ ~r wall a~menL Not*~d US Pa~ mmber 5J~. and~ms am mp~ ~ va~aaonsmay ~[ S~m~ons ~y ~e ~ut no~ due to ~nu~s p~ud enhanmmen~. Dbi~ palm I ~ i~il~l~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~1 u~at**. www.emswireless.com +1 770.582.0555 FaX+l 770.729.0036 ATrACHMENT NO. 11 PROPAGATION MAP R:~M C U P~2001\01-0~01 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 13 \ \, \ / , i i~ I / ATTACHMENT NO. 12 PHOTOGRAPHS R:\M C U P~001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc. 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 13 MINUTES FROM THE MAY 9 AND MAY 30, 2002 DIRECTOR'S HEARING R:\M C U P~001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc 15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING May 9, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Director of Planning was called to order on Thursday, May 9, 2002 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner, Don Hazen presiding. Also present was Minute Clerk, Lisa Kau. Senior Planner, Don Hazen called the meeting to order at 1:31 PM. Item No. 1: Planning Application No. PA01-0601 Application for a Cin,qular Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility consistin,q of replacing two existinq 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. Project Planner Rolfe Preisendanz presented the staff report. Senior Planner Don Hazen opened the public hearing at 1:35 PM. The applicant, Mr. Mark Myers, who represented Cingular Wireless, 17870 Sky Park Cimle Suite 102, Irvine, CA, agreed to the conditions of approval. Mrs. Patti Ritter, 30725 Links Court, Temecula, CA, questioned why the structure could not be built on Margarita Rd instead of inside the golf course, and is concerned that this will decrease her property value. Mrs. Virginia Merritt, 30753 Links Court, Temecula, CA, questioned why this project could not be located on an easement across Margarita Rd. Project Planner Rolfe Preisendanz informed her that the easement belongs to MWD, and they do not allow structures to be built there. Mrs. Janice Owen, 30801 Links Court, Temecula, CA, requested to see a picture of an actual pole that will replace the current poles, and was concerned that the homeowners would be able to see inside the structure since there was only a digital simulation from Margarita Rd. demonstrating the final layout. Mr. Myers assured the homeowners that they would not be able to see inside structure from their homes; however, he admitted that he has not been in the backyards of the homes to know for certain. In terms of alternative properties, Cingular Wireless has investigated other possible locations and they determined that this location is the best site as far as meeting city ordinances. Senior Planner Don Hazen closed the public hearing at 1-:57 PM. Senior Planner Don Hazen continued PA01-0601 to May 30, 2002, in order to assess the visual impact of the site from inside the golf course; to provide a sample of the pole with paint chip; a digital simulation from the homeowner's perspective in the worst case scenario (home closest to the facility); and a more detailed landscape plan to show adequate buffering of the wall. Mr. Myers consented to the continuance and additional information required. Senior Planner Don Hazen adjourned the meeting at 2:13 PM. Don ~~'~lanner R:'~DI RH EAR~MINUTES~002'~05-og-02 minutes.doc MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DIRECTOR OF PLANNING May 30, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Director of Planning was called to order on Thursday, May 30, 2002 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner, Don Hazen presiding. Also present was Minute Clerk, Lisa Kau. Senior Planner, Don Hazen called the meeting to order at 1:30 PM. Item No. 1: Plannin.q Application No. PA01-0601 Application for a Cinqular Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility consistin.q of replacinq two existin,q 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. Continued from the May 9, 2002, meetinq. Project Planner Rolfe Preisendanz presented the staff report, and recommended that this item be continued, because staff did not feel that the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated whether the paint on the new metal poles would match the current wood poles. Senior Planner Don Hazen opened the public hearing at 1:35 PM. The applicant, Mr. Mark Myers, who represented Cingular Wireless, 17870 Sky Park Circle Suite 102, Irvine, CA, described everything that was requested from him at the last meeting on May 9, 2002, which were a pole sample with paint chip, a digital simulation from the homeowner's perspective, and a more detailed landscape plan to show adequate buffering of the wall. In addition to what was required, Mr. Myers also included a grading plan, irrigation plan, and a letter from the pole manufacturer, which states how the pole would be made and painted, Mr. James Herman, represented McMillan Companies and Temeku Hill Golf Club, 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA, informed the residents that he extensively looked over this project, found this site to be the least offensive, and that they are trying to provide cellular service for the people. Mr. Herman admitted that they would make a profit on this, but that all of the money made will be put back into the golf course for beautification purposes. Cingular will have a lease with McMillan Companies for approximately 25 years with options if this project is approved. Mr. William Miller, 30743 Links Court, Temecula, CA, is opposed of this project, because he does not believe that it is an appropriate location since this site is a master planned golf community not a business and commercial area. Mr. Miller offered alternate locations for this project, which included the Palomar Village Shopping Center, behind the US Post Office, or several easements nearby that already have telephone poles on them. A picture was also brought, which showed a view from Mr. Miller's house, and he said that this project would be "like adding a pimple to a pretty face that cannot be covered up". Mr. Harold Ritter, 30725 Links Court, Temecula, CA, read a letter from Ms. Susan McKay, who is a fellow homeowner that could not attend the hearing. The letter stated that this project is shameful as homeowners with decent views paid considerable amounts of money for their views, and that the city should have intelligent guidelines so that it does not become an array of towers. R:'~DI RH EAR'~,41N UT E S~002~05-30-02 minutes.doc Mr. John Shablow, 30791 Links Court, Temecula, CA, paid a considerable amount of money for his view, and sees this addition as a breach of contract by changing what they paid for. The homeowners have discussed buying the golf course in the future, and they would be committed to agreements made before buying the site; however, the homeowner's association does not currently own the golf course. Mr. Shablow does not believe that this is the best location for this telecommunication site, and recommended that they choose another location. During the applicant's rebuttal, Mr. Myers assured the homeowners that even if they could see the site, the extent of visibility is negligible. In terms of alternative properties, Cingular Wireless has investigated other possible locations and they determined that this location is the best as far as where coverage is needed and what is available. This site has a landowner that is willing to work with them, the correct zoning, approval from the city, is constructible, and meets the coverage objectives. In order to find another location, they would need all of the items previously mentioned. Senior Planner Don Hazen closed the public hearing at 2:11 PM. Senior Planner Don Hazen denied PA01-0601 due to the lack of justification of the location, and believes that the applicant did not thoroughly explore all alternate site possibilities as is required by the City's Telecommunication Ordinance. This is the first instance of such facilities being sited within a master-planned residential community, and he is not convinced that alternative "non-residential" sites are not possible. Senior Planner Don Hazen informed the public of its appeal rights and adjourned the meeting at 2:17 PM. anner R:',,DIRH EA R~,fl N UTES',200Z, DS-30- 02 minutes.doc A'I-I'ACHMENT NO. 14 MAY 9, 2002 DIRECTOR'S HEARING STAFF REPORT R:\M C U P~001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility\Continuance Memo from Sept 18 PC.doc STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING May 9, 2002 Planning Application No. 0'1-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit I Development Plan) Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, Project Planner APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Marc Myers Compass Telecom Services 5465 Morehouse Drive Suite 265 San Diego CA 92121 PROPOSAL: An application for an unmanned telecommunications facility LOCATION: Located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road in the Temeku Hills Golf Course, Planning Area 46 of the Margarita Village Specific Plan 199. EXISTING ZONING: Margarita Village Specific Plan SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Margarita Village Specific Plan South: Margarita Village Specific Plan East: Margarita Village Specific Plan West: Community Commercial (CC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space / Recreation (OS) EXISTING LAND USE: Temeku Hills Golf Course SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Temeku Hills Subdivision South: Temecula Post Office East: Temeku Hills Subdivision West: Palomar Village Retail Center PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) for an unmanned telecommunication facility located at the Temeku Hills Golf Course. The application proposes to replace two existing wood poles that are being used to hold up golf ball netting with two new 35-foot high metal poles. The metal poles will contain six (6) antennas each. The antennas will be installed inside the poles and will not be visible from the outside. Additionally, the new metal poles will be the same height and diameter as the existing wood poles and will be painted a wood grain simulation to match the remaining wood poles. R:~M C U P~001~01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Staff Report AND COAs.doc 1 The applicant is also proposing a 10ft x 20 ft equipment enclosure for the base transceiver station. The proposed equipment enclosure will be installed at the base of the poles behind the existing monument sign along Margarita Road. The equipment enclosure is 8 feet high and will be even with or lower than the top of the existing monument wall. The equipment enclosure will be constructed to match the existing materials and colors of the monument sign and will not be visible from Margarita Road and Rancho California Road. ANALYSIS Staff supports this project in that it meets the requirements of the Antenna Ordinance, which encourages the co-location of telecommunication facilities on existing structures and provides sufficient stealthing and landscape screening. The proposal to replace the existing wood poles with identical metal poles will reduce the visual impacts of a developed intersection, as opposed to placing new artificial trees of questionable quality. Ultimately the new antennas propose no real · change to the site than already exists. The wireless antenna facility proposed will be installed approximately 200 feet north of the center- line of Rancho California Road and on the east side of Margarita Road in the Temeku Hills Golf Course. As required by the Antenna Ordinance the facility will not impede normal vehicular or pedestrian circulation, ingress to or egress from any building, structure, or parking area. Additionally, the applicant has provided the City with propagation maps (Exhibit B), which indicates the coverage of their existing cellular sites and the need for this particular site. The site was selected due to its strategic location and coverage. Currently, Cingular Wireless has adequate coverage in Temecula, however there are existing "holes" in this general location where Cingular customers have "dropped calls." An analysis (Exhibit C) has been attached which provides evidence as to why they are developing this new site instead of co-locating on an existing cellular site. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project qualifies under CEQA for a Categorical Exemption under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) Class 1. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. It is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality and recommends approval of PA01-0601 based on the Findings and the Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS COnditional Use Permit (Chapter 17.04.010.E.t) 1, The proposed conditional use is consistent With the general plan and the development code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has determined that the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the general plan and the development cede. R:~M C U P~2001~01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Staff Report AND COAs.doc 2 The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The proposed antennas will replace two existing wood poles and will be compatible with the nature, condition and development of the Temeku Hills Golf Course. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in this development code and required by the planning commission or council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. The proposed minor conditional use permit for a wireless communication facility will be located within an existing golf course and will not impact the site substantially since it rep/aces an existing structure and because there is adequate space for the equipment enclosure. The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General plan and Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are not detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Compliance with the general plan and development code assures that this end result is achieved. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a minor conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. This application has been brought before the Director of Planning at a Public Hearing where members of the public have had an opportunity to be heard on this matter before the Director renders her/his decision. Development Plan (Chapter 17.05.010.F) 1. 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 site development for an unmanned wireless cellular antenna facility is in conformance with the City's General Plan, the Specific Plan and Development Code. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The development plan for the site is consistent with the City's applicable sections of the Development Code (Chapter 17.40 Antenna Ordinance). Provisions have been made to minimize the visual impact of the project, and all phases of construction will be inspected to ensure compliance with the applicable building and fire codes. R:~M C U P~001~01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Cornmun Facility~Staff Report AND COAs.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA01-0601 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:'~I C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Staff Report AND COAs.doc 4 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: PA0t-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit / Development Plan) Project Description: Planning Application to design, construct, and operate an unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of replacing two existing golf ball netting wood poles that with two metal poles, which will contain the antennas. Project Location: Located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road in the Temeku Hills Golf Course, Planning Area 46 of the Margarita Village Specific Plan 199. Project Name: Cingular Wireless Assessor's Parcel No: 983-340-015 Approval Date: May 9, 2002 Development Plan Expiration Date: May 9, 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 roason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 R:~M C U P~2001~01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~taff Repod AND COAs.doc 5 (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. The equipment enclosure proposed for this cellular site shall be constructed to match the materials and colors of the existing monument sign on the northeast corner of Margarita Road and Rancho California Road. The proposed metal poles, which will house the cellular antenna, shall be constructed to match the existing wood poles that currently support the golf ball netting for the golf course. The poles shall be painted with a similar wood grain and texture shall be the same diameter and height of the existing wood poles. The equipment enclosure shall be properly screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Minor Conditional Use Permit / Development Plan. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. Within two (2) years of development plan approval, commencement of construction shall have occurred or the approval shall become null and void. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits The applicant shall submit a material and color sample board, which identifies the materials and colors used for the proposed unmanned cellular antenna site and screen enclosure. 10. ^ Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 11. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shows all existing landscaping and any proposed landscaping to insure that the equipment enclosure is properly screened from view. 12. A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant and shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the approval of the building permit or other entitlement for use authorizing the establishment or modification of any telecommunications facility. The agreement shall be in accordance with section 17.40.210 of the ordinance and comply with all provisions set forth in this section. R:~/I C U P~2001~)1-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Staff Report AND COAs.doc 6 TEMECULACOMMUNITYSERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements 13. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 14. All access to the facility shall be from the Temeku Hills Golf Course site. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:WI C U P~2001\01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facitity~Staff Report AND COAs.doc 7 EXHIBIT B PROPAGATION MAPS PA01-0601 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:~I C U P~001~01-0601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~Staff Report AND COAs.doc 8 EXHIBIT C JUSTIFICATION ANALYSIS PA01-0601 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:"~i C U P~2001~01~601 Temeku Hills Wireless Commun Facility~taff Report AND COAs.doc 9 Site Justification Cingular Wireless Temeku Hills Golf Course PA-01-0601 Project No. SD-461-03 By Pursuant to its license agreement, Cingular Wireless is in the process of improving and expanding its network throughout Riverside County, including areas within the City of Temecula to comply with its FCC license requirements. The purpose of the proposed site is for capacity off-loading from other Cingular Wireless sites in the vicinity and to fill-in a weak coverage area in this geographic region. Cingular Wireless seeks to establish the infrastructure necessary to offer high quality seamless wireless communication services coverage to residents and businesses of the City of Temecula. The proposed site will provkle in-building coverage to the retail commercial and residential areas near the intersection of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road. This site will provide coverage along Rancho California Road approximately between Moranga Road and Tee Drive and along Margarita Road between Cross Road and Del Rey Road. It is crucial for Cingular Wireless to have adequate coverage in this area in order to serve customers and remain in compliance with it FCC license obligations. The need for improved service is determined by market demand, capacity requirements for a sp?cific geographic area, and the need to provide continuous coverage from one site to another in a particular geographic region. Once the need for additional capacity or enhanced coverage in a particular area has been established, Cingular Wireless' Radio Frequency Engineers (RF) identify a target area (search ring) to locate a new facility which will meet the coverage objectives. Thc required site location and antenna height is determined by an engineering study of the coverage area. The study evaluates radio signal propagation over the desired coverage area based on topography, geographical features and possible signal attenuation due to seasonal changes in vegetation. It is desirable to have direct, clear line of sight from the array of antenna · panels to the required coverage area. The location and height of wireless facilities are based on technical requirements and, as such must be placed according to those requirements. This site is critical in establishing a seamless high quality network for providing wireless telecommunications services to the region. After comparison of other potential site locations in the surrounding area, the subject property offers the most desirable location in the interest of public convenience and welfare. The design, height and placement of the facility will allow the facility to serve the intended function without being unsightly or causing adverse impacts on surrounding properties or uses. The proposed use will provide a service which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood and the community. Since their introduction, wireless telecommunications systems have proven to be an invaluable communications tool in the event of emergencies (traffic accidents, fires, etc.) and natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, etc.) where normal land line communications are often disrupted, overlooked, or inaccessible during and after an event has occurred. This service and similar technology are utilized by numerous governmental and quasi-governmental agencies that provide emergency service. Wireless telecommunications systems including cellular telephones have also proven to be invaluable tools in business communications and everyday personal use. In this sense, wireless telecommunications system networks are desirable in the interest of public convenience, health, safety, and welfare, and thus are proper in relation to the development of the community. Addiiionally, unlike other land uses which can be spatially determined through the General Plan, or other land use plans, the location of wireless telecommunications facilities are based on technical requirements which include service area, geographical elevations, alignment with neighboring sites and customer demand components. Placement within the urban geography is dependent on these requirements. Accordingly, wireless telecommunication facilities have been located adjacent to and within all major land use categories including residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc, proving to be compatible in all locations. The proposed installation will not be detrimental to the character of development in the neighborhood since the facility is unmanned and does not require or include any water, waste treatment, or management of hazardous materials and does not generate noise, odor, smoke, or result in any other adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. The proposed facihty will allow business owners, residents, and commuters within the coverage area improved wireless access to the rapidly expanding . communications infrastructure by expanding the capability of the network to provide voice and data transmission services to meet the current market demand. Installation and operation of the proposed wireless telecommunication facility will not result in any adverse affect or changes to the existing character of the subject property, adjacent uses, or the local community. In addition, there is existing adequate access to the site to serve the proposed facility. Therefore, the location, size, design and operating characteristic of the proposed facility are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare of people or residents residing or working in the City. The City of Temecula's General Plan designates the site as "Open Space". The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation and Zoning of the subject property. The Zoning Code allows the installation and operation of wireless telecommunication facilities in the OS District through the approval of a Use Permit. Installation of the proposed wireless telecommunication facility is not in conflict with any provision of the General Plan because the overall goal of the General Plan, as implemented through the Zoning Ordinance, is to provide an arrangement of land uses, circulation, and land services Which will encourage and contribute to the health, safety, welfare and convenience of the people who live and work in this area. The proposed project will promote public health, safety, and welfare by providing wireless telecommunications services to the area. Wireless mobile phones are becoming a necessary emergency service devise and business tool, as well as being a convenience for personal and family use. Additionally, the proposed installation will not affect any element of the General Plan since the primary use of the subject property as a golf course recreation area will remain unchanged. 2 ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning October 2, 2002 Continuance of the Guidant Development Agreement (PA02-0217) The City of Temecula has been working with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc (ACS), a subsidiary of the Guidant Corporation, about a possible local expansion. Financial incentives were detailed in the Owner Participation Agreement approved by the City Council on February 12, 2002. Since that time, City Staff has been working with representatives of ACS on the physical development of their property. The various physical development issues are being addressed through a development agreement. However, because the Development Agreement details have not been finalized, Staff is requesting that this item be continued to the October 16, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. R:\D A\Guidant DA\Continuance Report PC2,doc ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 2, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0318 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS) Prepared by: David Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318)" BACKGROUND The Development Code was adopted by the City Council in 1995. Since its adoption, the Code has been periodically amended to improve its clarity and to modify various provisions as problems have been identified. This item was continued from the September 18th Planning Commissipn without having opened the public hearing due to the lateness of the hour. These proposed changes are intended to improve clarity, to provide additional direction, and to correct typographical errors. ANALYSIS This proposed Development Code amendment would do the following: · Set standards for modular structures; · Allow religious institutions in some commercial zones without a conditional use permit; · Make other minor adjustments and changes in the Development Code; and, · Relocate a number of general development standards currently located in the residential and commercial standards to a supplemental development standards chapter. Modular Structure Standards As the City continues to build out, staff is beginning to see a need to allow the use of modular structures as accessory buildings for religious institutions and for some industrial types of uses. In considering this concept, staff was concerned about the effect these structures may have on the surrounding community and the potential long-term aesthetic impacts. As a result, staff has evaluated the issue and come up with a program that would allow modular structures as accessory uses, provided they are not readily visible to the public. In staff's view, this accommodation does R:~DEVCODL%02-O318 Amendment',PC2 Staff Report.doc 1 nothing to reduce the visual quality of the community but allows local businesses some additional flexibility.in how they respond to their business needs. In the process of developing the modular standards, staff noted that it might be appropriate to allow non-profit community organizations and religious institutions to use modular buildings on a temporary basis. As a result, staff developed additional standards for this. The key component is that the temporary use of the modular buildings is limited to 5 years, and that a removal bond will be required to prevent the modular unit from becoming permanent. A copy of the proposed modular standards is contained in Attachment No. 3. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of any portion of the modular standard provisions, then staff is also recommending that Section 17.10, Supplemental Design Standards, be created. For clarity and ease of future use, staff is proposing that this new Chapter be compiled from the more general standards in the Residential and Commercial/Industrial Chapters. Section 1 of the draft Ordinance would create Section 17.10 and make the other necessary changes to ensure the internal consistency within the Development Code. The exception is that the household pets discussion from Section 17.06.050.N.3 will be relocated to Chapter 6.02 on the Municipal Code with the other related household pet provisions. A sample of what Chapter 17.10 would actually look like is found in Attachment No. 5. Reli,qious Institutions as Permitted Uses The Development Code currently allows religious institutions in all zones with a conditional use permit. Staff is proposing that in most commercial zones, churches should be allowed as permitted uses. Staff's rational is that, given the operating times for most chumhes, the possibility of land use and circulation conflicts are substantially reduced in commercial zones. As a result, the need for a conditional use permit may be unnecessary. In addition, many of the land use compatibility concerns with adjacent residential uses are also minimized with this proposal. Listed below is the proposed change to the Permitted Use Matrix for the commercial and industrial zones. The bolded items represent the changes. Religious institution, without a daycare or private Ischc°l Other Minor Chanqes Agriculture Standards and Pet Keeping The current ordinance provisions have combined agricultural uses (on otherwise vacant land) and pet keeping provisions. This combination has created a number of unintended consequences. The first is that the current Development Code is more stringent with pet keeping for 2 Y2 acre lots than on 7,200 square foot lots. In addition, City code enforcement officers often struggle with the current provisions because many types of animals are not listed. In an effort to make them more useable and logical, staff is proposing several changes, including redefining the keeping of pets as an accessory use to residences. This will create a single citywide household pet standard. A copy of these proposed changes, in underline/strikeout, is contained in Attachment No. 4. R:~3E'VCODE',02-0318 Amendment',PC2 Staff Report.doc 2 Incidental Rethil Sales to Industrial Uses The Development Code currently requires that these activities obtain a conditional use permit. From staff's perspective, this does not seem to be a reasonable requirement for ancillary sales, provided that the incidental sales are a small part of the business. As a result, staff is recommending that incidental retail to an industrial use be permitted as long as the floor area dedicated to the retail purposes is less than 25% of the entire business and the material are either manufactured or assembled on site. Incidental retail activities beyond 25% would not be permitted. Nonprofit and Community Organization Facilities Staff is proposing to clarify the permitted use matrix for the Public Institutional zone. At present it is not clear that these types of facilities are allowed. There is vague language these membership halls and similar nonprofit community uses are conditionally permitted within the Public Institutional zone. Amending this provision would clearly state that these type of use are conditionally permitted. Sign Programs The Development Code authorizes the Planning Commission or the Director at a hearing to approve sign programs. However, in reality, this approval authority has always been delegated to the Planning Director (staff-level review and approval). The purpose of this amendment is to modifythe Development Code to clarify that sign programs are administrative approvals, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. Typographic Changes Chapters 17.16 and 17.18 of the Development Code describe specific plans and village center plans as overlays. In reality, when these plans are adopted, they become discrete zones on the zoning map. As a result, the term overlay is confusing and staff is recommending that the word "overlay" be removed from the titles and text in each section. This will eliminate some confusion on how these provisions are to be implemented without changing any of the actual requirements. Obsolete and Unused Definitions Staff has recently completed its review of the definitions chapter in the Development Code (Chapter 17.34) and has determined that some of the definitions are not used in the Development Code or in needed in the day-to-day planning and code enforcement functions. As a result, staff is recommending that these unnecessary definitions be removed from the Development Code. The list of definitions are would be removed with this amendment are contained in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance (Attachment No. 2). Standards Relocations The majority of the proposed Development Code Amendment involves the relocating of use specific development standards to a supplemental standard chapter. Over the years, staff has observed that some of these supplemental standards are actually more generic and could apply to projects in both the residential and commercial or industrial zones. As a result, these more genedc standards will be relocated with the proposed modular structure standards. When needed, spelling and other typographic changes have been made to some of these previously existing code sections. These relocated sections are contained in Section 4 of the proposed ordinance. R:~DEVCODE~02*0318 Amendment'~PC2 Staff Report.doc 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed amendment represents a minor change to the Development Code. Staff has completed an Initial Environmental Study and has determined that no negative environmental impacts would occur. As a result, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. FINDINGS The proposed Development Code Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed Development Code Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Attachments: 2. 3. 4, 5, 6. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 8 Proposed Modular Structure Standards - Blue Page 9 Proposed Agriculture and Pet Standards - Blue Page 10 Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 11 Chapter 17.10 (sample view) - Blue Page 12 R:'~DEVCODE'~02-0318 AmendmentS, PC2 Staff Report.doc 4 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- R:~,DEVCODE~02-0318 AmendmenflPC2 Staff Report.doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318) WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the City's Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment on September 18, 2002, and October 2, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, an did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Approval. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula amending Title 6 and 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code, substantially in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed amendment represents a minor change to the Development Code. Staff has completed an Initial Environmental Study and has determined that no negative environmental impacts would occur. As a result, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 2°d day of October 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} R:'~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment~c)C2 Staff Report.doc 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2n" day of October 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~DEVCODE\02~)318 Amendment\PC2 Staff Report.doc 7 A'I-FACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE R:~DEVCOD~02-0318 Amendment~Pc2 Staff Repod.doc ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a z.oning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the city; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 18, 2002 and October 2, 2002, and recommended that the City Council approve the following amendments to the City Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on 2002 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map and the Temecula Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. read as follows: Modular Building Standards. Section 17.10.020.1 is hereby adopted to Modular Buildings and Structures. circumstances as described in this requirements: Modular buildings may be allowed in some Section if they comply with the following Accessory Structure. Modular buildings may be approved as accessory structures to a larger permanent building. The accessory buildings or structures shall be smaller in size than the main permanent building. Accessory structures can be allowed, subject to the approval of a development plan, for the following uses or activities: Religious Institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Industrial uses in the Business Park, Light Industrial, and Service Commercial zones. Temporary Facility and Construction Offices in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Temporary Structures. Modular buildings may be approved as a temporary structures for non-profit community organizations and religious institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. The temporary structure may be approved subject to the following requirements: The approval of a development plan or conditional use permit (as appropriate) for the permanent facilities. The site shall be fully landscaped in conformance with the approved landscape plan. c. The term of the temporary approval shall not exceed 5 years. A removal bond shall be provided to ensure the removal of the temporary structure. Building Design and Screening. All modular units shall comply with the following standards to soften the appearance of the structures. If the modular is not visible from a street or a public gathering place, the modular structure shall provide at least minimal design compatibility with the surrounding area. Examples of minimal design compatibility include the use of exterior trim elements, similar colors, and other features to soften-the modular appearance of the structure. Modular buildings that are potentially visible from the public street shall have architectural detailing similar to permanent structures. Examples include: accentuated entrances, pop-out features, windows, integrated with the minimal design compatibility components described above. Supplemental landscaping, to further screening the structure may also be required. All accessory modular units shall be screened from the public streets and gathering spaces in such as way as to be un-noticeable. This screening may include a combination of the following: permanent buildings or structures, screening walls, and landscaping. Not withstanding these requirements, all other landscape and site layout criteria required by the Development Code and Design Guidelines shall also apply to modular buildings." Section2. Supplemental Development Standards. Establish Chapter 17.10, Supplemental Development Standards and adopt Section 17.10.010 to read as follows:" "17.10.010 PURPOSE. The Purpose of this Chapter is to consolidate a variety of Municipal Code sections from Title 17 that provide supplemental development standards. Some of these standards will apply to development activities in residential, commercial or industrial zones. Other standards my apply to activities in multiple zoning districts." Section 3. Typographic and Minor Amendments To The City Municipal Code. The following clarifications to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are hereby adopted: A. Amend Chapter 17.16, by removing the word "overlay" from all titles, headings, sections, and subsections. B. Amend Section 17.18, by removing the word "overlay" from all titles, headings, sections, and subsections. C. Amend Section 17.06.050.D by adding subsection 8 to read as follows: "Animals Accessory to a Residential Use. The keeping of certain non-exotic or non-wild animals is considered accessory to a residential use. No more than four cats and dogs, over the age of four months, are allowed. Caged pets, including small amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles may be kept on the~ premises. This provision also includes the keeping of fish and up to two chickens. The keeping of household pets shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code." D. Amend Table 17.08.030 to replace the listing for "Retail support use (15 percent of the total development square footage in the BP and LI)" with the following: Retail support use to a non-commercial business P P (Limited to the sale of products manufactured or assembled on-site and occupying less that 25% of the floor area of the business) E. Amend Table 17,08.030 to replace the listing for "Religious institutions, without a daycare or private school" with the following: Religious institution, without a daycare or private PI P P C P C C Isch°° I / I I I I I I F. Amend Table 17.12.030 by adding the following line: ~,,,~: ~u.e.s~c[~!~O~S-e~. ~ ~,~, ~ ..... Bu~pc/In~tl~ub~npl~B!stri~;(Ell.. Membership clubs, organizations, lodges and similar C non-profit community uses I following: Amend Table 17.03.010 to replace the listing for Sign Programs with the ' .~ · ' ~,Adml~:' ~Planmng ,~ Rlann!ng -C~ty · S gn.rogramsI × I I I H. Amend 17.28.280.A.2 to read as follows: "Maximum area of each sign shall be 3 square feet." I. Amend Chapter 17.34 by changing the following the phrase "Overhang, vehicle" to "Vehicle Overhang." J. Amend Chapter 17.34 of the Temecula Municipal Code be deleting the definitions for the following: amusement park, animal kennel, billiard parlor family, camp public, circulation master plan, clinic, club, condominium, drive-in operation, drive-in theater, employees quarters, equipment rental yard or contractor yard, farm, food store, garage private, garage public, hospital general care, inhabited area, merger, minimum building pad, neighborhood center, land use plan, parcel map vesting, parcel map tentative, parking area private, plat, police power, public services offices or uses, public service use facility, restaurant walkup, retention basin, structural alterations, travel trailer, travel trailer park, truck stop, unique natural feature, and wing wall. K. Section 17.06.050.N is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.A is adopted to read as follows: "Agricultural Uses. 1. Permitted. Uses. The following agricultural uses are permitted by right in all zones, except the hillside residential and open space/conservation. Farms of orchards, trees, field crops, truck gardening, flowering gardening, and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture. Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, are allowed on properties one-half net acre or larger in size subject to the following requirements: Large animals (cattle, horses and mules). Two animals per half- acre plus one additional animal for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of twelve-months are not counted. ii. Small animals (burros, goats, pigs, ponies, and sheep). Two animals per half-acre plus three additional animals for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of six- months are not counted. iii. Poultry. Limited to 50 poultry per acre. The minimum lot size for keeping poultry is one half-acre. For lots smaller than one acre, only 12 poultry are allowed. Poultry under the age of three- months are not counted. All poultry must be confined. The keeping of roosters is prohibited. iv. Outdoor Aviary. For lots larger than one acre, limited to fifty birds per acre. For lots smaller than one acre, limited to 24 birds. Birds under the age of six-months are not counted. All birds must be confined. v. All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of seventy (70) feet from any adjacent residence, school, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the R:\DEVCODE~02*0318 Amend ment~Draft Ord Arrendment2.dcc 4 location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures. In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer or wild growth where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred (400) feet from any public streets or highways, any public school, park, property line to an a different ownership, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site. Conditional Use Permit Required. The following agricultural uses are permitted with a conditional use permit, except in the open space/conservation zone. Wholesale distributor and processor of nursery-plant stock. Retail nursery where incidental and contiguous to propagation of nursery stock and/or wholesale distributor. Outdoor storage and display are prohibited except for nursery-plant stock. b. Dog kennels, dog training schools, and small animal shelters. c. Dog or cat breeding establishments with more than four adult animals. The raising of chinchilla, nutria, hamsters, guinea pigs, cavy, rabbits, and similar small animals. e. Frog farms. f. Worm farms. The keeping of exotic or wild animals, including the keeping of exotic or wild animals as pets." Section 4. Additional Supplemental Standards. Relocate the following Municipal Code sections to Chapter 17.10 as described below. A. Section 17.08.050.G is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.B is adopted to read as follows: "Alcoholic Beverage Sales. All businesses or establishments offering the sale of alcoholic beverages, except for the incidental sale of beer and wine at a restaurant, shall require the appropriate license from the state of California and the city and be subject to a conditional use permit. Any automotive service station which proposes to sell beer and wine concurrently with motor vehicle fuel shall require a conditional use permit which permit shall be subject to the provisions of Business and Professions Code Section 23790 et seq. and shall require that: a. The decision shall be based on written findings. A denial of an application for a conditional use permit is subject to appeal to the city council in accordance with Section 17.03.090 of this code. The same procedure for noticing, and conducting the conditional use permit hearing that is utilized by the city for all other conditional use permits shall be used to provide for all parties to be present and to present evidence. The decision and findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the ultimate decision. The above businesses shall not be located within five hundred feet of any religious institution, school or public park. The license application shall be reviewed by the city's police services prior to city approval." B. Section 17.08.050.C is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.C is adopted to read as follows: "Arcades. Arcades shall be approved subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission. 1. Applications for an arcade shall include following: Three sets of typed gummed labels, listing the name and address of all businesses within a shopping center and all landowners within a three- hundred-foot radius of the shopping center or arcade. b= A description of the types of machines, a floor plan, and hours of operation. The planning commission may apply any condition deemed necessary. These conditions may address, but are not limited to, the following: a. Need for adult supervision; b. . Hours of operation; c. Inside and outside security measures; d. Noise attenuation; e. Bicycle facilities; and, f. Interior waiting areas." C. Section 17.08.050.S is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.D is adopted to read as follows: "Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards. 1. Landscape Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships or substantial alterations to existing automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships. Display areas: a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape island shall be required at the end of all display area lanes adjacent to the main entry drive lane. A one-foot strip, made of concrete or other materials acceptable to the Community Development Director, shall be located next to the curb immediately adjacent to the end display parking space. Said landscape islands shall have a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover shall have automatic irrigation. Street frontages. All podions of the property which have street frontage shall meet one of the following criteria: A minimum of twelve feet (12') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf; or ii. A minimum of twenty feet (20') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area, with display area allowed to encroach into eight feet (8') of the landscape area. (A) Display areas shall be paved with concrete, a maximum of twenty (20) feet in length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf. (B) The number of display areas allowed shall be calculated in the following manner: 3 display spaces per 100 linear feet of street frontage. Fractional spaces (0.5 and over) shall be rounded up. (c) No display area shall be located immediately adjacent to another display area. Landscaping shall be provided between display areas. Development adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. All portions of the property which abut an existing or proposed residential use shall have a minimum ten foot (10') wide landscape buffer. All other portions of the property which do not abut a street or existing or proposed residential uses shall have a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape buffer. All customer parking on the site shall be clearly identified, either through special paint (i.e. curb painting) or signage and shall be subject to the landscape requirements contained in Section 17.24.050H of the Development Code. Service bays shall not be visible from a public street and shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential uses. Inventory and vehicle-in-repair storage areas on the site shall be clearly identified and will not need to be internally landscaped. If they are located on the perimeter or adjacent to residential development or sensitive areas they shall be screened in the manner discussed above." D. Section 17.08.050.F is hereby, repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.E is adopted to read as follows: "Used Motor Vehicle Sales 0Nithout the sales of new motor vehicles). The minimum lot width Of any site supporting a used motor vehicle sales business shall be one hundred feet. 2. The minimum lot area shall be ten thousand square feet. Buffer walls and landscaping shall be as provided as required for the zoning district in which the use is located. A building containing not less than two hundred square feet shall be maintained on the lot supporting the business. The building shall be a permanent structure; modular or portable buildings, or mobile homes are not permitted." E. Section 17.06.050.Q is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.F is adopted to read as follows: "Bed and Breakfast Establishments (B&Bs). Bed and breakfast establishments shall be developed in the following manner: The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which it is located. · The use shall be incidental to the primary use of the residential structure to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. 3. Owner/lessee shall reside in the primary residence and operate the business. The exterior appearance of the structure shall have a residential/single-family character. 5. Service of meals shall be for registered guests only. 6. There shall be no separate/additional kitchens for the guests. 7. No guest shall stay more than fourteen consecutive days in any thirty-day period. 8. All B&Bs shall be subject to the city's hotel/motel room tax. 9. B&Bs shall meet all of the requirements of the city fire department and county health department. 10. The B&B shall be developed on a site that has a minimum lot size of sixty thousand square feet. 11. No receptions,' private parties or similar activities, for which a fee is paid shall be permitted." F. Section 17.08.050.D is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.G is adopted to read as follows: "Car Washes. A conditional use permit shall be required for all full-service or self-service car washes within the commercial districts. Car washes shall comply with the following criteria: 1. Such businesses shall be located at least two hundred feet from any residential district. 2. Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be screened from public view. 3. Regular monitoring of the facility by an attendant shall be provided during business hours to control noise, litter, and other nuisances. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to seven a.m. to ten p.m., unless otherwise specifically established as a Condition of approval. Automatic shut-off of water and electrical systems, except for security and fire protection, shall be provided during non-business hours." G. Section 17.08.050.B is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.H is adopted to read as follows: "Entertainment Establishments Providing Dancing, Music and Similar Activities. 1. Noise levels shall not exceed the standards set forth in the noise element of the general plan or the environmental performance standards of this development code (Section 17.08.070). 2. Dancing, music, and similar entedainment uses shall be limited to between the hours of six p.m. and two a.m. 3. The city may apply additional requirements or limitations depending on the location, surrounding uses and other considerations" H. Section 17.08.050.O is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.J is adopted to read as follows: "Outdoor Sales of Merchandise. All businesses shall be conducted complete within an enclosed building. The following outdoor sales and commercial activities may be permitted to operate outdoors, within their respective districts and subject to any required reviews and permits. The outdoor display of merchandise accessory to an on- site business is addressed in Subsection K Automobile, boat, trailer, camper, and motorcycle sales and rentals (subject to a conditional use permit); Building material, supplies and equipment rental and sales (subject to a conditional use permit); 3. Fruit and vegetable stands (required temporary use permit); 4. Horticultural nurseries (subject to a conditional use permit); 5. Gasoline pumps, oil racks and accessory items when located on pump islands; 6. Outdoor recreation uses; Parking lot and sidewalk sales (subject to temporary use permit and regulations set forth in this chapter); and Other activities and uses similar to those above as determined by the director of planning." I. Section 17.08.050.P is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.K is adopted to read as follows: "Outdoor Display of Merchandise Accessory to Current On-Site Business. Any outdoor display must be done in conjunction with the business being conducted within the building and shall comply with the following regulations: 1. The items being displayed shall be of the same type that are lawfully displayed · and sold inside the building onthe premises. The aggregate display area shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the linear frontage of the store front or ten linear feet, whichever is greater. 3. Items shall not project more than four feet from the store front. No item, or any portion thereof, shall be displayed on public property; provided, however, items may be displayed within the public right-of-way if an encroachment permit has first been procured from the city. Items shall be displayed only during the hours that the business conducted inside the building on the premises is open for business. No item shall be displayed in a manner that: causes a safety hazard; obstructs the entrance to any building; interferes with, or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicle traffic; is unsightly or creams any other condition that is detrimental to the appearance of the premises or any surrounding property; or in any other manner is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or causes a public nuisance." J. Section 17.08.050.E is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.L is adopted to read as follows: "Permanent Indoor Swap Meet Facilities. Indoor swap meets shall be established only in buildings containing five thousand square feet or more of gross floor area. City business licenses and state seller permits shall be obtained by every tenant operating a stall space. No more than one business license shall be granted per one hundred fifty square feet of building floor area. The minimum average square footage of a partitioned cubicle or stall space (booth) shali be one hundred fifty square feet, The minimum size for an individual stall shall be one hundred square feet, and no more than twenty-five stall spaces shall be permitted to contain one hundred square feet. No adult business, as defined in the Temecula Municipal Code shall be permitted. No loudspeakers or sound equipment which can be heard from exterior or semipublic areas shall be used on the premises. Each stall space shall be partitioned with padition walls at a height of not less than five feet, six inches. Scissor-type gating shall not be used to separate vendors or vending areas. All floor areas of indoor tenant spaces, shall be covered with a high-grade tile or carpeting. 9. Aisles shall have a minimum width of seven feet. 10. Security personnel shall be provided during hours of operation." K Section 17.06050.H is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.M is adopted to read as follows: "Senior Housing/Congregate Care Facilities/Affordable Housing. Senior housing, congregate care facilities, and affordable housing projects are permitted in the zoning districts identified below subject to the approval of a development plan. Affordable senior housing projects shall comply with the affordable housing provisions contained in Subsection 0.3. Senior housing shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: a. The maximum densities for senior housing projects are as follows: In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. In the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be twenty (20) units per acre. iii. In the LM, L-2, and L-1 residential zoning districts the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iv. In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. The net livable area for each dwelling unit shall not be less than four hundred (400) square feet for an efficiency unit, five hundred fifty (550) square feet for a one-bedroom unit, and seven hundred (700) square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Kitchenettes may be permitted, provided they are sized to meet the immediate needs of the occupants of the unit. Congregate care projects shall comply with all the provisions of, the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: The maximum densities for congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements so long as all the site development standards are met (i.e. required setbacks, parking, landscaping, open space, etc.) The handicapped units shall comply with the standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various incentives provided the project meets the requirements of Section 65915 of the California Government Code. Affordable housing projects will receive at least one incentive from Subsection 3.a and at least one concession from Subsection 3.b. The project incentives and concessions are as follows: Density Incentives. Affordable housing projects are entitled to receive an increase in the allowable density of at least 25% over the density target in each residential zoning district. The maximum densities for affordable housing projects are as follows: In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. In the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eighteen (18) units per acre. iii. In the LM residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iv, In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density bonus shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. b. Development Standard Concessions. Any of the following development standard concessions may be granted by the approval authority for the project, unless a finding is made that these concessions are not necessary to provide the affordable housing units being proposed: i. An increase in the amount of required lot coverage; ii. A modification to the setback or required yard provisions; iii. An increase in the maximum allowable building height; iv. A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking; A reduction in the amount of onsite landscaping, except that no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may not be approved unless the affordable housing is in a close and easily accessible proximity to a public park with recreational amenities; vi. A reduction in the minimum lot area; or, vii. Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional Office zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. The provisions of this Subsection also apply to all approved specific plans within the City of Temecula unless the specific plan contains specific standards for the type of housing being considered." L Section 17.08.050.R is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.N is adopted to read as follows: "Self-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Facilities. Development Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new self-storage or mini-warehouse facilities: The design of the facility shall be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of design, bulk and mass, materials and colors. Building exteriors shall not be corrugated metal or similar surface, but shall be of finished quality. Metal containers are prohibited. In commercial zoning districts the rear and side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. In industrial zoning districts no rear or side yard setbacks are required. The director of planning may increase the setbacks to a maximum of 25 feet when adjacent to an existing residential development project. The front yard setback shall maintain the setback for the underlying zoning classification. c. The maximum lot coverage shall be 65 percent. The development site shall provide a minimum of 10% landscaped open space for a project within commercial districts. In industrial districts, the total landscaping shall be equal to the required setback areas. No interior landscaping is required, but the setback areas shall be landscaped. e. A manager's residential unit may be provided, but is not required. Required parking spaces may not be rented as, or used for, vehicular storage. However, additional parking area may be provided for vehicles, boats, buses, trailers, etc., provided that the storage area is adequately screened from public view with enhanced landscaping, decorative wails, fences, or other methods as deemed appropriate by the director. 2. Performance and Use Regulations Any business activity, other than rental of storage units, including the on- site sale of merchandize or garage sales, and transfedstorage businesses which utilize vehicles as part of the business is prohibited. No servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment is permitted. Storage units shall not be used 'for the storage of flammable liquids, highly combustible or explosive materials, or hazardous chemicals. Truck or vehicle rental is prohibited without obtaining all necessary approvals subject to the Development Code Schedule of Permitted Uses." M. Section 17.08.050.M is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.O is adopted to read as follows: "Drive-Thru Facilities. Commercial uses including restaurants, financial institutions or other business providing drive-thru facilities shall be subject to the following requirements. 1. All drive-thru facilities shall require the approval of a conditional use permit. Pedestrian walkways should not intersect the drive-thru aisles. If pedestrian walkways do cross the drive aisles, they shall be clearly marked with paving or striping. Drive-thru aisle shall have a minimum width of eleven feet on the straight sections and twelve feet on curved portions. For fast food restaurants, the drive-thru aisles shall have a sufficient stacking area behind the menu board to accommodate six cars. The speakers shall be located so as to protect adjoining residential areas from excessive noise." N. Renumber the remaining subsection of Sections 17.06.050 and 17.08.050 and make the appropriate code section references to reflect the renumbered subsection numbering. O. Amend Footnote No. I to Table 17.06.030 to read as follows: "1. Affordable housing and congregate care facilities may exceed the stated densities pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.10.020.M." P. Add Footnote No. 6 to Table 17.06.030 to read as follows: "6. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17,10," Q. Amend Table 17.06.030 to include the reference to Footnote No. 6 to the following uses: Bed and breakfast establishments, Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly, and Agricultural/open space uses, Kennels and catteries, and the Noncommercial keeping of horses, cattle, sheep and goats. R. Replace Footnote No. I of Table 17.08.030 to read as follows: "6. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.102 S. 'Delete Footnote Nos. 4 and 6 from the end of Table 17.08.030 and replace the existing Footnote Nos. 4 and 6 with a Footnote No. 1. T. Amend Footnote No. 5, and renumber to become Footnote No. 4, of Table 17.08.030, to read as follows: "4. In addition to any applicable supplemental development standards listed in Chapter 17.10, senior housing residential projects in the CC, SC, HT, and PO zones shall use the development and performance standards for the High Density Residential zone. Senior housing residential projects in the NC zone shall use the development and performance standards for the Medium Density Residential zone and the applicable supplemental development standards in Chapter 17,10." U. Amend Table 17.08.030 by removing the existing footnote references to Footnote Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and add a reference to Footnote No. 1 for the following uses: Alcoholic beverage sales, Arcades (pinball and video games), Automobile dealers (new and used), Automobile service stations with or without an automated car wash, Automobile service stations selling beer and/or wine-with or without an automated car wash, Banks and financial institutions, Congregate care housing for the elderly, Restaurant drive-in/fast food, Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building." V. Add Footnote No. 2 to Table 17.12.030 to read as follows: "2. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10." W. Amend Table 17.12.030 to include the reference to Footnote No. 2 to the following uses: Congregate care housing, Congregate care living facility, Residential care facility for the elderly, and Residenfial-senior housing. Section 5. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 6. Environmental Compliance. The proposed amendment represents a labeling change to more accurately reflect how those sections of the Development Code operate when implemented. No additional development will result from this amendment and no changes to the environment will occur from the adoption of this Ordinance. As a result, the ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt from further review or analysis. Section 7. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 9. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was dully introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the .__th day of ,2002 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk ATrACHMENT NO. 3 PROPOSED MODULAR STRUCTURE STANDARDS R:~DEVCODE-~02-0318 Amendment\PC2 Staff Report.doc Modular Buildings and Structures. Modular buildings may be allowed in some circumstances as described in this Section if they comply with the following requirements: Accessory Structure. Modular buildings may be approved as accessory structures to a larger permanent building. The accessory buildings or structures shall be smaller in size than the main permanent building. Accessory structures can be allowed, subject to the approval of a development plan, for the following uses or activities: Religious Institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Industrial uses in the Business Park, Light Industrial, and Se~ice Commercial zones. Temporary Facility and Construction Offices in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Temporary Structures. Modular buildings may be approved as a temporary structures for religious institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. The temporary structure may be approved subject to the following requirements: The approval of a development plan or conditional use permit (as appropriate) for the permanent facilities. The site shall be fully landscaped in conformance with the approved landscape plan. c. The term of the temporary approval shall not exceed 5 years. A removal bond shall be provided to ensure the removal of the temporary structure. Building Design and Screening. All modular units shall comply with the following standards to soften the appearance of the structures. If the modular is not visible from a street or a public gathering place, the modular structure shall provide at least minimal design compatibility with the surrounding area. Examples of minimal design compatibility include the use of exterior trim elements, similar colors, and other features to soften the modular appearance of the structure. Modular buildings that are potentially visible from the public street shall have architectural detailing similar to permanent structures. Examples include: accentuated entrances, pop-out features, windows, integrated with the minimal design compatibility components described above. Supplemental landscaping, to further screening the structure may also be required. R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\Modular Building Standards2.doc All accessory modular units shall be screened from the public streets and gathering spaces in such as way as to be un-noticeable. This screening may include a combination of the following: permanent buildings or structures, screening walls, and landscaping. Not withstanding these requirements, all other landscape and site layout criteria required by the Development Code and Design Guidelines shall also apply to modular buildings. R:\DEVCODE\02-0318 Amendment\Modular Building Standards2.doc ATFACHMENT NO. 4 PROPOSED AGRICULTURE AND PET STANDARDS R:~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment~PC2 Staff Report.doc 10 AGRICULTURAL AND PET STANDARDS - REDLINE/STRIKEOUT CHANGES Subsections 17.06.050.N.1 & 2 are proposed to be modified and relocated to Section 17.10.020.A. Sp~..~..~ il... Regu!=tlcr, c. Agricultural Uses. Pdcr .... ~' "'" Permitted Uses. The following agricultural uses are permitted by right in all zones except the hillside residential and open space/conservation Farms of orchards, trees, field crops, truck gardening, flowering gardening, and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture. Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, subject to the following: Larqe Animals (cattle, and horses and mules)., ,, C .....~,,~ C~..~ ....................~.-- ~ .............. ,m~fl~-Two animals per ....... · .......... ...... .~ ,. ....... ~, ~..;~, ...... ~. ~.~4;+;......, .... per ~,1~_ acre plus one additional animal for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the aqe of twelve-months are not counted. ii. Small ' ..,....t. ,.,;,h ,~.~ ,., ,,~.~.~. ,.~ ....~,- .h..~,. ..,.,~ .;,~;~... ]lve~,~.,, ................. ,..~ ~ .... . ..... ~,. ~ ............ .... *he ...... ~ .... * Animals (burros, aoats. DiClS, ponies, and sheep). Two animals per half-acre plus three additional animals for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the aqe of six-months are not counted. iii. Poultry. Limited to 50 poultry per acre. The minimum lot size for keeping poultry is one half-acre. For lots smaller than one acre, only 12 poultry are allowed. Poultry under the aqe of three-months are not counted. All poultry must be confined. The keepinq of roosters is prohibited. .Outdoor Aviary. For lots larger than one acre, limited to fifty birds per acre. For lots smaller than one acre, limited to 24 birds. Birds under the aqe of six-months are not counted. All birds must bb confined. All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of seventy (70) feet from any adjacent residence, school, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosure c.iv In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer or wild growth, and further, where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred feet from any street, roads or highway, any public school, park, property boundary or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site. Conditional Use Permit Required. Wholesale distributor and processor of nursery-plant stock. Retail nursery where incidental and contiguous to propagation of nursery stock and/or wholesale distributor. Outdoor storage and display are prohibited except for nursery-plant stock. Dog kennels, dog training schools, and small animal shelters and doq breedinq establishments with outside runs. c. Doq or cat breedin~l establishments with more than four adult animals. The raising of chinchilla, nutria, hamsters, guinea pigs, cavy, rabbits, and similar small animals. e_. Frog farms. f_. Worm farms. The keeping of exotic or wild animals, including the keeping of exotic or wild animals as pets. Section 17.06.050.N.3 modified and relocated to Section 17.06.050.D.8 to C ........................................ ~ ............ 8. Animals Accessory to a Residential Use. The keeping of certain non-exotic or non-wild animals is considered accessory to a residential use. No more than four cats and dogs, over the aqe of four months, are allowed. Caged pets, including small amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles may be kept on the premises. This provision also includes the keepinq of fish and up to two chickens. The keeping of household pets shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A'rI'ACHMENT NO. 5 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:~DEVCODE~2-0318 Amendment~PC2 Staff Report.doc City of Temecula D P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Development Code Amendment: Modular Structure standards and other minor modifications. (Planning Application 02-0318) Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P,O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number David Hogan, Principal Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location City of Temecula, in Southwest Riverside County. Project Sponsor's Name and Address ' City of Temecula General Plan Designation Not applicable Zoning Not applicable Description of Project Adoption of a Development Code (Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code) Amendment to make the following changes: · Adoption of additional development standards for modular structures · Creation of Chapter 17.10 for supplemental development standards (most of this Chapter will consist of relocated sections not new standards) O · Allowing religious institutions in some commercial zones without a conditional use permit · Minor typographic changes and permitted use clarifications. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Citywide applicability Other public agencies whose approval None is required f {:\DEVCODEA02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ' The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Hazards Population and Housing Noise Geologic Problems Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance v' None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ,/ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE __ DECLARATION will be r~_~ared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. $~ r~ature -- "/~- Date Printed name For R:',DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment,initial Study.doc 2 .Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Potehtially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting In formafion Sources ~rnpact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? ~). Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potenfially Significant Unless Less Than Sign~ca~t Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ,/ businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? I Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ,/ elsewhere? :. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the v' construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? potentially POl~qti~l[~ Sig~J~c~ct Ufiless Less Than Sigr~l~ I~itig~§on Significant No Issues and Suppor[ n~ nfoq~,,ation Sources -I~[~e~t IncorporatedImpact Impact 3. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving~. i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ). Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? i Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the projectl and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Potenfiarly Poten fially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial ,/ dsks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Uhless Significant No Issues and Supporling Information Sources Impact . Mitigation Impact Impac~ Incerporated a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ,/ requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ,/ of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ,/ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or ./ amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area aS mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ,/ which would impede or redirect flood flows? I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? J. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? P, ADEVCODE\02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 4 j~ AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting In foamation Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ,/ b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ,/ c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient ,/ air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to, substantial pollutant cqncentrations? '/ ' e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 6. TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC. Wou dthe project: Potentially Potentially Sigt]ificant Dhless Less Than Si~riifi~a~t ~ [~gatipn Significant No D Issues andSu din Inforrn~ion; (~urces ' ~ ~ ~ Cause an increase in traffic which i~ su~sta~i~l ~ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion ,/ management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels ow a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features (e.g., sharp curves, dangerous intersections)? ,/ e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? ~:~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 5 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Un[ess Less Tha~ Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impac~ Incorporated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the ,/ California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and W dlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, ,/ or imj~ede the use of native wildlife nursery_~s? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protectin-~- biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ,/ ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially POtent[e! y Sigr~ificant udless Le~s Than Sign ftC-ant . Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Infom~atJon Sources ~lrnD~ct; Incorporated Impact Impac~ a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ,/ residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ,/ general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Arnendment\lnitial Study.doc 6 9~1; HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signi~cant No Issues and Supporting Info~mation Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or ,,- disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a signifiCant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous ,,' materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section.65962.5 and, as a result, ,/ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the ,,- project result in a safety hazard for people residing or I wor~ect area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adoPted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or. where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: Issues and S(J~rflng Information Sources Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive mundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? MJtigati0n Sign~Cant R:~EVCODI~02~)318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 7 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: ~tentialry Potentially cant Un ess Less Than Si~i~}fi~nt 'Mitigation SigniticahtNO Issues and Suppod~ng Information Sources. i{~ Incorporated ii,pact impact d. A substantia! temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ,/ without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ,/ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the ,/ project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have a substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant envirOnmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Ro~ntiaily Potentially signiticanr Unless Less Than Issues a~3d Suppartin~] information Sources Sigr[if~ca~t Mitigation Significant No a. Fire protection? ~rnpa~ Incorporated I,,,y,~l Impact ,/ b. Po ice protection? c Schools? d. Parks? e Other public facilities? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: :Pt 0t~[J~]~' $igdifl~a~t':[l~less Less Than 5igr~i~t Mifl{~atien Significant No Issues and Supporting nfonnati~.Seurco~ '!mpa~t lnc0~rate~t Impact Impacl a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ,/ b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which coul~l cause significant env ronmental effectsa c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ~)DE~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 8 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supportin,q Information Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or mayserve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected v~ demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ," g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? v~ 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Potenfiafiy Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppoding Information Sources Impact Inc0r~orated Impact Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ,/ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building ,~ within a state scenic highway? !_ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ~he site and its surrounding_s? ," · Create a new source of substantial light or glare which -- -- would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the v~ area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Pdtenfia[!y I~otenfially Signifi~ant,U~less [;ess Than Si{~t~cant Mit~gafion SJgri~cant No Issues and Suppo~n9 Information. Sources Irr~aqt IncorRorated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique, paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred , outside of formal cemeteries? R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 9 15. RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Potential!y Sigdifican~ U~less Less Than Si{~nt E4itJ~ati0n Si~nlficant No Issues andSupporling Info,ma on S~urces I~t* ' Inca~ated ~mpact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the ,/ facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect' on the ,,' environment? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially POtenfi~il y Significant Unless Less Than $1g~ir3cant Mitigation Signilicant No Issues:an~d Supportin,o nformafion Sources, mpact Inco~rated Impacl Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of ," restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, an~l the effects of probable future proiects? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ,/ either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other' CEQA process, one Or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Eadier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and slate whether such effects were addressed ~tion measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. R:\DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc 10 ,~,mments: The project in question is an amendment to the Development Code to add standards for Modular ~Jctures, to reorganize other supplemental development standards nto a s ngle chapter clarify the use 'm~scriptions for accessory commercial uses in ndustrial areas, and other minor modifications to the Code. These changes are consistent with the adopted General Plan, represent minor textual changes to the code, and do not have the potential to adversely impact the environment. F [:\DEVCODE'~02-0318 Amendment\Initial Study.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 6 SAMPLE OF PROPOSED CHAPTER 17.10 R:~DEVCODE~02-0318 Amendment\PC2 Staff ReporLdoc 12 SECTIONS: 17.10.010 · 17.10.020 CHAPTER 17.10 SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Purpose Supplemental Development Standards 17.10.010 PURPOSE. The Purpose of this Chapter is to consolidate a variety of Municipal Code sections from Title 17 that provide supplemental development standards. Some of these standards will apply to development activities in residential, commercial or industrial zones, some of these standards may apply to activities in multiple zoning districts. 17.10.020 SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Agricultural Uses. Permitted Uses. The following agricultural uses are permitted by right in all zones. Farms of orchards, trees, field crops, truck gardening, flowering gardening, and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture. Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, are allowed on properties one-half net acre or larger in size subject to the following requirements: Large animals (cattle, horses and mules). Two animals per half-acre plus one additional animal for each additional half- acre of lot area. Animals under the age of twelve-months are not counted. ii. Small animals (burros, goats, pigs, ponies, and sheep). Two animals per half-acre plus three additional animals for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of six- months are not counted. iii. Poultry. Limited to 50 birds per acrs. The minimum lot size for keeping poultry is one half-acre. For lots smaller than one acrs, only 12 birds are allowed. All poultry must be confined. The keeping of roo§ters is prohibited. iv. Aviary. Limited to fifty birds per acre. All birds must be confined. All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of seventy (70) feet from any adjacent residence, school, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures. In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose of cteaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer or wild growth where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred (400) feet from any public streets or highways, any public school, park, property line to an a different ownership, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site. Conditional Use Permit Required. The following agricultural uses are permitted with a conditional use permit. Wholesale distributor and processor of nursery-plant stock. Retail nursery where incidental and contiguous to propagation of nursery stock and/or wholesale distributor. Outdoor storage and display are prohibited except for nursery-plant stock. b. Dog kennels, dog training schools, and small animal shelters. c. Dog or cat breeding establishments with more than four animals. The raising of chinchilla, nutria, hamsters, guinea pigs, cavy, rabbits, and similar small animals. e. Frog farms. f. Worm farms. The keeping of exotic or wild animals, including the keeping of exotic or wild animals as pets. Alcoholic Beverage Sales. All businesses or establishments offering the sale of alcoholic beverages, except for the incidental sale of beer and wine at a restaurant, shall require the appropriate license from the state of California and the city and be subject to a conditional use permit. Any automotive service station which proposes to sell beer and wine concurrently with motor vehicle fuel shall require a conditional use permit which permit shall'be subject to the provisions of Business and Professions Code Section 23790 et seq. and shall require that: a. The decision shall be based on written findings. A denial of an application for a conditional use permit be subject to appeal to the city council in accordance with Section 17.03.090 of this code. The same procedure for noticing, and conducting the conditional use permit hearing that is utilized by the city for all other conditional use permits shall be used and provide for all parties to be present and to present evidence. The decision and findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the ultimate decision. The above businesses shall not be located within five hundred feet of any religious institution, school or public park. The license application shall be reviewed by the city's police services prior to city approval. Arcades. Arcades shall be approved subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission. 1. Applications for an arcade shall include following: Three sets of typed gummed labels, listing the name and address of all businesses within a shopping center and all landowners within a three-hundred-foot radius of the shopping center or arcade. A description of the types of machines, a floor plan, and hours of operation. The planning commission may apply any condition deemed necessary. These conditions may address, but are not limited to, the following: a. Need for adult supervision; b. Hours of operation; c. Inside and outside security measures; d. Noise attenuation; e. Bicycle facilities; and, f. Interior waiting areas. Automobile, Motorcycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards. Landscape Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships or substantial alterations to existing automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships. Display areas: a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape island shall be required at the end of all display area lanes adjacent to the main entry drive lane. A one-foot strip, made of concrete or other materials acceptable to the Community Development Director, shall be located next to the curb immediately adjacent to the end display parking space. Said landscape islands shall have a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover shall have automatic irrigation. Street frontages. All portions of the property which have street frontage shall meet one of the following criteria: A minimum of twelve feet (12') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf; or ii. A minimum of twenty feet (20') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area, with display area allowed to encroach into eight feet (8') of the landscape area. (A) Display areas shall be paved with concrete, a maximum of twenty (20) feet in length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf. (B) The number of display areas allowed shall be calculated in the following manner: 3 display spaces per 100 linear feet of street frontage. Fractional spaces (0.5 and over) shall be rounded up. (c) No display area shall be located immediately adjacent to another display area. Landscaping shall be provided between display areas. Development adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. All portions of the property which abut an existing or proposed residential use shall have a minimum ten foot (10') wide landscape buffer. All other portions of the property which do not abut a street or existing or proposed residential uses shall have a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape buffer. All customer parking on the site shall be clearly identified,' either through special paint (i.e. curb painting) or signage and shall be subject to the landscape requirements contained in Section 17.24.050H of the Development Code. Service bays shall not be visible from a public street and shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential uses. Inventory and vehicle-in-repair storage areas on the site shall be clearly identified and will not need to be internally landscaped. If they are located on the perimeter or adjacent to residential development or, sensitive areas they shall be screened in the manner discussed above. Used Motor Vehicle Sales. 0Nithout the sales of new motor vehicles.) The minimum lot width of any site supporting a used motor vehicle sales business shall be one hundred feet. 2. The minimum lot area shall be ten thousand square feet. Buffer walls and landscaping shall be as provided as required for the zoning district in which the use is located. A building containing not less than two hundred square feet shall be maintained on the lot supporting the business. The building shall be a permanent structure; modular or portable buildings or mobilehomes are not permitted. Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Bed and breakfast establishments shall be developed in the following manner: The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which it is located, The use shall be incidental to the primary use of the residential structure to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. 3. Owner/lessee shall reside in the primary residence and operate the business. The exterior appearance of the structure shall have a residential/single-family character. 5. Service of meals shall be for registered guests only. There shall be no separate/additional kitchens for the guests. No guest shall stay more than fourteen consecutive days in any thirty-day period. 8. All B&Bs shall be subject to the city's hotel/motel room tax. B&Bs shall meet all of the requirements of the city fire department and county health department. 10. The B&B shall be developed on a site that has a minimum lot size of sixty thousand square feet. 11. No receptions, private parties or similar activities, for which a fee is paid shall be permitted. k Car Washes. A conditional use permit shall be required for all full-service or self- service car washes within the commercial districts. Car washes shall comply with the following criteria: Such businesses shall be located at least two hundred feet from any residential district. 2. Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be screened from public view. Regular monitoring of the facility by an attendant shall be provided during business hours to control noise, litter, and other nuisances. Hours of operation shall be limited to seven a.m. to ten p.m., unless otherwise specifically established as a condition of approval. Automatic shut- off of water and electrical systems, except for security and fire protection, shaIl be provided during non-business hours. Entertainment Establishments Providing Dancing, Music and Similar Activities. Noise levels shall not exceed the standards set forth in the noise element of the General Plan or the environmental performance standards of this development code (Section 17.08.070). Dancing, music, and similar entertainment uses shall be limited to between the hours of six p.m. and two a.m. The city may apply additional requirements or limitations depending on the location, surrounding uses and other considerations. Modular Buildings and Structures. Modular buildings may be allowed in some circumstances as described in this Section if they comply with the following requirements: Accessory Structure. Modular buildings may be approved as accessory structures to a larger permanent building. The accessory buildings or structures shall be smaller in size than the main permanent building. Accessory structures can be allowed, subject to the approval of a development plan, for the following uses or activities: Religious Institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Industrial uses in the Business Park, Light Industrial, and Service Commercial zones. Temporary Facility and Construction Offices in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Temporary Structures. Modular buildings may be approved as a temporary structures for non-profit community organizations and religious institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. The temporary structure may be approved subject to the following requirements: The approval of a development plan or conditional use permit (as appropriate) for the permanent facilities. The site shall be fully landscaped in conformance with the approved landscape plan. c. The term of the temporary approval shall not exceed 5 years. A removal bond shall be provided to ensure the removal of the temporary structure. Building Design and Screening. All modular units shall comply with the following standards to soften the appearance of the structures. If the modular is not visible from a street or a public gathering place, the modular structure shall provide at least minimal design compatibility with the surrounding area. Examples of minimal design compatibility include the use of exterior trim elements, similar colors, and other features to soften the modular appearance of the structure. Modular buildings that are potentially visible from the public street shall have architectural detailing similar to permanent structures. Examples include: accentuated entrances, pop-out features, windows, integrated with the minimal design compatibility components described above. Supplemental landscaping, to further screening the structure may also be required. All accessory modular units shall be screened from the public streets and gathering spaces in such as way as to be un-noticeable. This screening may include a combination of the following: permanent buildings or structures, screening walls, and landscaping. Not withstanding these requirements, all other landscape and site layout criteria required by the Development Code and Design Guidelines shall also apply to modular buildings. Outdoor Sales of Merchandise. All businesses shall be conducted complete within an enclosed building. The following outdoor sales and commercial activities may be permitted to operate outdoors, within their respective districts and subject to any required reviews and permits. The outdoor display of merchandise accessory to an on-site business is addressed in Subsection K. Automobile, boat, trailer, camper, and motorcycle sales and rentals (subject to a conditional use permit); Building material, supplies and equipment rental and sales (subject to a conditional use permit); 3. Fruit and vegetable stands (required temporary use permit); 4. Horticultural nurseries (subject to a conditional use permit); Gasoline pumps, oil racks and accessory items when located on pump islands; 6. Outdoor recreation uses; 7 Parking lot and sidewalk sales (subject to temporary use permit and regulations set forth in this chapter); and Other activities and uses similar to those above as determined by the director of planning. Outdoor Display of Merchandise Accessory to Current On-Site Business. Any outdoor display must be done in conjunction with the business being conducted within the building and shall comply with the following regulations: The items being displayed shall be of the same type that are lawfully displayed and sold inside the building on the premises. The aggregate display area shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the linear frontage of the store front or ten linear feet, whichever is greater. 3. Items shall not project more than four feet from the store front. No item, or any portion thereof, shall be displayed on public property; provided, however, items may be displayed within the public right-of-way if an encroachment permit has first been procured from the city. Items shall be displayed only during the hours that the business conducted inside the building on the premises is open for business.' No item shall be displayed in a manner that: causes a safety hazard; obstructs the entrance to any building; interferes with, or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicle traffic; is unsightly or creams any other condition that is detrimental to the appearance of the premises or any surrounding properly; or in any other manner is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or causes a public nuisance. L. Permanent Indoor Swap Meet Facilities. Indoor swap meets shall be established only in buildings containing five thousand square feet or more of gross floor area. City business licenses and state seller permits shall be obtained by every tenant operating a stall space. No more than one business license shall be granted per one hundred fifty square feet of building floor area. The minimum average square footage of a partitioned cubicle or stall space (booth) shall be one hundred fifty square feet. The minimum size for an individual stall shall be one hundred square feet, and no more than twenty- five stall spaces shall be permitted to contain one hundred square feet. No adult business, as defined in the Temecula Municipal Code shall be permitted. No loudspeakers or sound equipment which can be heard from exterior or · semipublic areas shall be used on the premises. Each stall space shall be partitioned with partition walls at a height of not less than five feet, six inches. Scissor-type gating shall not be used to separate vendors or vending areas. All floor areas of indoor tenant spaces, shall be covered with a high-grade tile or carpeting. 9. Aisles shall have a minimum width of seven feet. 10. Security personnel shall be provided during hours of operation. Senior Housing/Congregate Care Facilities/Affordable Housing. Senior housing, congregate care facilities, and affordable housing projects are permitted in the zoning districts identified below subject to the approval of a development plan. Affordable senior housing projects shall comply with the affordable housing provisions contained in Subsection. O.3. Senior housing shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: a. The maximum densities for senior housing projects are as follows: In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. In the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be twenty (20) units per acre. iii. In the LM, L-2, and L-1 residential zoning districts the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iV, In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. The net livable area for each dwelling unit shall not be less than four hundred (400) square feet for an efficiency unit, five hundred fifty (550) square feet for a one-bedroom unit, and seven hundred (700) square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Kitchenettes may be permitted, provided they are sized to meet the immediate needs of the occupants of the unit. Congregate care projects shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: The maximum densities for congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements so long as all the site development standards are met (i.e. required setbacks, parking, landscaping, open space, etc.) The handicapped units shall comply with the standards set fodh in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various incentives provided the project meets the requirements of Section 65915 of the California Government Code. Affordable housing projects will receive at least one incentive from Subsection 3.a and at least one concession from Subsection 3.b. The project incentives and concessions are as follows: Density incentives. Affordable housing projects are entitled to receive an increase in the allowable density of at least 25% over the density target in each residential zoning district. The maximum densities for affordable housing projects are as follows: In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. In the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eighteen (16) units per acre. iii. In the LM residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iV, In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density bonus shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. Development Standard Concessions. Any of the following development standard concessions may be granted by the approval authority for the project, unless a finding is made that these concessions are not necessary to provide the affordable housing units being proposed: i. An increase in the amount of required lot coverage; ii. A modification to the setback or required yard provisions; iii. An increase in the maximum allowable building height; iv. A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking; A reduction in the amount of onsite landscaping, except that no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may not be approved unless the affordable housing is in a close and easily accessible proximity to a public park with recreational amenities; vi. A reduction in the minimum lot area; or, vii. Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional Office zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. The provisions of this Subsection also applies to all approved specific plans within the City of Temecula unless the specific plan contains specific standards for the type of housing being considered. Self-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Facilities. 1. Development Standards The following standards shall be applied to all new self-storage or mini- warehouse facilities: The design of the facility shall be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of design, bulk and mass, materials and colors. Building exteriors shall not be corrugated metal or similar surface, but shall be of finished quality. Metal containers are prohibited. In commercial zoning districts the rear and side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. In industrial zoning districts no rear or side yard setbacks are required. The director of planning may increase the setbacks to a maximum of 25 feet when adjacent to an existing residential development project. The front yard setback shall maintain the setback for the underlying zoning classification. c. The maximum lot coverage shall be 65 percent. The development site shall provide a minimum of 10% landscaped open space for a project within commercial districts. In industrial districts, the total landscaping shall be equal to the required setback areas. No interior landscaping is required, but the setback areas shall be landscaped. e. A manager's residential unit may be provided, but is not required. Required parking spaces may not be rented as, or used for, vehicular storage. However, additional parking area may be provided for vehicles, bpats, buses, trailers, etc., provided that the storage area is adequately screened from public view with enhanced landscaping, decorative walls, fencesj or other methods as deemed appropriate by the director. 2. Pert'ormance and Use Regulations Any business activity, other than rental of storage units, including the on-site sale of merchandize or garage sales, and transfer/storage businesses which utilize vehicles as part of the business is prohibited. No servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment is permitted. Storage units shall not be used for the storage of flammable liquids, highly combustible or explosive materials, or hazardous chemicals. Truck or vehicle rental is prohibited without obtaining all necessary approvals subject to the Development Code Schedule of Permitted Uses. Drive-Thru Facilities. Commercial uses including restaurants, financial institutions or other business providing drive-thru facilities shall be subject to the following requirements. 1. All drive-thru facilities shall require a conditional use permit. Pedestrian walkways should not intersect the drive-thru aisles. If pedestrian walkways do cross the drive aisles, they shall be clearly marked with paving or striping. Drive-thru aisle shall have a minimum width of eleven feet on the straight sections and twelve feet on curved portions. For fast food restaurants the drive-thru aisles shall have a sufficient stacking area behind the menu board to accommodate six cars. The speakers shall be located so as to protect adjoining residential areas from excessive noise. ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 2, 2002 Large Family Day Care Home Facility Ordinance (Planning Application No. '99-0382) Prepared By: Dave Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0382 (Large Family Day Care Facility Ordinance); 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING TITLE 17 RELATING TO THE STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES" (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0382) BACKGROUND The Planning Commission previously considered this item concerning the regulation of Large Family Day Care Home Facilities on February 2, 2000. At that time, a voice vote reflected unanimous approval of a motion to continue this matter and to have staff research regulatory issues, including: separation distance issues, on-site parking requirements, noise impacts, indoor and outdoor play area sizes, Fire Marshall requirements, adult to child ratios, garage use, days and hours of operation limitations, and Title 22 health and safety issues. A copy of the minutes are contained in Attachment No. 3. Section 1597.46 of the California Health and Safety Code provides three options for cities or counties to use in the regulation of large family day care homes. Classify these facilities as a permitted use of residential property; Grant a non-discretionary permit to use lots zoned for a single-family dwelling to any large family day care home that complies with local ordinances; Require any large family day care home to apply for a permit to use a lot zoned for single-family dwellings. The use permit shall be granted if the home complies with local ordinances. Notification shall be sent to all homeowners within 100 feet of the R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc ] home of the proposed use, and a hearing will be held at the request of the applicant or another affected person. According to the State Code, large family day care homes must comply with "local ordinances prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control relating to such homes." Local and state building and fire codes for single-family residences must also be met, though the Fire Code classification of the unit as a single family dwelling still applies. Therefore, local governments have the authority to establish rules and regulations pertaining to these several domains. Attachment No. 4 contains excerpts from the Health and Safety Code relating to Large Family Day Care Home Facilities. ANALYSIS Throughout this process, staff has attempted to recognize the need of the community for a peaceful residential environment, the limited scope of regulatory power granted to the City, and the need to provide reasonable standards. In developing this proposed ordinance, staff was concerned with traffic, concentration, parking, and noise issues. At the February 2nd meeting, the Planning Commission preferred aspects of both options two and three. Issues raised at the meeting included: the scope of the City's regulatory power in this matter (i.e., the ability to deny an application), the types of regulations that should be adopted within the City's scope of power, and whether or not a public hearing is necessary. As a result, the proposed Ordinance reflects a combination of these two options. Staff is proposing that large family day care home permits be approved following a public hearing before the Planning Director. This approach is a combination of Options Two and Three detailed above. Every residence within 300 feet of the proposed facility will receive notice of the hearing and be informed of their dght to attend the hearing. After the hearing takes place, the Director would approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit. Appeals would be made to the Planning Commission. Traffic and Concentration Traffic concerns and the concentration/spacing of these facilities are tightly linked. In addition to the 300 feet spacing/separation requirement, staff is also proposing an additional standard that will limit the number of large family facilities relying on the same residential streets for access. A secondary separation distance of 600 feet is being proposed for facilities located on the same residential street. Parking Parking is another important issue. The proposal includes a requirement that all large family day care homes provide both an off-street employee parking space and a nearby loading space. This employee parking space could be either in the garage or in the driveway, if the driveway is either wider than two vehicles, or if the driveway is extra long. At least two driveway spaces (in front of the garage) will need to remain clear for loading and garage access purposes. This requirement is intended to reduce the likelihood that all on-street parking near the facility will be used by these facilities. In addition, the ordinance is requiring that a loading space be identified. This space can either be at the curb in front of the facility or in the driveway. However, at least two driveway spaces R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc will need to remain clear for access to the required two-car garage. This requirement may restrict an operator's ability to locate large family day care facilities on some cul-de-sacs. The ordinance recognizes that the designated open driveway spaces may be used for drop-off and pick-up purposes also dudng busy times. The purpose of this requirement is to make sure that at least minimal parking is provided for the large family day care home facilities. Noise Noise is another key area of concern. To reduce neighborhood impacts, staff is proposing to restrict the hours that children can play outside. This will help avoid excessive noise levels at neighboring properties during the times of day where quiet is most appreciated. The proposed ordinance would allow outdoor play between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study (lES) for the proposed amendment in 1999. No potential adverse impacts were identified at that time. Staff has since reviewed the lES and it's previous recommendation, and has determined that no changes have occurred in the project's potential impacts. As a result, staff is recommending that a Negative Declaration be adopted for Planning Application 99-0382. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 4 Large Family Day Care Facility Ordinance - Blue Page 7 Minutes from the February 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting - Blue Page 8 Excerpts of the Health and Safety Code - Blue Page 9 Initial Study- Blue Page 10 R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING TITLE 17 RELATING TO THE STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES" (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0382) WHEREAS, the staff has prepared Planning Application No. PA99-0382 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on October 2, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Approval. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula amending Chapters 17.03 and 17.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code to add standards for Large Family Home Day Care facilities and to create a Large Family Home Day Care permit process, substantially in the form contained in Exhibit A. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and adopted by the Planning Commission. Whereas, no further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 2nd day of October 2002. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc 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 re~lar meeting thereof held on the 2"d day of October, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc (~ ATFACHMENT 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE 02- R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc 7 ORDINANCE 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING TITLE '17 RELATING TO THE STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0382) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Planning Staff prepared Planning Application No. 99-0382 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Planning Application No. 99-0382 (the"Application") has been prepared in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application 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 the Application on October 2, 2002, at after a duly noticed public hearing recommended that the City Council adopted the proposed ordinance; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headngs and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public headng on , 2002 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map and the Temecula Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 17.06.050.J of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Family Day Care Home Facilities. 1. Small family day care home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, are permitted in all residential zoning districts. Although no specific permit is required, compliance with the performance standards contained in Section 17.06.050.J.3 of the Temecula Municipal Code is required. 2. Large family day care home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, are permitted in all single family zoning districts with the approval of a permit for a large family day care home facility R;\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\LFDC Ordinance.doc 1 pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.04.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Compliance with the performance standards contained in Sections 17.06.050.J.3 and J.4 of the Temecula Municipal Code are required. All day a. care home facilities shall comply with the following requirements. All day care facilities shall be state licensed and shall be operated according to all applicable State and local health and safety requirements and regulations. The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which it is located. An outdoor play area shall be located in the rear yard area. Stationary play equipment shall not be located in required side yard setbacks or in the actual front yard. The outdoor play areas shall be securely locked and appropriately landscaped. A solid decorative fence or wall at least five feet in height shall be constructed on all property lines, except in the front yard. Materials, textures, colors, and design of the fence or wall shall be compatible with on-site and adjacent properties. All fences and walls shall provide for safety with controlled points of entry. All on-site lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and of an intensity appropriate to the use it is serving. Outdoor playtimes must be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m. On- or off-street parking must be adequate enough to accommodate both employee parking and passenger loading and unloading. Parking and loading/unloading areas must not restrict access to neighboring properties or utilize the parking space of neighboring properties. In addition to the provisions of Subsection J.3 above, large family day care home facilities shall comply with the following requirements. a. In all single family zoning districts and planning areas, large family day care home facilities shall not be located any closer than: i. Three hundred (300) feet of another large family day care home facility, and ii. Six hundred (600) feet of another large family day care home facility when the most reasonable direct route from the artedal road network to each site utilizes the same residential streets. b. Large Family Day Care Home facilities must provide one (1) off-street employee parking space. The parking space may be in the third space of an extra wide driveway or in the garage. At least two driveway spaces shall be open for access and loading. c. At least one (1) loading space, either in the ddveway of the home, or at the curb immediately in front of the home, must be available for passenger loading and unloading, R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\LFDC Ordinance,doc 2 Any additional design or operational requirements that may be necessary to ensure compatibility of the facility with the surrounding ama and protect the public health and safety." Section 2. Section 17.04.050 creating Large Family Day Care Permits is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "17.04.050 Large Family Day Care Permits Purpose and Intent. A large family day care permit is intended to allow the establishment of large family day care home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding area and that protects the general public health, safety and welfare. Application Requirements. Applications for large family day care permits shall be completed in accordance with the Section 17.03.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Notice. Upon the determination that a large family day care permit application is complete, the following shall occur: A public notice shall be sent to every residence within three hundred (300) feet of the site. The notice shall be mailed first class and postage pre-paid to the applicant and all occupants (at the site address) and property owners. The Notice shall indicate the following information: a. The location and address of the proposed large family day care home facility. b. A description of the proposed activity, including the maximum number of permitted children and the days of the week and hours of the day that the facility is proposed to operate. c. A statement that the City will hold a hearing for the proposed use. The statement will inform the recipients of their right to attend the hearing and raise their issues and concems regarding the proposed use. The requirements of Section 17.03.040.B.2 of the Temecula Municipal Code to notify at least thirty (30) property owners does not apply to the requirements of this hearing notice. Approval. A large family day care permit may be approved, conditionally approved or denied after a public hearing. As determined to be necessary and appropriate, the director may refer any application to the Planning Commission. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Findings. The Director of Planning, may approve or conditionally approve a large family day care permit only when the following findings can be made: The proposed use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the surrounding area. R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\LFDC Ordinance.doc 3 Code. 2. The proposed use will not adversely affect adjacent residents or structures. The nature and location of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the community and does not concentrate children in a dangerous location. Notice of Decision. A copy of the notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant in accordance with Section 17.03.040,E of the Temecula Municipal Code. Revocation. A large family day care permit may be revoked or modified by the director in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.03.080 of the Temecula Municipal Code." Section 3. The following minor changes are hereby made to the Temecuia Municipal Table 17.03.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following row: Approval Large Family Day Care Home Facility Administrative Approval Planning D r~(cto r Planning Commission City Council Footnote 1 of Table 17.06.040 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subject to the provisions of Section 17.04.050 and Section 17.06.050.J., Family Day Care Home Design Standards." SECTION 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Counciimembers voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\LFDC Ordinance.doc 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of ,2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2002- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __th day of ,2002 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNClLMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\Ordinance$\Lerge Family Day Care'tLFDC Ordinance.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 2, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc Attorney Curley ~ this map would extinguish over a of time without any action, that this action would ~ owner the I to re-market the property clear of any queries regarding the I~ or influence on the site. For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney that the zoning would be unaffected with respect to this action. MOTION: moved to approve staff The motion was seconded b' r and voice vote reflected unanimous a BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planninq Application No. PA99-0382 (Lar,qe Family Day Care Home Facility O~dinance) Citywide ordinance amendin,q the Development Code - Senior Planner Dave Ho,qan RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-.__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF THE TITLE 17 RELATING TO THE STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FAClTIIES" (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0382) Senior Planner Hogan presented a detailed overview of the staff report (of record), noting staff's efforts to modify the existing ordinance regarding large family day care home facilities; advised that the State governed the authority in which local government could regulate these facilities, relaying three approaches (per agenda material) the City could utilize in regulating the facilities, as follows: Approach No. 1 ) to classify the facilities as a permitted use (With no additional standards), Approach No. 2) to grant a'non-discretionarypermit, which is an approval similar to the process the City utilizes for granting businesses licenses, or Approach No. 3) to issue a permit after notice was given to the property owners within a hundred foot parameter in order for those individuals to have an opportunity to indicate whether or not they desired a public hearing; and noted that the agenda material was inclusive of three draft ordinances, one for each of the three approaches, relaying that certain aspects of one draft ordinance could be added to another. Seeing that there were no members of the public wishing to speak on this item, Chairman Guerriero closed the public hearing at this time. Based on previous commission comments regarding large family day care home facility uses, Commissioner Fahey, echoed by Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, recommended that R:Planningminutes\020200 3 there be regulations associated with the permitting, and that there be a review and approval process. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan specified that the care of seven (7) children constituted a large day care home facility, noting that fourteen (14) was the maximum number of children permitted in the day care facilities per State law; and clarified that small day care facilities (constituting the care of less than seven (7) children) were not required to be permitted. Commissioner Webster relayed that this issue was being driven by State law; advised that small day care home facilities should be permitted in residential areas, noting his opinion that large day care facilities did not belong in residential areas since this use was essentially a commemial business; acknowledged that per State law, local government did not have the jurisdiction to opt against permitting the large day care facilities in residential areas; recommended that the Commission choose the draft ordinance, and approach option at tonight's meeting in order to · provide staff with the avenue to pursue, providing comments regarding modifications, and then that the issue be continued in order for staff to address the requested revisions. Chairman Guerriero relayed concurrence with continuing this item in order to obtain additional data regarding specificity with regard to regulating square footage, play equipment, fencing, on- street parking, restroom facilities, and in order to address the safety aspects of this matter. Referencing State legislation, Attorney Curley relayed the restricted parameters the State had mandated with respect to the City's discretion; advised that the review process could be inclusive of the following criteria: spacing concentration, traffic control, and parking and noise control; relayed that the legislation precluded the City from placing restrictions on building height, setbacks, or lot dimensions unless the same standard applied to all single family houses; advised that CEQA review was inapplicable with respect to this matter; and concurred with the recommendation that the Commission relay its recommended modifications, in order for staff to research the specific legal restrictions associated with regulating this use and for staff to bring the matter back before the Commission. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding an article he had recently read, Attorney Curley relayed that he could investigate published articles regarding proposed legislation which addressed the local jurisdiction's concern regarding the lack of regulatory power with respect to this matter, and update the Commission at the next meeting. In light of the lack of regulatory Power of the City, Commissioner Fahey relayed her reluctance to recommend that the review and approval process be conducted at a public hearing due to that fact that it implied that the public's comments and concerns could be factored into the governing body's decision on whether to permit the use, whereas in reality, the City had extremely restricted jurisdiction with respect to these particular uses; reiterated that to conduct the review process in a public hearing implied that the public's comments would be taken into consideration; and clarified that while she recommended a permitting process to ensure that certain criteria was met, she was opposed to the review process being a public hearing. In response to Commissioner Fahey, Attorney Curley advised that if the review process were conducted via an administrative level the same standards would apply, no~ing that the only variant would be the entity permitting the use. · For Commissioner Telesio, Attorney Curley clarified the State mandates regarding the regulations the City placed on the large day care home facilities, advising that there could be no R:Planningmlnutes\020200 4 differentiation from the regulations placed on alternate residential structures; reiterated that the State permitted the local jurisdictions to develop reasonable standards for the following: spacing and concentration, traffic control, and parking and noise control, clarifying that those specific areas could be regulated within reasonable standards with respect to the large family day care facilities; and specified the areas that could not be uniquely regulated for day care facilities. With respect to noise control, for Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley clarified the parameters for restricting this impact; and for Commissioner Fahey, confirmed that if there was analysis completed regarding the demand in the community, and the street capacity,'then objective Criteria could be developed regarding the spacing of the uses. Concurring with Commissioner Fahey's recommendation to concentrate on spacing parameters, Chairman Guerriero relayed the number of these particular uses the State indicated was needed. · For Chairman Guerriero, Attorney Curley relayed that if the City could support reasonable spacing and concentration standards via analysis and data, the City would be in compliance with legislation. For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley clarified the 100-foot parameter distance for public notification, noting that it was a State standard. In response to Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding the standards denoted in Approach Nos. 2, and 3 with respect to fenced play areas, and lighting standards, Senior Planner Hogan relayed the efforts to apply various minimal standards. Attorney Curley provided additional information with respect to regulating these issues. Commissioner Fahey reiterated her opposition with respect to the review process being conducted at a public hearing, noting that any public member could address his or her concerns regarding any matter at a Planning Commission meeting if they so desired; and relayed that she strongly supported Approach No. 2 (denoted in the agenda material), advising that there be additional specificity developed regarding regulating traffic and spacing. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to have staff draft an ordinance based on Approach No. 3 (per agenda material) and that staff investigate the development of specific criteria with regard to the following: spacing issues, on-site parking requirements, noise impacts, the size of the play areas (inside and outside of a facility), Fire Marshall requirements, days and hours of operation limitations, the number of supervisors required on a per child basis, requirement to utilize the garage for the parking of the applicant's personal vehicles, Title 22 health and safety issues, and front yard fencing, based on the legal parameters appropriate for this permitting process, and that the matter be continued in order for staff to investigate the aforementioned issues. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected denial due to Commissioners Fahey, Guerriero, and Telesio voting no. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to have staff draft an ordinance utilizing Approach No. 2 (per agenda material), developing additional specificity regarding the previously mentioned issues (see above motion), and that the matter, be continued in order for staff to investigate the requested regulatory issues from a legal standpoint. Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion. (This motion was ultimately withdrawn.) R:Plannlngminutes\020200 5 For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding Approach No. 3. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that APproach No. 3 provided an opportunity for public members to express their comments and concerns at a public hearing (i.e., Director's hearing). Attorney Curley advised that per'City Code, a Director's hearing decision was applicable for the appeal process; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that with Approach No. 2 the Planning Director would make an administrative decision and it would not go through the director's hearing process, noting that it would be the issuance of a non-discretionary permit; for informational purposes, provided clarification with respect to a public member filing a writ of mandate, to appeal a decision on either side of this issue; and clarified that with Approach No. 3 the public would have an opportunity to express their comments at a hearing. Commissioner Telesio relayed that while he was in favor of the public being able to voice their comments regarding this issue, if the local governing agency had no regulatory power a hearing would be ineffectual; and queried whether staff could address the regulatory issues, investigating the range of authority legally permitted prior to the Commission choosing Approach Nos. 2, or 3. It was noted that at this time that the previous motion was withdrawn. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to have staff reseamh the regulatory issues previously discussed (see page 5, under the first motion), and to continue this item in order for staff to address these matters, and that the Commission would subsequently choose the approach option to be pursued at the time the item was brought back to the Commission, and make recommended revisions tO the ordinance at that time. Chairman Guerriere seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. ~.~noted that at 7:18 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:26 P.M. ~ 5 PFa'nf~.q Application No. PA99-0394 (Development Plan/Conditional Us~l;~l~it). located on the ea~t-skte of Ynez Road south of Winchester Road betwee~ti'~two mall entrances - Project Planner~'T-hc~nas Thornslev RECOMMENDATION: ~ R:Plannlngmirt utes~20200 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXCERPTS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc EXCERPT OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE Section 1997.46. All of the following shall apply to large family day care homes: (a) A city, county, or city and county shell not prohibit large family day care homes on lots zoned for single-family dwellings, but shall do one of the following: (1) Classify these homes as a permitted use of residential property for zoning purposes. (2) Grant · non-discretionary permit to use a lot zoned for a single-family dwelling to any large family day care home that complies with local ordinances preschbing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, perking, and noise control relating to such homes, and complies with subdivision (d) and any regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to tbet subdivision. Any noise standards shall be consistant with local noise ordinances implementing the noise element of the general plan and shall take into consideration the noise level generated by children. The permit issued pursuant to this peregreph shall be granted by the zoning administrator, if any, or if there is no zoning administrator by the person or persons designated by the planning agency to grant such permits, upon the certification without a hearing. (3) Require any large family day care home to apply for a permit to use a lot zoned for single-family dwellings. The zoning administratar, if any, or if there is no zoning administrator, the person or persons designated by the planning agency to handle the use permits shall review and decide the applications. The use permit shall be granted if the large family day cam home complies with local ordinances, if any, prescribing reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements conceming spacing and concentration, traffic control, pefldng, and noise control relating to such homes, and complies with subdivision (d) and any regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to that subdivision. Any noise standards shall be consistent with local noise ordinances implementing the noise element of the general plan and shall take into consideration the noise levels generated by children. The local government shall process any required permit as economically as possible, and fees charged for revie~ shall not exceed the costs of the review and permit process. Not lass than 10 days prior to the date on which the decision will be made on the application, the zoning administrator or person designated to handle such use permits shall give notice of the proposed use by mail or delivery to all owners shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within a 100 foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the proposed large family day care home. No heating on the application for a permit issued pursuant to this paragraph shall be held before a decision is made unless a hearing is requested by the applicant or other affected person. The applicant or other affected person may appeal the decision. The appellant shall pay the cost, if any of the appeal. (b) A large family day care home shall not be subject to the provision of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (c) Use of a single-family dwelling for the purposes of a large family day care home shall not constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 17910 of Division 13 (State Housing Law), or for purposes of local building and fire codes. R:~ORDINANCES~LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE~382PA99 PC.ck~ 10 (d) (e) Large family day care homes shall be considered as single-family residences for the purposes of the State Uniform Building Standards Code and local building and fire codes, except with respect to any additional standards specifically designed to promote the fire and life safety of the children in these homes adopted by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to this subdivision. Tho State Fire Marshal shall adopt separate building standards specifically relating to the subject of fire and life safety in large family day care homes which shall be published in Title 24 of the California Administrative Cods. These standards shall apply uniformly throughout the state and shall include, but not be limited to: (1) the requirement that a large family day care home contain a fire extinguisher or smoke detector device, or both, which meets standards established by the State Fire Marshal; (2) specification as to the number of required exits from the home; and (3) specification as to the floor or floors on which day care may be provided. Enforcement of these provisions shall be in accordance with Sections 13145 and 13146. No city, county, city and county, or distdct shall adopt or enforce any building ordinance or Ioc~ rule or regulation relating to the subject of tire and life safety in large family day cam homes which is inconsistent with those standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal, except to the extent the building ordinance or local rule or regulation applies to single-family residences in which day care is not provided. No later than April 1, 1984, the State Fire Marshal shall adopt the building standards required in subdivision (d) and any other regulations necessary to implement Ihe provisions of this section. (Added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1233.) R:&ORDII~HCE$~.ARGE FAMILY DAY CARE~382PAg9 PC.~o¢ ATTACHMENT NO. 5 INITIAL STUDY R:\Ordinances\Large Family Day Care\Staff Report PC2.doc ]0 'City of Teme~ule P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Project Title Development Code Ame~lment (PA99-0382) Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number David Hogan, Senior Planner ~09) 694-6400 Project Location Citywide Project Sponsor's Name and Address City of Temecula General Plan Designation Not applicable Zoning Not applicable Description of Project An amendment to the Development Code to set specific standa~s for the mvlaw and approval of family day cam home facilities. The proposal consists of three alternative approaches. The three approaches are as follows: 1. Do not specifically regulate large family day care home facilities; 2. Issue a non-discrationary permit for large family day care home facilities; or 3. Provide community notice before a permit is issued for a large family day care facility is approved. Unless stated otherwise, the analysis contained in this initial environmental study will evaluate the most regulator/ approach Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Not applicable Other public agencies whose approval None. is required ~TEM EC_F$101 ~VO LI ~)ep~P LA N NIN G~CEQA'Q82PAG9 IES.dgx~ Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The envimnmsatal factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning I Hazards Population sad Housing ! Noise Geologic Problems Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance ~f None Determination (To be completed by the lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: V' I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be..p, repared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ~ I find that the proposed project MAY have a 'potentially significant impact' or 'potentially significant unless mitigated' impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis as described on arrayed sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requiredt but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (al have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. P~inted name ~ ' Datd For '~TEME C_FS 101~VOL1 ~ee~PLANNING~C EQA',382PA 99 lES.doc ! 1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: p, ~ .:4~!~ ~:~r~:.~/:ii~?:!~::i!~!.~#ma~l~~i~:: ::~:~::~' ::: ~,~!ili~'::-:~:':':~ ~.~:~:* ~ '?'!~d ~lmm~: ": ~::lmp~ ;,,P. Physi~lly divi~ an es~blish~ ~mmun~ ~ ~b. Co~i~ ~ appll~le land u~ plan, polio, or ~ mgulafi~ ~ an agen~ ~ ~sdi~on over ~e pmje~ ~n~uding, b~ ~t limited to ~ general plan, spe~c pl~, Io~1 ~as~l program, or zoning ordinan~) adopted ~r ~e pu~se ~ avoidi~ or mitigafi~ an envi~m~l effe~ c. Co~i~ ~ any appli~ble ~bi~t ~w~on plan or V naomi ~mmun~ ~n~ati0~.plan? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing! elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbem of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? a. ~se ~ple or s~ures to ~n~al subs~nfial adverse e~s, in~uding ~e dsk of loss, inju~, or dea~ involving: i) Rup~m of a ~o~ ea~uake fault, as delineated on · e most m~nt Alquist-PHolo ~q~ke Fault Zoning Map issu~ by ~e S~ Geo~ist for ~e area or ba~d ~ o~er subs~nflal evid~ of a kno~ ~ul~ Refer to Divis~n of Mines and G~logy S~al Publi~tion 42. ii) S~ seismic ground shying? iii)Seismi~mla~d ground failure~ including liqu~a~ion? iv) ~ndslides? I b. Result in ~bs~ntial ~il erosion or ~e loss of topsoil? ~TEMEC_FS 101 ~VOL1 ~Dep~PLANNING~CEQA~82PAgG IES.~oc '~ Be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable, or -- '7' that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B ,F of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or propert~ e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of ~' septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proje~: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ~ requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing dreinage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-sita? d. Sub~fantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, incJuding through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of i polluted runoff? f. ; Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-ysar flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a l~)o-year f~o~l 'l.~zard ama structures which would impede or ~edirect flood flows9 i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ~TEMEC_FSl01 tVOL¶ ~ ept~U= LA. NN JNG ~ EQA~382P A99 lES,dm= 4 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the preje=t: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentmtions? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicta thps, the volume to capacity ratio on roadsr or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e,g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemafive transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? ~TEMEC_FSI 0 I~VOL1 ~Defl~P LANNING~CEQA~,382PA99 IES.<~oc 5 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: e. , Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or .,' through habitat modifications, on any species idantified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildl'Ee Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat V' or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected V' wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ~' resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established nat]va resident or migratery wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict vv~t any local policies or ordinances protecting ,( biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat ~' Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8, MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availa~)illty of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the rogio~ and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan~ specific plan or other land use plan? ~TEMEC_FS 101 ~,VO LI ~Dep~PLANNING~CEQA~182PAg~ IES.d0C 6 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: :. ~.. ~ i ~c'.i i i~ ~ iii:ii i?,?/?!:'~:.~i?.!~ii}iii!~i:.!!:.:.::.iii~ii?,~:i~i~il;;i:.ii?~ i:,iiiiii~ i~:~il ~iii~:/=~i a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the murine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Crate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acr. Jdent cmlditions involving the release of h-~rdous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airs~p, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically inte~ere with an i adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? i h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, inju~ or death involving wildland rims, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences ere intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: ....... :: :: ============================== ~'~: i.~ ::.: .;<:: ::::*: ~[ .~:: ::.~i::: Zi: ;' Z ;Z i:': ' ~ZZ.[h[ ::;..:..:..ii :..:=.=:. i::~. :.?::.:i: ::iZ. :~: .i :[i :Z..::.. :~!::..:i...~[ :!:.:;:::: ...!; '" ?:' ::'""~: Fi-i: i:.'i:'i ::/;::::;::':i.' ;'";:':::~::::;"=;~;";; ::::::::::::::::::::::: ;::::::::~ ~ .:~.!::i~:.i.~::;:: ::::::::::::::::::::: :=':~ ~i'ii iS;~,~'~,; ~i: ~i~i= :::.:F.::i ;;:'::: : ;:: 'Z ':: ::~. :::::~!:!:;:~ ~ ~;Seer~! :': .:: ~ :~ :: ~ .:~.r..~:.. a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinancer or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the __ ro*ect? \~TEMEC_FS101~VOLI ~Depta~PLANNIN G~CEQA~,382PA99 lES.doc 7 d. A substantial tampora~ or periodic increase In ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For e project located within an aiq)ort land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people melding or working in the project ama to excessive noise levels? f. For e project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBUC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Govemment services in any of the following ames: a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered govemmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of ~hich could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the ~ J)ublic services? b. Fire pmtaction? ---- c. Police protection? ..... d. Schools? e. Parks? f. Other public facilities? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a, ~ed ~st~a~r Eea~nt requimmants ~ the appliable R~i.ai Water Q~ali~ C~I ~? b, Require or msuE in ~e ~ion of new ~ter or wast~ter mam~t te~iitles or e~ns~n of exi~ing c. R~ui~ or m~E In ~e ~ns~on of ~w s~ water ~ns~ of ~i~ ~uld ~u~ sign~nt · nvironmental effe~? d. Have s~ent atar .pplies avaiiabie to se~e the pmj~ ~m exis~ng en~em~ts a~ resou~s, or am ~ new or· anded ena~le~n~ ~? - ~TEMEC_FS f 01~VOLI~Dep~LANNING~CEQA~382PA99 lES,doc 8 e. Result in a ciat~rmination by the wastawater treatment ,/' provider which serves or may sorve the project that it has adequate cepacit,/ to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the pmvider's existing ...commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? , ,. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes end mguiations related to solid waste? ........ 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building within a state scenic highwa~f? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57 c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. Would the project: ''.: ~ "=:-:.:,,, =. :i:~:~::,.~= i .:': =.~,,. ~.::::/.:.:::.'.:; :: .~::.~.::. a. Woad ~e pmj~ in--se ~e use of e~sfing nel~ a~ ~ional ~ or o~r m~eafional ~lidas su~ ~at subs~nfial ~ysi~l detaHomfion of ~e ~li~ ~ld o~r or be a~lemt~? b. D~s ~ pmje~ include m~afionel ~cilifias or ~uim · e ~ns~on or e~ansion of re~eafional fa~l~es ~i~ ~ight have an adveme ~ysi~l effe~ on ~e envi~ment? . . ~tTEMEC_FS101 ~VOLt ~DIp~&P LA NNING~C E QA&382PA 99 IES,do~ 9 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ~i*~ ':!P~::~= ~ .......... a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality V' of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate impo~lant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that ara individually V' limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project ara considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects~ and the effects of probable future projects? .. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will V' cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indiractJy? Comments: The proposed project is an amendment to the Development Code that would modify the currant provisions regulating large family day care home facilities. Day care home facilities are located within existing residential structures and are and accessory extension of the basic residential activities. The proposed Ordinance to regulate these activities in a manner that is consistent with State Law will not create an adverse impact on the environment. In addition, the proposed changes continue to ha consistent with the general impacts and discussed in the adopted General Plan and Final EIR. As a result, no adverse impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are necessary. ~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1 ~)ep~s~P L~ NNING~C E Q A~382PAg~ lES.doc ITEM #7 STAFF REPORT-PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 2, 2002 Planning Application No. PA02-0339 (Tentative Tract Map No. 30264) Prepared By: Rolfe Preisendanz, Project Planner 1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption based on the Determination of Consistency for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 2. ADOPTa Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING coMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0339, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30264 SUBDIVIDING PLANNING AREAS 15, 17, 20, 21,22 &23 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN INTO 830 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS FOR SPRING PACIFIC PROPERTIES ON 185.4 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF PALA ROAD BETWEEN WOLF VALLEY ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 962-010-001,003 & 004. APPLICATIONINFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: Spring Pacific Properties, LLC A proposal to subdivide Planning Areas15, 17, 20, 21,22, & 23 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 830 lots. Northeast of Pala Road between Wolf Valley Road and Deer Hollow Way. EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Wolf Creek Specific Plan North: Wolf Creek Specific Plan South: County of Riverside East: Redhawk Residential Development West: Low Medium Density Residential Low Medium, Public Institutional, Medium Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space Density, EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant agricultural R:\T ML2002\02~)339 TFM 30264 Wolf Creek\Stuff Report and COAs.doc SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Residential South: Future high school site East: Residential West: Residential BACKGROUND On January 23, 2001, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and approved PA98-0482 (Environmental Impact Report), PA98-0484 (General Plan Amendment), PA98-0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12), PA00-0452 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) and PA00-0029 (Development Agreement). The final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 has not yet been submitted to the City of Temecula. The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map No. 29798 on November 7, 2001 for the northerly half of Wolf Creek. On June 26, 2002, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC submitted Planning Application 02-0339 for Tentative Tract Map No. 30264 for the southerly half of Wolf Creek. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subdivision proposes to subdivide Planning Areas 15, 17, 20, 21,22, and 23 into 830 single- family lots consistent with the density allowed by the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The project is located between Pala Road and the Redhawk development, northeast of the Pechanga Entertainment Center and southeast of Highway 79 South and Interstate 15 intersection. The property on which the tract is to be developed is flat and is currently undeveloped. ANALYSIS Environmental Determination An Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Plan were approved for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, which addressed all the environmental impacts on the site. Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), and the Conditions of Approval have been incorporated as conditions for this application. The application is consistent with the project description analyzed in the EIR, and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Access and Circulation The access and street cross-sections are consistent with the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. As a part of this proposal, two points of access will be provided off of Pala Road at the Interior Loop Road and Wolf Valley Road. Two points of access will be provided off of Wolf Valley Road at the Loop Road South and "A" Street. The intersection of Wolf Valley Road and the Loop Road South at Pala Road will be signalized, aiding access to the site. Wolf Valley Road is to be developed to an ultimate right of way width of 110 feet with a 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk on both sides, and raised medians at critical locations. The Loop Road South is to be developed to an ultimate right of way width of 85 feet. The South Loop Road will provide access to the site to and from the Pala Road intersection. Deer Hollow Road is to be developed to half width right of way of 44 feet. No access is proposed along Deer Hollow Road, except at strategic points to allow access to the 43-acre Regional Park located in Planning Area 24, R:\T MX2002\02-0339 TIM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 2 Streetscape The streetscape landscape and sidewalk configuration conforms to the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. The east side of the Loop Road will be developed with an 11 foot landscape area within the right of way between the face of curb and sidewalk, with an additional 30 foot linear park (Lot 47) including a ten foot combination sidewalk / bike path. A 30 foot roadway paseo will be developed on the west side of the Loop Road which includes a meandering sidewalk design. Streets "A" thru "Z' and "A-A" thru "T-T" will all consist of a 60-foot right of way. The applicant has chosen to propose an attached sidewalk/curb design on all streets interior to the tract. Furthermore, the project proposes numerous cul-de-sacs, which will be developed with landscaped paseos at the bulb of cul-de-sacs providing access to additional areas within the community. Landscape pockets will be provided at periodic intervals along the length of Pala Road in conjunction with the Pala Road / Drainage Channel streetscape. The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) has agreed to maintain the parkways within the right of way of the Loop Road adjacent single-family residences. The Home Owners Association maintenance responsibility will consist of the "grass-lined channel along Pala Road, the landscaped parkway adjacent to the future commercial development in Planning Area 15 and the landscape paseos proposed at the bulbs of the cul-de-sacs. Lot confiquration Planning Minimum Proposed minimum Dwelling Unit Area lot size (square fee~ lot size (square fee~ count IPer Wolf Creek SPI 15 5,000 5,005 167 17 6,000 6,045 133 20 5,000 5,000 132 21 6,000 6,045 112 22 7,200 7,210 160 23 5,500 5,500 126 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed map provides adequate access, circulation and developable lots. The proposed map complies with the minimum lot size requirements of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and the zoning map. Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 30264 based upon the following findings: FINDINGS (Section 16.09.140 Temecula Municipal Code) A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, Wolf Valley Specific Plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map. R:\T IvlL2002\02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek~Staff Report and COAs.doc 3 D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the project conforms with the certified EIR and all required mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, because development will be inspected by City Staff prior to occupancy. F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible, because the construction plans will comply with all applicable building codes and State energy guidelines. G. The design Of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of properly within the proposed subdivision, because required off-site dedications and improvements will be acquired as conditions of approval. H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. 02- - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 26 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Tentative Tract Map No. 30264 E. Wolf Creek Land Use Plan F. Wolf Creek Circulation Plan G. Mitigation Monitoring Plan. R:\T M~2002\02~0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek~S~aff Report and COAs.doc 4 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 02- R:\T M~2(X)2\02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf CreekXStaff Report and COAs.doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0339, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30264 SUBDIVIDING PLANNING AREAS 15, 17, 20, 21,22 &23 OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN INTO 830 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS FOR SPRING PACIFIC PROPERTIES ON 185.4 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF PALA ROAD BETWEEN WOLF VALLEY ROAD AND DEER HOLLOW WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 962-010-001,003 & 004. WHEREAS, Spring Pacific Properties, filed Planning Application No. PA02-0339 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on October 2, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning CommiSsion, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, Wolf Valley Specific Plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably R:\T ML2002\02-0339 TrM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 6 injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the project conforms with the certified EIR and all required mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval; E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; because development will be inspected by City Staff prior to occupancy; F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible because the construction plans will comply with all applicable building codes and State energy guidelines. G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, because required off-site dedications and improvements will be acquired as conditions of approval. (Quimby). The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Plan was approved for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12, which addressed all the environmental impacts on the site. Mitigation measures (described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program), and the Conditions of Approval have been incorporated as conditions for this application. The application is consistent with the project description analyzed in the EIR, and no subsequent environmental review is necessary per Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a request to subdivide Planning Area(s)of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 830 lots to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning . Commission this 2nd day of October. ATTEST: Dennis Chinaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] R:\T MX2002\02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek~Staff Reporl and COAs.doc 7 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 2~ day of October, 2002 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T M~2002\02-0339 TIM 30264 Wolf Creek~Staff Report and COAs.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\T M~2002\02 0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs,doc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA02-0339 (Tentative Tract Map No. 30264) Project Description: Planning application to subdivide Planning Areas 15, 17, 20, 21,22 and 23 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan into 830 lots. Development Impact Fee Category: The Development Impact consistent with the Agreement. Fee will be Development Assessor's Parcel No.: 962-010-001,003 & 004 Approval Date: October 2, 2002 Expiration Date: October 2, 2005 PLANNING DIVISION 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 Seventy- Eight Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)]. General Requirements 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of the City of Temecula's Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. R:\T M~2002\02~)339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 10 4. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 5. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained within the Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Report and all other applicable conditions of the Specific Plan and preceding maps. 6. After grading all slopes shall be planted in accordance with the City's Slope Planting Guidelines. Jute netting will be required on all slopes greater than ten linear feet. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 7. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. 8. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 9. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: a. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit 10. Any residential planning area within the project adjacent to Pala Road or Wolf Valley Road, and where such areas lie within a noise environment projected to exceed 65 CNEL, the property owner / or developer shall provide a detailed noise assessment and comply with the approved Wolf Creek Mitigation Monitoring Plan. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS General Requirements 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. All underlying Conditions of Approval for Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 approved on January 23, 2001 shall govern. If conflicting conditions of approval prevail, the most stringent shall apply. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:\T M\2002\024)339 ~ 30264 Wolf C~eek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 11 16. The Developer shall ensure coordination with Metropolitan Water District on projects over which the City has jurisdiction (i.e., construction of Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) Improvements and Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) Channel Improvements) 17. If the City has a Capital Improvement Project to design and construct Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Rainbow Canyon Road to Fairview Road to its ultimate configuration including environmental mitigation, the Developer shall pay their fair share and reimburse the City for its street improvement obligation. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 18. Tract Map No. 29305 shall be approved and recorded. 19. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Rancho California Water District c. Eastern Municipal Water District d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District eo City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau f. Planning Department g. Department of Public WorkS h. Riverside County Health Department i. Cable TV Franchise j. Community Services District k. General Telephone I. Southern California Edison Company m. Southern California Gas Company n. Fish & Game o. Army Corps of Engineers p. Metropolitan Water District 20. The following public improvements shall be designed to City of Temecula Public Works standards unless otherwise noted. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median b. Improve Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Via Gilbedo to Fairview Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median R:\T M~20~2\02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc Co do Wolf Valley Road from Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) to the northerly Specific Plan boundary (Modified Secondary Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full- width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) (Principal Collector Highway - 78' R/W) to include to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Deer Hollow Road from Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) to the Specific Plan boundary (Secondary Road Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) Interior Loop Road (Modified Residential Collector Street - 85' R/W) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, Curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of the remainder of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road (Principal Collector Highway - 78' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) Improve "A" Street through 'q'-T" Street - Residential Interior Streets (General Local Street- 60' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. Traffic signals with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersections: Pechanga Parkw.ay (Pala Road) and Loma Linda Road Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Wolf Valley Road Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Interior Loop Road (North) Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Clubhouse Drive Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Muidield Drive Wolf Valley Road and Interior Loop Road Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Interior Loop Road (South) Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Fairview Road R:\T lvlX2002\02+0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek~Staff Report and COAs.doc 13 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. f. g. h. j. k. I. Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following: i. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) ii. Wolf Valley Road iii. Loma Linda Road iv. Loop Road North and South v. Fairview Drive vi. Street "A" vii. Interior storm drain facilities Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207,207A and/or 208. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. I. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. ReLinquish and waive right of access on all roadways with the exception of the openings as delineated on Tentative Tract Map 30264. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such R:\T M',2002\02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\S~aff Report and COAs.doc 14 offers. All dedications shall be frae from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 26. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision, which is part of an existing Assessment District, must comply w.ith the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 27. Any delinquent prope.rty taXes shall be paid. 28. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones. c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report. d. Amheological resoumes found on the site. 29. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 30. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurrad by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 31. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Final Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. 32. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 33. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 34. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department of Public Works. 35. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. 36. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. R:\T M~2002\02~0339 ~ 30264 Wolf Creek~Staff Report and COAs.doc 37. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division -boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, "Drainage easements shallbe kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau f. Metropolitan Water District A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. R:\T M~2002\024}339 ~ 30264 Wolf Creek~Staff Report and COAs.doc 16 44. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 45. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. The Developer shall obtain IeEe. rs of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". Residential subdivisions shall obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: a. Drainage and flood protection facilities, which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm, drain facilities. b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. c. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard ' map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway. e. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway shall be shown on the improvement plan. 49. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 46. 47. 48. 50. 51. 52. 53. Final Map shall be approved and recorded. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Depariment of Public Works for review and approval. A registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation shall certify the building pad, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implembnting Chapter 15.06. R:\T MX2002\0243339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creck\Shxff Report and COAs.doc 17 54. Prior to the first building permit, the following improvements shall be complete: a. Improve Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Loma Linda Road to Via Gilberto (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median. b. Improve Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Via Gilberto to Wolf Valley Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median c. Improve Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road to accommodate a 60-foot wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane), signing and striping. d. Via Del Coronado from Via Cordoba to Loma Linda Road (Collector Road Standards - 66' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus twelve feet, installation of the remainder of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) e. In the event that the interim improvements on Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Rainbow Canyon Road to Loma Linda Road are not complete prior to the first building permit, the Developer shall improve Pechanga Parkway (Paia Road) to accommodate a 60-foot wide pavement (four vehicular travel lanes including a center turn lane), signing and striping. The City may reimburse the Developer for their fair share of the street improvement obligation as determined by the Director of Public Works. f. Interior Loop Road from Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) to Wolf Valley Road (Modified Residential Collector Street - 85' RA, V) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) g. Wol[ Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) (Modified Secondary Highway - 110' R/VV) to include dedication of full- width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). h. Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) (Principal Collector Highway - 78' R/W) to include to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width street improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). i. The developer shall install a traffic signal with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersections: i. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Loma Linda Road ii. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Wolf Valley Road including provisions for a dual southbound left turn pocket from Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) to Wolf Valley Road R:~T M~2002~,02~0339 TTM 30264 Wolf CreekAStaff Report and COAs.doc 18 55. 56. 57. iii. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Interior Loop Road (North) j. Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following: i. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) north of Wolf Valley ii. Wolf Valley Road from the northerly Specific Plan boundary to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) iii. Loma Linda Road from Via Del Coronado to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) iv. Interior Loop Road (North) from Wolf Valley Road to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) v. Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road vi. Interior storm drain facilities Prior to the 100TM Building Permit, the following signal shall be installed and operational: a. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Clubhouse Drive b. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Muirfield Drive Prior to the 473rd Building Permit: a. An approved funding and implementation mechanism/fair share contribution program as approved by the Director of Public Works shall be in place to guarantee the improvement of Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Highway 79 South to Loma Linda Road (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' R/W) to include acquisition of street right-of-way, installation of street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median. b. Street "A" from Interior Loop Road (North) to Loma Linda Road (Principal Collector Highway - 78' PJW) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) The following improvements shall be complete prior to the 823rd building permit a. Improve Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median b. Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) (Modified Residential Collector Street- 85' RNV) to include dedication of full- width right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) c. Construct backbone channel and/or drainage facilities and all associated improvements per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Temecula requirements for the following: i. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive ii. Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) R:\T M~2002\02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\$1aff Report aad COAs,doc iii. Fairview Drive from Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) to the Specific Plan boundary iv. Interior storm drain facilities d. Install water mains per Rancho California Water District requirements and sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements for the following roadways: i. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) from Wolf Valley Road to Fairview Drive ii. Interior Loop Road (South) from Wolf Valley Road to Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) iii. Fairview Drive from Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) to the Specific Plan boundary iv. Interior facilities 58. Prior to the opening of the High School or the 1557th building permit a. The Developer shall improve Fairview Road from Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) to the Specific Plan boundary ((Secondary Road Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of half-width right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 59. Prior to the 823rd Certificate of Occupancy a. The traffic signal at the intersection of Wolf Valley Road and Interior Loop Road (South) shall be installed and operational with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersection 60. Prior to the 1,557th Certificate of Occupancy or opening of the High School, whichever occurs first, the following traffic signals shall be installed and operational with conduits for future interconnect at the following intersection: a. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and interior Loop Road (South) b. Pechanga Parkway (Pala Road) and Fairview Road 61. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 62. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 63. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 64. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 65. Any previous existing conditions for this land or project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements. R:\T M~2~02\02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 20 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. R:\T MX2002\02 0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 21 75. 76. 77. 78. 79, 80. (CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved bythe Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 81. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wild land-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A) 82. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) 83. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in an ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. COMMUNITY SERVICES 84. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 85. All perimeter slope/landscape areas designated as Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintenance areas shall be identified and offered for dedication to the TCSD as a maintenance easement on the final map. Underlying ownership of the respective areas shall remain with the individual property owner or the Homeowner's Association. All other R:\T M~2002\02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek~Staff Report and COAs.doc 22 landscape areas, open space, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus shelters, fences, walls and the drainage channel along Pala Road shall be maintained bythe Homeowners Association (HCA), private maintenance association or property owner. 86. All park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration for TCSD maintenance shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 87. Construction of the public park sites and proposed TCSD landscape maintenance areas and landscape medians shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. 88. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites and slopes/landscaping areas until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. 89. The parks shall be improved and dedicated to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance for the amount of the improvements and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. 90. A ten (10) foot wide pedestrian pathway/Class I bike lane will be constructed within the linear park (east side) and the paseo (west side) of the Interior Loop Road. 91. Class II bicycle lanes as specified in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan shall be identified on the street improvement plans and constructed in concurrence with the completion of said street improvements. 92. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) pursuant to the Development Agreement for the Wolf Creek Specific Plan. 93. The developer shall contact the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Prior to Approval of the Final Map 94. Prior to the approval of the final map, Tentative Tract Map No. 29305 must be recorded. 95. All TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance easements shall be offered for dedication on the final map. 96. All areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on the final map by numbered lots with the square footage of said lot numbers indexed as proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 97. Landscape construction drawings for all proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 98. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 99. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the Temecula Community Services District to initiate election proceedings for acceptance of residential streetlights and perimeter slope/landscape into the respective TCSD maintenance programs. All costs associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. R:\T M~2002\02-0339 TIM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 23 Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 100. Prior to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application, submit approved Southern California Edison streetlight plans and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial and residential street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. 101. The linear park including two activity nodes (Lots 30 and 47 of Tentative Tract Map No. 29305) shall be improved, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance period and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 1400th residential building permit for the overall Wolf Creek Development. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 102. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Pamel Numbers assigned to the final project. 103. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence or TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. BUILDING AND SAFETY 104. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. (For building plans submitted prior to November 1,2002. Plans submitted for review after November 1,2002 shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1999 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.) 105. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 106. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 107. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 108. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 109. A sound transmission control study shall be prepared and submitted at time of plan review in accordance with the provisions of Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A, of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code. 110. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 111. Provide electrical plan including Icad calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 112. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. R:\T IVi~2002\02-0339 TI'M 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Repor~ and COAs,doc 24 113. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 114. Show all building setbacks. 115. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the 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 OUTSIDE AGENCIES 116. The applicant shall comply with all comments and/or conditions set forth in the attached dated July 15, 2002 letter from County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health. 117. The applicant shall comply with all comments and/or conditions set forth in the attached letter dated July 17, 2002 from the Department of the Army 118. The applicant shall comply with all comments and/or conditions set forth in the attached letter dated July 9, 2002 from Riverside Transit Agency. 119. The applicant shall comply with all comments set forth in the attached letter dated July 15, 2002 from the California Historical Resources Information System. 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 properly shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development De ~artment approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:\T M~2002\02~0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 25 A'FFACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\T M~20~2\02-0339 TIM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report aad COAs.doc 26 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0339 EXHIBIT-.A VIClNI'I'~ MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- October 2, 2002 R:\T M~_002~02-0339 'i-rM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 27 EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(LM) LOW MEDIUM EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN CASE NO. - PA02-0339 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -OCTOBER 2, 2002 R:\T M~2002~)2-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc CiTY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0339 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- OCTOBER 2, 2002 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 30264 R:\T M~002~02-0339 TTM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS CASE NO. - PA02-0339 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- OCTOBER 2, 2002 WOLF CREEK LAND R:\T M~2002~02-0339 3q'M 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 30 CITY OF TEMECULA Figuxe 1II-3 CASE NO. - PA02-0339 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- OCTOBER 2, 2002 WOLF CREEK CIRCULATION PLAN R:\T M~002\02-0339 TrM 30264 Wolf Creek\Staff Report and COAs.doc 3! ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN January 23,2001 H:~ublic~Data~Projects~Bany's JobsXA274)08 Wolf CreekWIMP from CBA revised (Mark's version).doc 1 Environmental Mitigation Measures Monitoring and Reporting Program for Wolf Creek Specific Plan Section 1: Authority This Environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA (Public Resoumes Code Section 21000 et seq.), to provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan, as set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared for the project (State Clearinghouse No. 88030705). This report will be kept on file in the offices of the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, CA 92590. Section 2: Monitoring Schedule Once construction has begun and is underway at the site, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in the responsibilities of designated City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared reports of such monitoring no less than once a month until construction has been completed. Once construction has been completed, City staff shall prepare or cause to be prepared monitoring reports no less than once par year. Section 3: Changes to Mitigation Measures Any substantive change in the monitoring and reporting plan made by City staff shall be reported in writing to the City Council. Reference to such changes shall be made in the monthly/yearly Environmental Mitigation Measures Monitoring Report prepared by City staff. Modifications to the mitigation, measures may be made by City staff subject to one of the following findings, documented by evidence included in the record: The mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is no longer required because the significant environmental impact identified in the Final EIR has been found not to exist, or to occur at a level which makes the impact less than significant as a result of changes in the project, changes in conditions of the environment, or other factors. OR The modified or substitute mitigation measure to be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program provides a level of environmental protection equal to or greater than that afforded by the mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and The modified or substitute mitigation measures do not have significant adverse effects on the environment in addition to or greater than those which were considered by the City Council in its decisions on the final Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed project; and The modified or substitute mitigation measures are feasible, and their implementation can be assured by the City Council through measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program or other City procedures. Wolf Creek Specific Plan 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Section 4: Support Documentation Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the project file with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be made available to the public on request. Section 5: Format of Mitigation Monitoring Matrix The following mitigation monitoring matdx is formatted to parallel the format of the Executive Summary table contained in the Final EIR. The matrix indicates the environmental issue areas for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring, and responsible monitoring agencies. Wolf Creek Spec[ftc Plan 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program E E ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 2, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0197 (Development Plan) Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner ADOPT the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0197 (Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0'197, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND ESTABLISH A 15,489 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON '1.01 ACRES, LOCATED AT 27430 BOSTIK COURT, ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND BOSTIK COURT, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-007. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: LINCO Real Estate Development PROPOSAL: LOCATION: Planning Application to construct, operate and establish a 15,489 square foot multi-tenant industrial building. Located at 27430 Bostik Court, on the southeast corner of Winchester Road and Bostik Court. known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-360-007. EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (LI) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Light Industrial (LI) South: Light Industrial (LI) East: Light Industrial (LI) West: Light Industrial (Li) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Propertics~Staff Report.doc 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Industrial Building PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Lot area (net) 43, 996 square feet (1.01 acres) Total building area: 15,489 square feet Total building footprint: 15,489 square feet Building height: 26'-0" Landscaped area: 11,151 square feet (25.3%) Parking required: 31 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, and 1 motorcycle Parking provided: 32 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, and 2 motorcycle Lot coverage: 35.2% Floor area ratio: .35 BACKGROUND Planning Application 02-0197 was submitted on April 19, 2002. The project was deemed incomplete on May 17, 2002. The applicant incorporated all comments from staff and resubmitted on May 28, 2002. Staff continued to work with the applicant on the architectural design of the building and as a result, staff scheduled the project for Planning Commission review on October 2, 2002. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Application No. 02-0197 (Development Plan) is a request to construct, operate and establish a 15,489 square foot multi-tenant industrial building on a vacant 1.01-acre site. The project is located at 27430 Bostik Court, on the southeast corner of Winchester Road and Bostik Court, known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-380-007. The underlying zoning for the site is Light Industrial. ANALYSIS Bud ncl Design The proposed building design is consistent the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the City of Temecula Development Code. The applicant has designed a concrete tilt-up building, which will function as a multi-tenant industrial building, but maintain an executive office use appearance consistent with the surrounding building designs. Additionally, the City's Development Code Performance Standards requires that industrial buildings incorporate the use of creative entry treatments. Although the proposed building is a multi-tenant building, the applicant has incorporated the use of full-length (finish floor to parapet) medium bronze anodized window treatments at R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. ProperliesLStaff Report.doc 2 strategic locations, in order to give the appearance of definitive entries. Additionally the Development Code requires that large buildings be designed to avoid excessive mass and bulk. The applicant has designed the building with structural offsets on the front and side elevations and has also incorporated the use the additional glass, columns, exposed aggregate wainscot, bull-nose molding at the parapet and paint colors to further break up the building mass. LandscapinR The landscaping for the project complies with the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code. As required by the Development Code, the applicant has provided 25.3% of the total site with landscaping. The streetscape and adjacent slopes landscaping along Winchester Road currently exists and will remain protected in place as a part of the association. The applicant will add additional landscaping to the slope along Winchester Road and Bostik Court in order to meet the requirements of the Development Code. In compliance with the City-Wide Design Guidelines the applicant has proposed a landscape planter with various trees (24" box Fern Pines and 24" Purple Flowering Locust) and shrubs (Escallonia) along the south edge of the property in order to screen the overhead doors on the rear of the building. Parkin.q and Circulation The parking and circulation for the project complies with the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code. Based on the City's Development Code the project is required to provide 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of office space and one space for every 1000 square feet of warehousing. The building proposes 2,198 square feet of office use and 12, 018 square feet of warehousing. To meet this the applicant has provided 32 parking spaces. The proposed site will have its primary access off of Bostik Court. The access to the site will allow for unloading and loading at the roll-up doors located in the rear of the building. Likewise the parking and circulation proposed also complies with the City-Wide Design in that the applicant has designed the site so that the parking lot and cars are not the dominant visual element of the site. Additionally the applicant will utilize a combination of shrubs and trees along the south edge of the property line to screen the roll-up doors. The site circulation is functional and has been determined to be adequate by the Fire Department. Site DesiRn The site design for the project complies with the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code in that the applicant has encouraged a pedestrian oriented building, employee gathering place and careful parking orientation. The building has been placed near the top of the slope abutting Winchester Road and Bostik Court in order to create a pedestrian orientation to the street. The applicant has also placed the roll up doors at the rear of the building to assist in screening the loading from public view. A common walkway has been provided linking all the suites from the visitors parking area and Bostik Court. In order to comply with the City-Wide Design Guidelines (Page VI-3) the applicant has designed the site access and circulation in a straightforward manner in order to emphasize safety and efficiency. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA. (Section 15332 In-fill Development Project) R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Propeaies~Staff ReporLdoc 3 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. It is staff's opinion that the project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section "17.05.010F) 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 proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Business Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed use, officeA, varehouse/manufacturing as a typical use in the Business Park designation. Also, approval of this type of project will meet the intent of Policy 1.5 of the Land Use Element in supporting the development of light industrial and manufacturing uses to diversify the City of Temecula's economic base. The proposed project is consistentwith the use regulations outlined in the Development Code forthe Light Industrial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in table 17.08.040B of the City of Temecula's Development Code. The proposed architecture and site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the Industrial Development Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation, architectural design and site plan design. Attachments: PC Resolution No. - 02- - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 19 B. Vicinity Map C. General Plan Map D. Zoning Map E. Site Plan F. Grading Plan G. Building Elevations H. Floor Plan I. Landscape Plan J. Color and Material Board R:~D PX2002\02-0197 T.R. Properties~Staff Report.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Prope~ies~Staff Report.doc PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0'197, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND ESTABLISH A 15,489 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON t.01 ACRES, LOCATED AT 27430 BOSTIK COURT, ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND BOSTIK COURT, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-007. WHEREAS, LINCO Real Estate Development, filed Planning Application No. 02-0197 (Development Plan Application), in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on October 2, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY 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 the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 176.05.01 OF of the Temecula Municipal Code: 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 proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Business Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed use, officeA~varehouse/manufactudng as a typical use in the Business Park designation. Also, approval of this type of preject will meet the intent of Policy 1.5 of the Land Use Element in supporting the development of light industrial and manufacturing uses to diversify the City of Temecula's economic base. The proposed project is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Light Industrial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes. R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Properties~StaffReport.doc 6 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in table 17.08.040B of the City of Temecula's Development Code. The proposed architecture and site layout for the project has been reviewed utilizing the Industrial Development Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation; architectural design and site plan design. Section :3. Environmental Compliance. The project has been found to be categorically exempt Pursuant to Section 15332 class 32 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. No further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a request to construct, operate and establish a 15,489 square foot multi-tenant industrial building located on a 1.01 acre site, attached hereto on Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 2nd day of October 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 ~'~eting thereof held on the 2"~ day of October, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D PX2002\02-0197 T R. Properlies\Staff Report.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Propertic$~Staff Report.doc EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: 02-0197 (Development Plan) Project Description: A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish a 18,489 square foot multi-tenant industrial building. DIF Category: Business Park/Industrial Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-370-031 Approval Date: October 2, 2002 Expiration Date: October 2, 2004 PLANNING DIVISION 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 applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. RSD P~002\02..0197 T.R. Properties~Staff Report.doc 9 All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Development Plan. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits E (Site Plan), F (Grading Plan), G (Building Elevation), H (Floor Plan), I (Landscape Plan), and J (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. 9. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view. 10. All roof drains shall be designed so as to provide the downspouts inside the building. 11. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with Exhibit "J' (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Concrete (walls) - Wainscot Concrete (walls) Building Glazing Store Front Roll-up doors Sandblast Frazee # 8730W "Loggia" Light Bronze Glass Copper anodized aluminum Frazee # 8730 "Loggia" 12. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 13. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 14. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "G", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for R:~D P~2002\02d)197 T.R. Properties\Staff Report doc their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 15. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 16. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "1", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 19. The Planning Director shall approve the Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. Prior to Building Occupancy 20. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit. 21. The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance plan that will insure that the landscaping will be continually maintained at heights sufficient to screen bay doors visible from the public right of way. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 22. Unless otherwise noted, the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency shall complete all conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 23. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on'site fiat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 24. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 25. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of- way. 26. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 27. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 28. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 29. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 30. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 31. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. The Developer shall provide any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements. 32. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 33. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: R:\D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Properties\Staff RcporLdoc 12 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Building and Safety Department City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Southern California Edison 34. The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 35. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of public works for review and approval. 36. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 37. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of public works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flow line grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum overA.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Streetlights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400, 401and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through under sidewalk drains. 38. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 39. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 40. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Properties~Staff Report.doc 13 Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 41. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 42. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of public works. 43. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of public works. FIRE DEPARTMENT 44. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. 45. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 3325 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1700 GPM for a total fire flow of 3325 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 46. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 1 hydrant, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 47. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 48. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) R:~D P',2002\02-0197 T.R. Properties\Staff Report.doc 14 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the local water company signs the plans, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall provide a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm R:~D PL2002\02~) 197 T.R. Prope~ties~Staff Report.doc 15 system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 59. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 60. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 61. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 62. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) 63. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 64. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, and NFPA- 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. 65. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 66. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 67. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Properties\Staff Report.doc 16 BUILDING AND SAFETY 68. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 69. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 70. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 71. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 72. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 73. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 74. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 75. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 76. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 77. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. 78. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 79. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 80, Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 81. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 82. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Propertics~Staff RcporL doc 17 83. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the 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 COMMUNITY SERVICES The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 85. The developer shall provide adequate Space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure areas. 86. All parkways, landscaping and natural open space shall be maintained by the property owner or a private maintenance association. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have road, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Name printed Date R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Propertics~Staff Report.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:~D P~2002\02~}197 T.R. Pro~erties\StaffReport.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA ect Site CASE NO.- PA02-0197 EXHIBIT - B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 2, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~2002~02-0197 T.R. PropertiesVStaff Report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA · ;'??;;,'?,'?.';;;;. 222;222,;'2;;;2;, ?~', '?; .......... ~'~'?.;',',';,'~ ·: '," ,,",'·';·'2;..'·'?..'..';..',';,'·'; .,,,,,jjjj,,jjj,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j "2.-', ·' ~-j,,...-,,.., N EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(BP) Business Park ~ ,, EXHIBIT D - ZONING ._DESIGNATION~dustrial CASE NO. - PA02-0197 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 2, 2002 R:~) P~002~02-0197 T.R. Prope~ies~Staff ReporLdoc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0197 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -October 2, 2002 SITE PLAN R:'~D P~002~02-0197 T.R. Properties\Staff ReporLdoc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0197 EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 2, 2002 GRADING R:~D P~2002~02-0197 T.R. Properties\Staff Report,doc CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA02-0197 EXHIBIT -G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 2, 2002 BUILDING ELEVATIONS R:~D P~002\02~197 T.R. Properties\Staff Report.doc 2.4 CITY OF TEMECULA I CASE NO.- PA02-0197 EXHIBIT - H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 2, 2002 FLOOR PLAN R:~D P~2002\02-0197 T.R. Properties\Staff Report.doc CITY OFTEMECULA / PREUM~IARY PL.AN]]NG PLAN CASE NO. - PA02-0197 EXHIBIT- I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - October 2, 2002 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:~D P~002~02-0197 T.R. Properties\Staff ReporLdoc