Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010692 PC Agenda AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 6, 1992 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hoagland ROLL CALL: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Minutes 2.2 Approval of minutes of December 16, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -3. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance City of Temecula City Wide An Ordinance establishing regulations for Television/Radio Antennas John Meyer Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Proposal: Plot Plan 233, Revised No. 1 Bernard Karcher/BKL, Inc. N.W. Corner of Rancho California Road A 1,270 square foot outdoor playground and patio addition to the southern elevation of the subject building. Matthew Fagan Approval Case: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Case Planner: Recommendation: Plot Plan 86, Revised Inland Valley Cable 2526 LaSerena Way (east side of LaSerena Way, approximately 500 ft. north of So. General Kearny To construct a 225 square foot addition to an existing Cablevision structure, add a 120 square foot generator pad and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site. Matthew Fagan Approval Case: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Case Planner: Recommendation: Tentative Tract Map 25338 Dan and Stephanie Sterk/Leigh and Carole Waxman Leigh Waxman Proposed 28 unit condominium subdivision on 2.56 acres. The proposed project is located at the southeast corner of Solana Way and Rycrest Drive. Mark Rhoades Continue to 2/24/92 Case Planner: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Case Planner: Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit No. 15 Jubany Development Inc. Helena Lin Jubany Tenant Improvement for a Roller Skating Hall 28860 Front Street Saied Naaseh Approval Case: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Case Planner: Recommendation: Public Use Permit No. 580 Rancho Temecula Bible Church, Paster Kerry Martin Leonard C. Fowler, California Geo Tek, Inc. A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. South side of Santiago Road, between I-15 and Ynez road Saied Naaseh Denial 2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday - January 20, 1992 Next meeting: January 27, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Plannine Director RePort Planning Commission Discussion Other Business ADJOURNMENT Ib pc/AGN1/06/92 3 ITEM # 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, December 16, 1991, 6:05 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair Chairman Hoagland advised that Commissioner Blair was absent during the November 16, 1991 and December 16, 1991, Planning Commission meetings due to medical reasons. Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Planner John Meyer, Planner Mark Rhoades, Planner Saied Naaseh, Planner Matthew Fagan, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND reviewed the moved to approve the agenda, CHINIAEFF. agenda. COMMISSIONER FAHEY seconded by COMMISSIONER AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair 2. MINUTES 2.1 Approval of minutes of November 16, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. COMMISSIONER FORD amended Page 2, sixth paragraph, to read "...being proposed by the applicant, due to the fact PCMIN12/16/91 -1- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 that any future construction along the freeway would block the sign coming southbound, and suggested...". ROBERT RIGHETTI amended Page 7, seventh paragraph, to read "...when the public impact fee condition was drafted...". COMMISSIONER November 16, FORD. CHINIAEFF moved to approve 1991 as amended, seconded AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 the minutes of by COMMISSIONER Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Blair NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN SELECTION COMMITTEE 3.1 Appoint Commissioner to Committee to select Old Town Consultant for Specific Plan. JOHN MEYER summarized the staff report. By unanimous consensus the Commission approved Commissioner Chiniaeff to serve on the Committee to choose a consultant for Old Town and Commissioner Fahey to serve on the Old Town Advisory Committee. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE 4.1 Proposal for an ordinance establishing regulations for Television/Radio Antennas City Wide. JOHN MEYER summarized the staff report. John Meyer advised the Commission that after meeting with the local amateur radio club to review the ordinance and discussions with the city attorney's office, staff was recommending a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1992 in order to incorporate some of the recommendations. PCMIN12/16/91 -2- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that there are still issues that need to be reviewed under the section of conditional uses as they pertain to satellite receiving antennas. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. The following individuals were present to represent the various local Amateur Radio Clubs in support of the ordinance: Robert Berg, 42701 Via Del Campo, Temecula Joseph Terrazos, 31160 Lahontan Street, Temecula Michael Tucci, 42325 Via Conduelo, Temecula Rick Savage, 43120 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula Robert Sherman, 23635 Kettle Road, Murrieta Ron Perry, 29879 Camino Del Sol, Temecula, member of RACES, thanked staff for their work on the ordiance, and expressed concurrence with the amateur radio portion of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FORD asked Mr. Perry if a list of local radio operators could be provided to the City. Ron Perry advised that he was in the process of preparing a list of operators for Fire Stations 12 and 73. Joe Terrazos presented the Commission with a magazine which referenced an article about an amateur radio operation, much like the one that is being coordinated with the Temecula police department. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern antennas on the roof and asked that look into controlling this problem, as stronger enforcement of regulations permits, before bringing this item Commission. for clustering of the city attorney well as looking at of the building back before the COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance to the Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair PCMIN12/16/91 -3- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNINe COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 5. VARIANCE NO. 8 Variance to City sign code to allow two (2) free-standing signs at project location, 29760 Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane and Moraga Road. SAIED NAASEH sununarized the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if anyone who has their shopping center on a corner come before the Commission and request that they move both of their signs to one frontage. GARY THORNHILL stated that sign would be looked at on a case-by-case basis; however, there is a potential for a precedent. In this case, staff negotiated the height of the sign. CHAII~MANHOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. JOEL BERNSTEIN, HWGA California, 31784 Casino Drive, Lake Elsinore, concurred with the staff report. BOB NEWSOM, Century 21 Newsom, 29760 Rancho California Road, #107, Temecula, tenant in this center, supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Newsom stated that alot of the small businesses in the center are failing due to the lack of advertisement. COMMISSIONER FAREY moved to close the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Variance No. 8 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for making the legal requirements for findings that this property is being deprived of priveleges which are enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity within the zone, and is granting special priveleges which is inconsistent within the zone. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that although he shared some of the same concerns as Commissioner Chiniaeff, this property is unique and the signage is being consolidated, therefore he can support this particular Variance. GARY THORNHILL suggested that the Commission consider an additional finding, that because of the topography of Lyndie Lane, any sign would not be visible to thru PCMIN12/16/91 -4- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 traffic, which is a special circumstance applicable to this property. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she concurred that this was an appropriate finding to add to the findings in the staff report, and COMMISSIONER FORD concurred. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland None Blair NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: The motion was voted as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18; AND SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 2 Proposal to amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol Specific plan to include Planning Area #36, located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. MARK RHOADB8 summarized the staff report. He advised the Commission of an error on the agenda referencing Bedford Properties as the applicant. Mr. Rhoades also advised that the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association submitted a letter requesting a continuance to February. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. KEITH MCCANN, JR., 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, read verbatim from the attached Exhibit to the Planning Commission. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the Change of Zone: TERI GASLEN, 44501 Verde Drive, Los Ranchitos, representing the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association, addressed the Commission with the concern that if this PCMIN12/16/91 -5- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PL~NIN~ CO~fi~ISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 change of zone is approved, others parcels will follow. The Association is very concerned with what type of commercial is going to be at this location. Ms. Gaslen stated that the Association was requesting a postponing of any decision to allow them time to study the proposed project and work with Mr. McCann. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he was concerned with the Association's request for a continuance, due to the cost implecations to the developer. DON ROHRABACHER, 44281 Flores Drive, Temecula, opposed the zone change and stated that in order for Mr. McCann to change his zoning, it must be approved by a 51% majority vote from the members. Mr. Rohrabacher stated that if 51% of the members voted to approve the zone change then he would not oppose it. REBECCA WERSING, 41775 Yorba Avenue, Temecula, Opposed approving the zone change without getting 51% of the vote of the Association members. KEITH MCCANN advised that in his correspondence to the Board he suggest that he only needs one of anyone of the following anchors: mini market, gas station or fast food, to satisfy the lenders, and he would be willing to sit down and discuss with the Board which one of these they would feel most comfortable with. Mr. McCann added that he would be willing to postpone submitting a plot plan for the parcel until February or March. COMMISSIONER CRINIAEFF stated that the Commission's role is to make the best planning decision, and keeping the properties on the east side of the street residential, surrounded by commercial is not reasonable planning decision; however, he did express a concern for the premature planning of that parcel. Mr. Chiniaeff stated that he felt the zone change was appropriate; however, the list of uses should be reviewed and decided on which are good and which are bad for this parcel. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she has expressed concern in the past about going against CC&R's; however, Mr. McCann has made some significant effort to work with the Association. The general plan will be determining what the specific boundaries of Los Ranchitos will be and it would oppose the zone change at this particular time. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he was not looking at this from the stand point of taking away the authority of the PCMIN12/16/91 -6- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMI88ION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 CC&R's; however, this property was cut-off and seperate from Los Ranchitos. GARY THORNHILL stated that with resepect to the useage issue, staff had been contemplating that. Mr. Thornhill suggested that staff come back with a list of uses that staff feels are appropriate for this location. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested providing the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association with the list and getting their input as well. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Change of Zone No. 18 and Specific Plan No. 219, Amendment No. 2, to the second meeting in January, and direct staff to look at the permitted uses in the existing specific plan and come back with a recommendation as to the type of uses that would be most appropriate, as well as provide that list to the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association so that they can make comments as far as what they would like to see, and continue the public hearing until that date, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff Hoagland NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 7:55 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M. COMMISSIONER FAREY asked to be excused due to medical reasons. 7. TENTATIVE TRACT PARCELHAP NO. 22515, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME .1 Proposal for a three lot commercial subdivision of 3.86 acres located on the northeast side of the southerly terminus of Front Street. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. COMMI88IONER CHINIAEFF asked if there were any dedications required for re-alignment of Front Street in the area of the project. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that there is some work to be done with Front Street with the possible alignment of the PCMIN12/16/91 -7- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16o 1991 future by-pass corridor. There will be some work that has to be done with the adjacent freeway off-ramps and Front Street. COMMISSIONER FORD asked if the flood control issue has been resolved. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that staff is in the process of redesigning the storm drain line in this area. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. KEITH MCCANN, 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, applicant, advised that he acquired the property under the assumption that this was an approved project. He advised that the construction of the storm drain is being done by Tomac Engineering at the direction of staff. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, advised that there was a timely filing of the second time extension; however, due to the change of ownership there was some problem relative to the fees; however, that has been resolved. The concerns for the drainage are relative to the inadequacy of the structure under the freeway. Regarding the Conditions, Mr. Markham requested that Condition 6 be deleted or a dimenimous finding be made relative to the Fish and Game fee and Condition 12 requesting CC&R's, would suggest reciprocal accessment agreements. JOHN KAVANAUGH recommended that Condition 12 not be deleted. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. Re-Affirm the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 31724 adopted by the County of Riverside for Tentative Parcel Map 22515 and Adopt Resolution 91-(next] approving the Second Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 22515 based on the Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval with the deletion of Condition No. 6, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey PCMIN12/16/91 -8- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested that staff present both Items 8 and 9 together. 8. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761 Second Extension of Time for a 80 lot residential subdivision on 28 acres within Specific Plan 180, located on the west side of Ynez Road, North of Pierce Lane. 9. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22762 Second Extension of Time for a 50 lot residential subdivision on 16.86 acres within Specific Plan 180, located on the west side of Terra Vista Road, South of Ynez Road. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. Mr. Rhoades handed out Conditions of Approval pertaining to the Recreation Center and park-site and read them into the records. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested clarification of the Conditions of Approval of the Recreation Center and park- site. COMMISSIONER FORD asked who the improvement bond would be made out to. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the bond should be made out to the City. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. LARRY SMITH, Coleman Homes, stated that the had just received the revisions and wanted clarification. He stated that in his discussions with staff, he understood that Coleman Homes would be required to build the recreation facility, to be completed by the 250th Certificate of Occupancy, or July 1, 1993, not at the 250th Building Permit as stated in the Conditions of Approval. Also, he had that same understanding regarding the completion of the improvements to Ynez Road. COMMISSIONER FORD asked if staff had any problems with the completion of the recreation center at the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the 250th unit. GARY KING concurred with the amendment to the Condition. PCMIN12/16/91 -9- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE8 DECEMBER 16, 1991 ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that the improvements to Ynez Road were required prior to the issuance of Building Permits because this is a key portion of the Ynez Corridor Project, and the City Engineer would like this key portion completed first. JIM ALLMON, 43954 Gatewood Way, Temecula, stated that the developer had been very cooperative with the homeowners and thanked the developer and staff for all their efforts. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that the improvement of the roads should be tied to the Certificate of Occupancy. No Certificate of Occupancy issued until roads are complete. COMMISSIONER CEINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) recommending that the City Council approve Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22761 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, including those presented at the public hearing, with the following modifications, that prior to recordation of the final map, said agreement shall require construction and completion of the recreation center and private park prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on the 250th unit in Specific Plan No. 180 or by July 1, 1993, whichever comes first; a bond in an amount set by the Public Works Department shall be provided; prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of any unit in either tract, Ynez Road shall be improved with A/C paving, seconded by CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND. COMMISSIONER FORD requested clarification of the bond requirement. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that the developer shall post a bond with the City or shall show proof that a bond has been posted in sufficient amount to construct the facility, CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND concurred with the amendment. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next] ADDroving the Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22762 PCMIN12/16/91 -10- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, including those presented at the public hearing, with the following modifications, that prior to recordation of the final map, said agreement shall require construction and completion of the recreation center and private park prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy on the 250th unit in Specific Plan No. 180 or by July 1, 1993, whichever comes first; a bond in an amount set by the Public Works Department shall be provided; prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of any unit in either tract, Ynez Road shall be improved with A/C paving, seconded by COMMISSION FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey 10. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26521 10.1 10 Lot residential subdivision on 11 acres, located on the northeast corner of Green Tree Road and Grapevine. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. CMAIRMANHOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. KEN WINCH, 2440 South Hacienda Boulevard, Hacienda Heights, representing the applicant, provided a brief summary of the project. Mr. Winch indicated the applicant's concurrence with the staff report and Conditions of Approval; however, requests that the condition requiring 36' street width, street lights and sidewalks be deleted to maintain the rural environment on the private streets and Green Tree Road. BOB PIPHER, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecula, stated that although he would like to see the development approved there were some issues he would like clarified. Mr. Pipher advised that he had submitted a petition to staff from the Association requesting that the area retain it's rural qualities. He also requested that if Green Tree was not going to be maintained by the City, that the maintenance of the road be addressed within the CC&R's, so that the Homeowner's Association is required to pay their fair share of the maintenance costs. PCMIN12/16/91 -11- DECEMBER 18, 1991 pLied~IN3 CONNISSION ~INUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for emergency vehicle access into the project and drainage as it relates to Pauba Road. JOHN TELESIO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, supported the development however, requested that the area retain it's rural standard. ROBERT RIGEETTI advised that the City standard for Rancho Vista Road requires 32' of asphalt concrete, with curb and gutter and sidewalk, and street lights. The City standard for the private street requires A/C pavement with an A/C burm, no sidewalk, curb, gutter, or street light. This is the requirement for Green Tree Road as well. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that the turn-around bulb be enlarged near the gated entrance rather than the intersection. ROBERT RIGHETTI suggested amending Condition 37 by adding the following sentence, "A turn-around bulb with a minimum 38' radius shall be provided outside the gated entrance."; and amending Condition 80 by deleting the requirement for the turn-around bulb in the intersection. KEN WINCH stated that the applicant concurred with the amendment proposed; however, indicated that they were unaware that they were being required to provide paving to Pauba. He stated that through all their meetings they understood that they would be required to pave to Calls Cedro. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that the Ordinace required paving to the nearest maintained road. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that the applicant pursue the an easement to Pauba Road from the property owner on Grapevine. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 to the second meeting in January to allow the applicant time to address the issues raised pertaining to access, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey PCMIN12/16/91 -12- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 14 11.1 Proposal to construct a gas station, car wash and mini- mart, located on the northwesterly side of Winchester Road and South of Margarita Road. (Pad 7/Plot 224) MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested placing planters at both ends of the building. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 9:45 P.M. MIKE LUCCI, representing Chevron, U.S.A., expressed concurrence with the staff report, and requested clarification on Item 54, Page 17 of the second amendment, referring the fee to be paid, requested that the square footage of the building include the food mart and the car wash and not the canopy. Additionally, Item 58, relative to the 25' easement, would request postponing the dedication until it becomes part of the general plan. Mr. Lucci gave a brief description of the characteristics of this site. Mr. Lucci stated that he would suggest more trees rather than larger trees to enhance the landscaping. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 10:05 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 14; and Adopt Resolution No. 91-[next) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 14 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, clarifying the payment of fees for Condition 54 (Gary Thornhill indicated that fee would be computed on the square footage of the food mart), and staff to work with the applicant on the landscape planter(s) for the project, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey 12. AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 90-19 12.1 Proposal to amend Ordinance 90-19 which established decision making authority for sub-division and land use PCMIN12/16/91 -13- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMI88ION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 applications. GARY THORNHILL reviewed the proposed amendment to Ordinance 90-19 and requested that the Commission provide input individually. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to Ordinance 90-19 to the second seconded by CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND. continue Amendment Of meeting of January, AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER FORD moved to adjourn at 10:25 P.M. to the next Planning Commission meeting on January 6, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementar School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. chairman John E. Hoagland secretary PCMIN12/16/91 -14- DECEMBER 18, 1991 December 16, 1991 Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission Members... My name is Keith L. McCann, Jr. I reside at 43121 Temecula. Margarita, in I would like to report to you regarding your recommendation of October 7, 1991, that I and the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association engage in additional dialogue regarding release from the C.C.&Rs. During my first meeting with the Association Board Members, I was instructed by the board to meet with certain homeowners to ascertain what, if anything, might be required of me to obtain their cooperation. Thereafter I was to report back to the board my findings and to make a proposal for being released from the C.C,&RS. I was informed by the contiguous property owners that they would be willing to see me go forward with my project, and without the performance of any mitigating measures. In my discussion with Mr. Pacitto, he added that he would like to see my project developed with the community in mind. I then made a proposal to the Board which included the following: 1) to personally assist the association with its endeavors to up-grade its community, 2) to make a financial contribution of $ 10,000 to the Association, 3) and to involve the board in my plot plan submission, relative to tenant-mix and building configuration. During my second meeting with the board I was asked if I would also be willing to assist in the cost of making certain specified improvements at the northwest and southwest corners of Deportola and Margarita which would serve as monumentation and define the entry to Los Ranchitos. I agreed that I would also be willing to participate in those costs. It would appear that we are moving ever closer to a resolve. However, in its letter to the Planning Commission, dated December 10, 1991, the board requested a further delay by the Planning Commission. The Board stated as its reasons for a further delay as follows: 1) desire to speak with the school district, 2) desire to speak with Santiago Estates, 3) desire to speak with adjacent neighbors to the proposed site, 4) desire to speak with 5) desire to understand special uses, etc. other community members, set backs, landscaping, buffers, Regarding item ~1; desire to speak with the school district: I spoke to Bob Costland, who represents the school board, on Thursday, December 12, and his only comment was that he did not want to see beer and wine sold within 200 feet of the school. Further, Dr. David Eurich, a school board member and member of Los Ranchitos has stated his willingness to see the project go forward. Regarding item ~2; desire to speak with Santiago Estates: Santiago Estates is so far removed from the site, and in as much as Santiago Estates did not take a position regarding Bedford's forty acres of commercial property, it hardly seems fair to seek their opinion regarding this matter, Regarding item ~3; desire to speak with the adjacent property owners: The board has met with the adjacent property owners and pursuant to the board's letter, dated December 9, 1991, I quote in part, "The Board has also had an opportunity to speak with Mrs. Abernathy and Mr. Pacitto regarding your development plans...Our understanding of their positions is similar to yours, but with some important clarifications", namely Mrs Abernathy feels like its a moot issue, given that Bedford's project is going forward, and, as I said before, Mr. Pacitto wants the site developed with the community in mind. Regarding item ~4; desire to speak with other community members: Pursuant to its letter addressed to all homeowners, dated September 20, 1991, which I quote in part, the ramifications of his request and asks giving him a signature at this time... we "The board is studying that you refrain from sincerely 'hope that you will communicate your opinions and concerns to represent you in a responsible manner. Again, dated September 20, 1991. If in three months members have not communicated their position, because the matter is insignificant. us so that we can that letter is the Association it is most likely Finally, regarding item ~5; desire to understand set backs, landscaping, etc: The Board has been in possession of a copy of the Specific Plan for longer than one month, yet only two Board members have reviewed it. That is understandable given that it looks like an encyclopedia and is difficult, if not boring reading. The point that I wish to make is that item ~5 is covered in substantial detail, and provides for more substantial buffers, landscaping, and set backs than could be possibly contemplated by the Association for its own community. The Specific Plan provides for an attractive and continuous buffer, beginning at Hwy 79 and continuing to the high school. Further, the planning staff has required compliance with Specific Plan 219 to assure continuity in development. I will admit that certain details need to be addressed between myself and the Association, but it is not necessary to delay the zone change. My objective is to comply with the desires of the Association, so far as it is possible, so that I may be released from the C.C.&Rs. While I was not anxious to receive your direction in October, I have, never the less, complied with it. I intend to involve the Association in the building orientation and in determining tenant mix, with the only exception being that the project must be able to be financed. I, therefore request that the Commission vote this night in favor of Specific Plan, Amendment ~2. May I address questions or concerns at this time? ITEM # 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning January 6, 1992 Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFTEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS," PROPOSAL An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Antennas. The purpose for preparing the proposed Antenna Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to Antennas. BACKGROUND On December 16, 1991, the Planning Commission considered an ordinance which establishes regulations for the installation of commercial transmitting antennas and non-commercial antennas, which includes satellite dish, television/radio and FCC licensed amateur radio antennas. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission continued this item in order to allow the City Attorney the opportunity to clarify the conditional uses provisions within the ordinance. DISCUSSION The Conditional Uses provisions have been amended to eliminate any reference to satellite receiving antennas, which is consistent with recent court decisions. In addition, the City Attorney has simplified the Operational Criteria and Performance Standards. The amortization period for non-conforming antennas has also been extended from one year to two years. The City Attorney will be available the night of the meeting to respond to any questions. S\STAFFRPT\ANTENNA2,ORD CONCLUSION The proposed Antenna Ordinance provides the City with the standards to thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well as providing the necessary control measures needed to ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and control the overall quality and number of such antennas. In addition, the proposed ordinance provides adequate regulation in order to comply with the FFC's order. The new Antenna Ordinance will serve as interim regulations until the City's Zoning Development Code is prepared and adopted. At that time, this Ordinance will be incorporated and/or modified into the final Zoning Development Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS." vgw Attachments: 2. 3. 4, Resolution - page 3 "Draft" Ordinance - page 6 Planning Commission Staff Report (dated December 16, 1991 ) - page 15 Planning Commission Minutes (dated December 16, 1991 ) - page 16 S%STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2.0RD ~) ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-__ S\STAFF~PT~ANTENNA2.ORD 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-__ RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ARE COMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ANTENNA ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348 (" Land Use Code") and WHEREAS, such regulations do not contain provisions for the use of antennas and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of antennas and to protect the health, quality of life, and the environment of the residents of Temecula; and WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on October 21,1991 and December 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Changer of Commerce; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISS ION OF THE CITY O F TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that the proposed Antenna Ordinance will provide for the establishment of regulations for antennas in a fair and equitable manner. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed Antenna Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with its land use plans. SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that this ordinance does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b)(3). S~STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2.ORD 4 SECTION 4. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Antenna Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Exhibit "A" and dated December 16, 1991, for identification. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January 1992. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN 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 6th day of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRPT%ANTENNA2.ORD 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 92-__ S\STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2,0RD 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 92-__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I - FINDINGS. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: 1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan if all of the following requirements are met: plan. (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detrimen~ to or interface with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable require- ments of state law and local ordinances. 2. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. S\STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2.0RD 7 The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan, (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1 There is reasonable probability the Ordinance No. 91- will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable require- ments of state law and local ordinances. 3. There is the need to control the location and design of antennas, including Amateur Radio antennas, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to maintain community design objectives. 4. The City of Temecula desires to allow amateur radio antennas in residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial areas of the City, subject to appropriate regulation to prevent these antennas from creating a negative impact on neighboring properties. 5. The City of Tamecula desires to adopt antenna regulations that provide for the regulation of both FCC licensed Amateur Radio and all other antennas within the City in order to minimize aesthetic blight and to ensure proper location, attachment, and structural integrity thereby protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Accordingly, the City of Temecula hereby adopts the following: Section 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to set forth the develop- ment standards for the installation and maintenance of antennas within all land use zones of the City. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design and location of antennas are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the City, while providing the technical requirements of these antennas. DEFINITIONS. The purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the context, words used in the present tense singular include the plural. (a) "Antenna" means any systems of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices of various sizes, materials and shapes including but not limited to solid wire or wire-mesh dish, horn, spherical, or bar configured arrangements, used for the transmission S\STAFFRPT%ANTENNA2.0RD 6 or reception of data, facsimile, television, voice or other forms of telecommunications, including citizens band (CB) antennas. Any such system is further defined to be external to or attached to the exterior of any building. (b) "Antenna height or height of antenna" means the distance from the property's grade to the highest point of the antenna and its associated support structure when fully extended. (c) "Antenna support structure" means a mast, pole, tripod or tower utilized for the purpose of supporting an antenna(s) as defined above. (d) "Antenna Whip" means an antenna and its support structure consisting of a single, slender, rod-like element which is supported only at or near its base. (e) "FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas" means antenna array and its associated support structure, such as a mast or tower, that is used for the purpose of trans- mitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (f) "Commercial transmitting antenna/dish" means antennas used for transmit- ting or transmitting television and/or radio and/or cellular telephone communications. (g) "Obstruction-free reception window" means the absence of man-made or natural physical barriers that would block the signal between a satellite and an antenna. (h) "Non-commercial antenna" means any satellite dish or television/radio antenna, other than in conjunction with an Amateur Radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (i) "Reception window"means the area within the direct line between a land based antenna and an orbiting satellite. (j) "Satellite dish antenna" means any apparatus capable of receiving commu- nications from a transmittee or a transmitter relay located in planetary orbit. EXEMPT ANTENNAS. Antennas meeting the following standards and specifications are exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance: (a) Common residential skeletal type radio and television antenna used to receive UHF, VHF, AM and FM signals of off-air broadcasts from radio and television stations. LOCATION OF NON-COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS. Non-commercial antennas may be established in all zoning districts as accessory uses and then shall conform to the regulations contained in this Ordinance. PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE. The following antennas are permitted as an accessory use in the specified zoning districts and are subject to all applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits. S%STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2.0RD 9 (1) Satellite receiving antennas in non-residential zones on sites not contiguous to a residential zone. (2) Amateur radio and vertical antennas that do not exceed 30 feet in height in all zones. CONDITIONAL USES. The following antennas may be allowed subject to Planning Director approval, in the specified zoning districts. (1) Two (2) or more Satellite receiving antennas in nonresidential zones on sites contiguous to a residential zone. (2) Amateur radio and vertical antennas that exceed 35 feet in height, in all zones. LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS. Not- withstanding any provision to the contrary in this Ordinance, no commercial transmitting antenna shall be established or expanded except in the M-SC, M-M and M-H zoning district, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and then shall conform to the regulations contained in this Ordinance, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. No commercial transmitting antenna shall be erected or relocated except upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit therefore in accordance with Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 hereof. The requirements of Ordinance No. 348 and of this Ordinance first shall be construed in a manner to make them compatible. When there is a conflict between the two, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL TRANS- MITTING ANTENNAS. (a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to maintain their supporting structures at least ten (10') feet from any property line and ten (10) feet from any other structure. (b) The base of all ground-mounted antennas shall be screened by walls fences or landscaping at least six (6') feet in height obscuring visibility of the base of the antenna. Landscaping shall be of a type and variety capable of growing within one (1 } year to a land- scape screen which obscures the visibility of the base of the antenna. (c) All antennas and their supporting structures shall be located in the rear yard or side yard, except a street side yard. (d) No antenna shall be higher than the maximum height permitted in the zone, measured from grade level. (e) A maximum of one (1) antenna shall be allowed per lot. (f) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located within 1,500 fee of S\STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2.0RD 10 Interstate 15. (g) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located within 1,000 feet of any other such antenna. ANTENNAS. DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL (a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to maintain their supporting structures at least five (5') feet from any side property line; ten (10') feet from any rear yard property line; and fifty (50) feet from any front yard property line on lots greater than 1/2 acre in size. (b) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located in the area between the front property line and the dwelling on any lot less than 1/2 acre in size. (c) Within residential developments, no antenna shall be higher than thirty-five (35 ') feet above grade level, except satellite antennas which shall not exceed fifteen (15 ') feet in height. (d) A maximum of two (2) antennas including exempt antennas shall be allowed per lot, except as provided for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas. prohibited. (e) All roof-mounted satellite dish antennas within residential developments are (f) Within non-residential developments, no antenna shall be higher than the maximum height permitted in the zone, measured from grade level, except as provided for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas, (g) Within non-residential developments, no antenna shall be roof-mounted except on a flat portion of the roof structure with parapets, and/or architecturally matching screening plan. AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS It is the intent of this section to provide a set of procedures whereby Amateur Radio Antennas may be installed within the City of Temecula. A four (4) level procedure is provided to allow FCC Licensed Radio Operators to: Install Amateur Radio Antennas under thirty feet in height without any special permit or approvals. Install Amateur Radio Antennas in excess of thirty (30) feet subject to complying with the Amateur Radio Antenna Development Standards outlined in this Ordinance. S\STAFFRPT'~ANTENNA2.ORD 1 I c. Install vertical antennas in excess of thirty (30) feet or satellite antennas in residential zones subject to approval of a Conditional Use by the Planning Director. Apply for a waiver or modification of any development standards subject to approval of a Amateur Radio Permit, as provided for in this Ordinance. No part of any amateur radio antenna shall exceed 65 feet in height measured from the property's grade, Not more than one amateur radio antenna support structure and one whip antenna structure in excess of 30 feet in height shall be permitted on the building site. No portion of any amateur radio antenna, including the array, shall be located within any front yard of any lot of less than 1/2 acre in size, or any required side yard. An antenna support structure and its associated antenna may be located in 8 required rear year area provided that it is placed as far forward as possible from the rear property line. Antenna support structures mounted on roofs shall be kept to the rear of the centerline of the main structure. Replacement of an amateur radio antenna support structure shall be subject to all applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits. However, the supported antenna, including the array, may be replaced without issuance of a new building permit, provided the replacement antenna does not exceed the maximum weight, dimensions or wind load area specified in the current building permit. OPERATIONAL CRITERIA AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The following regulations shall apply to the establishment, installation and operation of all antennas in all zones: (a) Antennas shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the require- ments of the Building Code. Antenna installers shall obtain a building permit prior to installation. (b) No advertising material shall be allowed on any antenna. (c) All electrical wiring associated with any antenna shall be buried underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. (d) No portion of an antenna array shall exceed beyond the property lines or into any front yard area. Guy wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area but may be attached to the building. (e) The antenna, including guy wireS, supporting structures and accessory equipment, shall be located and designed so as to minimize the visual impact on surrounding properties and from public streets. The materials user in constructing the antenna shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny, garish, or reflective. S\STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2.ORD 12 (f) Every antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate ground wire. Ground wires shall be of the type approved by the latest edition of the Electrical Code for grounding masts and lightning arrestere and shall be installed in a mechanical manner, with as few bends as possible, maintaining a clearance of at least two inches from combustible materials. Lightning arresters shall be user that are approved as safe by the Underwriter's Laboratories, Inc. and both sides of the line must be adequately protected with proper arresters to remove static charges accumulated on the line. When lead-in conductors of polyethylene ribbon-type are used, lightning arresters must be installed in each conductor. When coaxial cable or shielded twin lead is used for lead-in, suitable protection may be provided without lightning arresters by grounding the exterior metal sheath. (g) A wind velocity test shall be required, if deemed necessary by the building official. VARIANCES. Pursuant to the procedures of Section 18.27 of Ordinance No. 348, any person may seek a variance from the provisions of this Ordinance. No fee shall be charged to an applicant for a variance that is required solely for the purposes of complying with the Ordinance. Any variance so granted is revocable for failure by the applicant or property owner to comply with the conditions imposed. A variance shall be issued for an antenna if it meets the following standards: (a) Locating the antenna in conformance with the specification of this Ordi- nance would obstruct or otherwise excessively interfere with reception, and such obstruction or interference involves factors beyond the applicant's control; or, the cost of meeting the specifications of this Ordinance is excessive, given the cost of the proposed antenna. (b) The variance application includes a certification that the proposed installation is in conformance with applicable City Building Code regulations. Furthermore, the application must contain written documentation of such conformance, including load distributions within the building's support structure and certified by a registered engineer. (c) If it is proposed that the antenna will be located on the roof, where possible, the antenna shall be located on the rear portion of the roof and be consistent with neighboring improvements, uses, and architectural character. NON-CONFORMING ANTENNAS. All antennas, in any zone, lawfully constructed and erected prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance for the particular zone in which they are located, shall be accepted as non-conforming uses for a period of two (2) years from the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. Section 3. 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 decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. S%STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2,ORD 13 Section 4o The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 5. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b)(3). Section 6. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1992. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor June S. Greek City Clerk S\STAFFRFTV~NTENNA2.ORD 1'4' ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 16, 1991 S\STAFFRPT~ANTENNA2.ORD 15 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill December 16, 1991 Antenna Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSAL: BACKGROUND: ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91- recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS." An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Antennas. The purpose for preparing the proposed Antenna Ordinance is due to the inadequacy of the County Ordinance No. 348 as it relates to Antennas. On October 21, 1991, the Planning Commission considered an ordinance which establishes regulations for the insta/lation of commercial transmitting antennas and non-commercial antennas, which includes satellite dish, television/radio and H.A.M. radio antennas. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission continued this item in order to allow the City Attorney and the Planning Staff the opportunity to further evaluate the following issues: 1. Should all types of roof-mounted antennas be pwhibited within residential developments. 2. Are H.A.M. radio antennas exempt from all of the standards of the proposed ordinance. 3. Provide addition legal information regarding the regulations for l-I.A.M.radios. A:DtRECTIONAL SiGN DISCUSSION: CONCLUSION: Pursuant to the direction of the Planning Commission, staff has reviewed the above issues and has prepared the following analysis: Common residential skeletal type radio and television antennas used to receive UHF, VHF, AM and FM signals of off-air broadcasts from radio and television stations are exempt from the requirements of the proposed Antenna Ordinance. H.A.M.radio antennas are not totally exempt from the requirements from the proposed Antenna Ordinance in that the following standards have been included: No part of any amateur radio antenna shall exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height. Not more than one (1) amateur radio antenna support structure and one (I) whip antenna structure in excess of thirty (30) feet in height shall be permitted per parcel. Allamateur radio antennas shall comply with the Design and Performance Standards as set forth in the proposed ordinance. The legal opinion regarding the regulations for H.A.M. radio antennas willbe presented by the City Attorney at the Public Hearing. The proposed Antenna Ordinance provides the City with the standards to thoroughly review an applicant's proposal as well as providing the necessary control measures needed to ensure the public safety; to provide organization; and control the overall quality and number of such antennas. In addition, the proposed ordinance provides adequate regulations in order to comply with the FCC's Order. The new Antenna Ordinance willserve as interim regulations until the City's Zoning Development Code is prepared and adopted. At that time, this ordinance will be incorporated and/or modified into the final Zoning Development Cede. A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN~A 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. P.C. 91- recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "ANORDINANCE OF THE CITYCOUNCIL OF THE CITYOF ~CULAADDINGCHAFrER {5 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICII~AL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS? OM:ks Attachments: Resolution "Draft"Ordinance Planning Commission Staff Report (Dated October 21, 1991) Planning Commission Minutes (Dated October 21, 1991) A:DIRECTIONAL SiGN D-SIGN*A RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 91- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITYOF TEMECULARECOMMENDINGTHE CITYCOUNCIL ADOPT THE ANTENNA ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference certain portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 348 ("Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, such regulations do not contain provisions for the use of antennas; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to regulate the use of antennas and to protect the health, quality of life,and the environment of the residents of Temecula; and WHEREAS, public hearings were conducted on October 21, 1991 and December 16, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: finds that regulations SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby the proposed Antenna Ordinance will provide for the establishment of for antennas in a fair and equitable manner. SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed Antenna Ordinance is necessary to bring about eventual conformity with its land use plans. SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula hereby finds that this ordinance does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 0o)(3). A:DIRECTIONAL SiGN D-SIGN-A SECTION 4. That the Planning Commission of the CityofTemecula hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the proposed Antenna Ordinance. The Ordinance is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and marked Exhibit "A" and dated December 16, 1991, for identification. PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 1991. JOHN HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN 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 16th day of December, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS A:DIRECTIONAL SIGN D-SIGN-A 5 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAINAS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: 1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its deci- sions be consistent with the general plan if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within 'a reason- able time. (2) There is little or no probability of substan- tial detriment to or interface with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. 2. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the follow- ing: (1) There is reasonable probability the Ordinance No. 91- will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substan- tial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies'with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. 3. There is the need to control the location and design of antennas, including Amateur Radio antennas, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and to maintain community design objectives. 4. The City of Temecula desires to allow amateur radio antennas in residential, commercial, institutional, and industri- al areas of the City, subject to appropriate regulation to prevent these antennas from creating a negative impact on neigh- boring properties. 5. The City of Temecula desires to adopt antenna regulations that provide for the regulation of both PCC licensed Amateur Radio and all other antennas within the City in order to minimize aesthetic blight and to ensure proper location, attach- ment, and structural integrity thereby protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Accordingly, the City of Temecula hereby adopts the following: SECTION 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to set forth the development standards for the installation and maintenance of antennas within all land use zones of the City. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design and location of antennas are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the City, while providing the technical requirements of these antennas. DEFINITIONS. The purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the con- text, words used in the present tense singular include the plural. (a) "Antenna" means any systems of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices of various sizes, materials and shapes including but not limited to solid wire or wire-mesh dish, horn, spherical, or bar config- ured arrangements, used for the transmission or recep- tion of data, facsimile, television, voice or other forms of telecommunications, including citizens band (CB) antennas. Any such system is further defined to be external to or attached to the exterior of any building. (b) "Antenna height or height of antenna" means the distance from the propertyts grade to the highest point of the antenna and its associated support structure when fully extended. (c) "Antenna support structure" means a mast, pole, tripod or tower utilized for the purpose of supporting an antenna(s) as defined above. (d) "Antenna Whips means an antenna and its support structure consisting of a single, slender, rod-like element which is supported only at or near its base. (e) "FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas" means anten- na array and its associated support structure, such as a mast or tower, that is used for the purpose of trans- mitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal Commu- nications Commission. (f) "Commercial transmitting antenna/dish" means antennas used for transmitting or transmitting televi- sion and/or radio and/or cellular telephone communica- tions. (g) "Obstruction-free reception window" means the absence of man-made or natural physical barriers that would block the signal between a satellite and an antenna. 3 (h) "Non-commercial antenna" means any satellite dish or television/radio antenna, other than in conjunction with an Amateur Radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (i) "Reception window"means the area within the direct line between a land based antenna and an orbiting satellite. (j) "Satellite dish antenna" means any apparatus capable of receiving communications from a transmittee or a transmitter relay located in planetary orbit. EXEMPT ANTENNAS. Antennas meeting the following standards and specifications are exempt from the requirements of this Ordinance: (a) Common residential skeletal type radio and televi- sion antenna used to receive UHF, VHF, AM and FM sig- nals of off-air broadcasts from radio and television stations. LOCATION OF NON-COMMERCIALANTENNAS. Non-commercial antennas may be established in all zoning districts as accessory uses and then shall conform to the regulations contained in this Ordinance. PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE. The following antennas are permitted as an accessory use in the specified zoning districts and are subject to all applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits. (1) Satellite receiving antennas in non'residen- tial zones on sites not contiguous to a residen- tial zone. (2) Amateur radio and vertical antennas that do not exceed 30 feet in height in all zones. (3) In all zones, amateur radio antennas that exceed 30 feet in height and comply with Amateur Radio Antenna Development Standards. CONDITIONAL USES. The following antennas may be allowed subject to Planning Director approval, in the specified zoning districts. (1) Satellite receiving antennas in residential zones, and in nonresidential zones on sites con- tiguous to a residential zone. (3) Vertical antennas that exceed 30 feet in height, in all zones. DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDANDS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL ANTENNAS. (a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to maintain their supporting structures at least five (5') feet from any side property line; ten (10') feet from any rear yard property line; and fifty (50) feet from any front yard property line on lots greater than 1/2 acre in size. (b) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located in the area between the front property line and the dwelling on any lot less than 1/2 acre in size. (c) Within residential developments, no antenna shall be higher than thirty-five (35') feet above grade level, except satellite antennas which shall not exceed fifteen (15') feet in height. (d) A maximum of two (2) antennas including exempt antennas shall be allowed per lot, except as provided for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas. (e) All roof-mounted satellite dish antennas within residential developments are prohibited. (f) Within non-residential developments, no antenna shall be higher than the maximum height permitted in the zone, measured from grade level, except as provided for under regulations for FCC licensed Amateur Radio antennas. (g) Within non-residential developments, no antenna shall be roof-mounted except on a flat portion of the roof structure with parapets, and/or architecturally matching screening plan. LOCATION OF COMMERCIAL TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS. Not- withstanding any provision to the contrary in this Ordinance, no commercial transmitting antenna shall be established or expanded except in the M-SC, M-M and M-H zoning district, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and then shall conform to the regulations contained in this Ordinance. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. No commercial transmitting antenna shall be erected or relocated except upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit therefore in accordance with Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348 hereof. The requirements of Ordinance No. 348 and of this Ordinance first shall be construed in a manner to make them compatible. When there is a conflict between the two, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL TRANS- MITTING ANTENNAS. (a) All ground-mounted antennas shall be required to maintain their supporting structures at least ten (10') feet from any property line and ten (10) feet from any other structure. (b) The base of all ground-mounted antennas shall be screened by walls fences or landscaping at least six (6') feet in height obscuring visibility of the base of the antenna. Landscaping shall be of a type and vari- ety capable of growing within one (1) year to a land- scape screen which obscures the visibility of the base of the antenna. (c) All antennas and their supporting structures shall be located in the rear yard or side yard, except a street side yard. (d) No antenna shall be higher than the maximum height permitted in the zone, measured from grade level. (e) A maximum of one (1) antenna shall be allowed per lot. (f) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located within 1,500 fee of Interstate 15. (g) No antenna or its supporting structure shall be located within 1,000 feet of any other such antenna. AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (a) No part of any amateur radio antenna shall exceed 65 feet in height measured from the property's grade. (b) Not more than one amateur radio antenna support structure and one whip antenna structure in excess of 30 feet in height shall be permitted on the building site. (c) No portion of any amateur radio antenna, including the array, shall be located within any front yard of any lot of less than 1/2 acre in size, or any required side yard. An antenna support structure and its asso- 6 ciated antenna may be located in a required rear year area provided that it is placed as far forward as possible from the rear property line. Antenna support structures mounted on roofs shall be kept to the rear of the centerline of the main structure. (d) The development standards of amateur radio anten- nas may be waived or modified by the Planning Director upon approval of an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit as described below. (e) Replacement of an amateur radio antenna support structure shall be subject to all applicable regula- tions and issuance of appropriate permits. However, the supported antenna, including the array, may be replaced without issuance of a new building permit, provided the replacement antenna does not exceed the maximum weight, dimensions or wind load area specified in the current building permit. AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA PERMIT. (a) Application. Application for an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit shall be made to the Planning Director on forms provided. Plans and information reasonably needed to analyze the application may be required by the Planning Director. The application shall include a statement of the reasons why strict conformance with the Amateur Radio Antennas Development standards will unreasonably interfere with the operatorts ability to receive or transmit signals or will impose unreasonable costs on amateur radio operator when view in light of the cost of the equipment. (b) Issuance of Permit. The Planning Director may issue an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit if the applicant demonstrates that strict compliance with the Amateur Radio Antennas Development Standards would unreasonably interfere with the operatorts ability to receive or transmit signals or impose unreasonable costs on the amateur radio operator when viewed in the light of the costs of the equipment. The Planning Director may impose conditions reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of these regulations, provided those conditions do not unreasonable interfere with the ability of the operator to receive or transmit signals or result in unreasonable costs on the amateur radio operator when viewed in light of the cost of the equip- ment. (c) Notification. Notice of an application for an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit shall be given to all apply to antennas owners of real property located within 300 feet of the parcel on which parcel on which the proposed antenna is to be located. (d) Fees. Fees for consideration of Amateur Radio Antenna Permit Applications may be established by resolution of the City Council. OPERATIONAL CRITERIA. The following regulations shall the established, installation and operation of all in all zones: (a) Antennas shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. Antenna installers shall obtain a building permit prior to installation. (b) No advertising material shall be allowed on any antenna. (c) All electrical wiring associated with any antenna shall be buried underground or hidden in a manner acceptable to the Building Official. (d) No portion of an antenna array shall exceed beyond the property lines or into any front yard area. Guy wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area but may be attached to the building. (e) The antenna, including guy wires, supporting structures and accessory equipment, shall be located and designed so as to minimize the visual impact on surrounding properties and from public streets. The materials user in constructing the antenna shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny, garish, or reflective. (f) Every antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike of lightning, with an adequate ground wire. Ground wires shall be of the type approved by the latest edition of the Electrical Code for grounding masts and lightning arresters and shall be installed in a mechanical manner, with as few bends as possible, maintaining a clearance of at least two inches from combustible materials. Lightning arresters shall be user that are approved as safe by the Underwriter's Laboratories, Inc. and both sides of the line must be adequately'protected with proper arresters to remove static charges accumulated on the line. When lead-in conductors of polyethylene ribbon- type are used, lightning arresters must be installed in each conductor. When coaxial cable or shielded twin lead is used for lead-in, suitable protection may be 8 provided without lightning arresters by grounding the exterior metal sheath. (g) Antenna height limitations shall not apply to antennae which do not require building permits nor to satellite antennas. (h) Building permits are not required for antennas that meet all of the following criteria: (1) The antenna and its associated support structure are supported primarily by attachment to a building. (2) The antenna, including its associated support structure, does not weigh more than 80 pounds. (3) The antenna, excluding its associated support structure, does not exceed 4.4 square feet in effective wind loading area. (4) Attachment of the antenna and its associated support structure to a building does not require modification or reinforcement of load bearing elements of the building in order to support the antenna and its associated support structure at wind speeds of up to 70 miles per hour. VARIANCES. Pursuant to the procedures of Section 18.27 of Ordinance No. 348, any person may seek a variance from the provisions of this Ordinance. No fee shall be charged to an applicant for a variance that is required solely for the purposes of complying with the Ordinance. Any variance so granted ie revocable for failure by the applicant or property owner to comply with the conditions imposed. A variance shall be issued for an antenna if it meets the following standards: (a) Locating the antenna in conformance with the specification of this Ordinance would obstruct or otherwise excessively interfere with reception, and such obstruction or interference involves factors beyond the applicant~s control~ or, the cost of meeting the specifications of this Ordinance is excessive, given the cost of the proposed antenna. (b) The variance application includes a certification that the proposed installation is in conformance with applicable City Building Code regulations. Further- more, the application must contain written documenta- tion of such conformance, including load distributions within the building~s support structure and certified by a registered engineer. 9 (c) If it iS proposed that the antenna will be located on the roof, where possible, the antenna shall be located on the rear portion of the roof and be consis- tent with neighboring improvements, uses, and architec- tural character. NON-CONFORMING ANTENNAS. All antennas, in any zone, lawfully constructed and erected prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance for the particular zone in which they are located, shall be accepted as non-conforming uses for a period of one (1) year from the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. 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 decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adop- tion of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061(b)(3). SECTION 6. 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. 1991 · PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED This __ day of ATTEST: RONALDJ. PARKS MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED DECEMBER 6,1991 S\STAFFRPT',ANTENNA2.ORD 16 \ P~NNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 that any future construction along the freeway would block the sign coming southbound, and suggested...". RIGHETTI amended Page 7, seventh paragraph, to "...when the public impact fee condition was ~IONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the minutes of 16, 1991 as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 ONERS: None ABSENT: 1 iSSIONERS: Blair NON PUBLIC HERRING ITEMS OLD TOm SPECIFIC PLAN 3.1 Appoint Commissioner to Comm~ Consultant for Specific Plan. JOHN MEYER summarized the staff TTEE e to select Old Town By unanimous consensus the Commissioner Chiniaeff to serve on choose a consultant for Old Town and Cc to serve on the Old Town Advisory .ft. ssion approved Committee to ssioner Fahey PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE 4.1 Proposal for an ordinance establishing regulations for Television/Radio Antennas City Wide. JOHN MEYER summarized the staff report. John Meyer advised the Commission that after meeting with the local amateur radio club to review the ordinance and discussions with the city attorney's office, staff was recommending a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1992 in order to incorporate some of the recommendations. PCMIN12/16/91 -2- DECEMBER 18, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1991 JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that there are still issues that need to be reviewed under the section of conditional uses as they pertain to satellite receiving antennas. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. The following individuals were present to represent the various local Amateur Radio Clubs in support of the ordinance: Robert Berg, 42701 Via Del Campo, Temecula Joseph Terrazos, 31160 Lahontan Street, Temecula Michael Tucci, 42325 Via Conduelo, Temecula Rick Savage, 43120 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula Robert Sherman, 23635 Kettle Road, Murrieta Ron Perry, 29879 Camino Del Sol, Temecula, member of RACES, thanked staff for their work on the ordiance, and expressed concurrence with the amateur radio portion of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FORD asked Mr. Perry if a list of local radio operators could be provided to the City. Ron Perry advised that he was in the process of preparing a list of operators for Fire Stations 12 and 73. Joe Terrazos presented the Commission with a magazine which referenced an article about an amateur radio operation, much like the one that is being coordinated with the Temecula police department. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern for clustering of antennas on the roof and asked that the city attorney look into controlling this problem, as well as looking at stronger enforcement of regulations of the building permits, before bringing this item back before the Commission. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance to the Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair PCMIN12/16/91 -3- DECEMBER 18, 1991 ITEM # 4 PROJECT STATISTICS Total Acres: .97 Building Area: 3,558 square feet Landscape Area: 439 square feet Total Seating: 95 indoor seats/28 proposed outdoor seats Proposed Playground and Patio Area: 1,270 square feet BACKGROUND The project was originally submitted to the City of Temecula on May 15, 1991. On August 19, 1991, Plot Plan No. 233 for a Carl's Jr. restaurant was approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequently, on September 3, 1991, Plot Plan No. 233 Revision No. 1 was submitted to the City of Temecula for a 1,270 square foot playground and patio addition. Currently the subject site is vacant and construction has not yet commenced. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject project is located on the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road (see Exhibit A). Plot Plan No. 233 Revised No. 1 proposes to construct a 1,270 square foot playground and patio area along the south elevation of the approved subject building. The restaurant proposes 95 indoor seats and 28 outdoor seats for parental supervision in the proposed playground/patio area. Plot Plan No. 233 Revised No. 1 has been designed in accordance with the standards of the C-1/C-P (General Commercial) zone. ANALYSIS Circulation/Traffic/Parking The proposed improvements will have no impact on circulation, traffic and parking. The existing parking, as approved under Plot Plan No. 233, is adequate to serve the site. The center is required to have 834 parking spaces per Ordinance No. 348 (5.5 spaces/2,000 square feet of gross floor space). The center has provided 871 parking spaces and therefore, the addition of 28 outdoor seats will be able to be absorbed by the existing parking. Architectural Compatibility The play equipment is approximately 12 feet in height and will not exceed the height of the existing building fascia. The proposed playground and patio area which faces Rancho California Road will be screened with e 6 foot black wrought iron fence. Additional screening through landscaping has been included as Condition of Approval No. 10, whereby the applicant shall receive approval from the Director of Planning for landscape plans which adequately provide for the screening of the play area from the adjacent public right-of-way. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1992 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 233, Revised No. 1 Prepared By: Matthew Fagan LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- approving Plot Plan No. 233, Revised No. 1, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Bernard Karcher/BKL, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Carl Karcher Enterprises Inc. PROPOSAL: A 1,270 square foot outdoor playground and patio addition to the southern elevation of the subject building. Northwest corner of Rancho California Road C-1/C-P (General Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) SP (Specific Plan) R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) Not Requested Shopping Center North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Multiple Family Residential Vacant Single Family Residential S\STAFFRPT%233PP.REV STAFF The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's existing site. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way, (Rancho California Road)~ which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- approving Plot Plan No. 233, Revised No. 1, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw Attachments: Resolution - page 5 Conditions of Approval - page 10 Exhibits - page 14 a. Location Map b. SWAP Map c. Zone Map d. Site Map e. Elevations Compatibility with Surrounding Properties The project site is located in a developed commercial area and is surrounded predominantly by general commercial uses which were approved under Plot Plan No. 10739 under the jurisdiction of Riverside County on October 24, 1988. The proposed playground is a typical accessory use to fast food restaurants and will be screened from view by the proposed 6' iron fence, and landscaping. ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The project as conditioned, conforms with the existing zoning (C-1/C-P) affecting the subject property and is compatible with Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) land uses recommendations for the site commercial. As such, it is likely that Plot Plan No. 233 Revision No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan recommendations for the property in question, upon the plan's final adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structure; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. FINDINGS: There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 233 Revision No. 1 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in the context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. (Reference local Ordinance No. 348 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92--- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 233, REVISED NO. 1 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A PLAYGROUND AND PATIO AT AN APPROVED FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, (PLOT PLAN NO. 233), LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-250-018. WHEREAS, Bernard Karcher/BKL, Inc. filed Plot Plan No. 233, Revision No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on January 6, 1992 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Plot Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 0 F TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the Plot Plan proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. S\STAFFRPT\233PP.REV 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92--- S\STAFFRPT\233FP.REV 5 As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Revised Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. The proposed project is a minor alteration to an existing building and is a Class 3 Categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines. SECTION II1. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 233, Revised No. 1 for the operation and construction of a playground and patio area located on the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-250-018 subject to the following conditions: 1. Exhibit 2, attached hereto. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this January 6, 1992. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN 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 6th of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONER (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 233, Revision No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Plot Plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: Am The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. S~STAFFRPT\233PP.REV 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No. 233, Revised No. I Commission Approval Date: January 6, 1992 Expiration Date: January 6, 1994 Project Description: Construct a 1,270 square foot playground and patio area in an outdoor area of an approved fast food restaurant. Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan revision is for construction of a play and patio area in a fast food restaurant. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers and employees from any claims, action or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 233, Revised No. 1. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim action or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. The permittee shall not, thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of 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. This approval shall expire on The development shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit "D", or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall be come null and void. Prior to issuance of building permits, engineered plans shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety showing anchoring and attachment mechanisms for play equipment. S%STAFFRPT\233FP.REV 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRPT\233PP, REV 10 17. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 18, A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 19. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 20. The developer shall provide evidence that an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property does exist. 21. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be e2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 22. A minimum flowline on all paved areas shall be 0.50 percent. S%STAFFRPT',2.33FP.REV 13 7. Gates providing access to the play area shall be self-closing and self-latching, 8. The height of the play equipment shall not exceed 12 feet in height. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall receive approval from the Director of Planning for landscape plans which adequately provide for the screening of the play area from the adjacent public right of way. Said landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 11. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public right-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor 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. 12. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. Engineering Department PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 13. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and Parks and Recreation Department. 14. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. 15. Prior to any work being performed on the private drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. t6. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. S\STAFFRPT\233PP.R[V 12 CITY OF TEMECULA ) Exlnilpi'l' A II f II LOCATION 'MAP CASE NO.~EUIS~D A,/~,,I P.C. DATE / - ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRPT\233PP.REV 14 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ / ZONE MAP 0 CASE N . P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) DU/AC SP 180 SWAP MAP r p.,,, . CASE NO. g£V!~E-~ A~c. ( P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ELEVATIONS CASE NO. PP ~,P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) PP 233 ) CASE N().p,,EViSEDA/o. I -flT'E PLAN P.c, ITEM # 5 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Area: Building Area: Generator Pad: Propane Tank: Landscaping: .68 acres 414 square feet 120 square feet 1,000 gallons 1 O0 15 gallon trees 182 5 gallon shrubs BACKGROUND On August 20, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Plot Plan No. 86 requesting construction of a 60 foot tower with a 10 foot microwave dish mounted on its upper portion. The visual impact of the tower was mitigated through landscaping around the tower and accessory building, as well as by enclosing all equipment and structures with an ornamental wrought iron fence. Plot Plan No. 86 Revised No. 1 was submitted to the City of Temecula on October 29, 1991. The case was originally scheduled for Development Review Committee (DRC) on November 21, 1991 and was subsequently placed on the December 5, 1991 DRC agenda where a Planning Commission date was established. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject project is located at 30975 La Serena Way (east side of La Serena Way, approximately 500 feet north of South General Kearny Road). See Exhibit A. Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 is an application requesting construction of a 225 square foot addition to an existing structure, a 120 square foot generator pad and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site. The 225 square foot addition will consist of a storage room and an equipment room and will be a continuation of the architectural style of the existing structure. The proposed generator will be enclosed by retaining walls to the north and east and a 5 foot high noise abatement wall to the west. A 1,000 gallon propane tank will be on the southeast corner of the site. The applicant has submitted Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 in order to upgrade cable facilities, to add additional stations, and to improve reception capabilities. The generator is for emergency back-up communications networks (police, fire) and to broadcast information to the general public. The propane tank (if full) would keep the generator running for approximately 30 days. The landscaping, which is already in place will serve as adequate screening for the proposed additions to the site and no additional landscaping is necessary. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1992 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 Prepared By: Matthew Fagan RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ approving Plot Plan 86, Revised No. 1 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Inland Valley Cablevision REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Davis PROPOSAL: To construct a 225 square foot addition to an existing Inland Valley Cablevision structure along with a 120 square foot generator pad (with generator) and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site (with propane tank). LOCATION: 30975 La Serena Way (east side of La Serena Way, approximately 500 feet north of South General Kearny Road). EXISTING ZONING: S-P (Specific Plan 199) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-R (Rural Residential) S-P (Specific Plan No. 199) S-P (Specific Plan No. Residential) R-1 (One-Family Dwellings) 199)/R~R (Rural PROPOSED ZONING: Not Requested EXISTING LAND USE: Communications tower, utility building and six satellite earth- station dishes. SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Park South: Park East: Metropolitan Water District Easement West: Park SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis above, it is Staff's determination that impacts of the proposed project will be negligible to the surrounding uses. The addition of a generator to the site will be an asset to the City in the event of an emergency in terms of communications between agencies (fire, police) and for the general public. The project as designed and conditioned also conforms with the City's existing zoning ordinances and SWAP guidelines and as such will also likely conform with the city's future General Plan. FINDINGS There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 86 Revised No. 1 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinance No. 348 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed use will be placed on or adjacent to an existing structure. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's existing site. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way (South General Kearny Road), which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. ANALYSIS The proposed project is located in Planning Area 45 of Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village). Article VIII e, Section 8.101 of Ordinance No. 348 is the applicable development standard for the Planning Area. Building setbacks for front, side and rear are required to be not less than 50 feet per Ordinance No. 348. The existing and proposed uses for the site do not meet the minimum setback criteria. It is Staff's opinion, that due to the location of the project in relation to surrounding uses that the 50 foot setback criteria is indirectly met. There is a park to the north, south and west of the project site and a 120 foot wide Metropolitan Water District easement to the east of the site. Staff was concerned with the amount of noise and duration of operation of the proposed generator. The applicant supplied information which indicated that at a distance of 200 feet, the generator would create noise at 47 decibels, without a noise attenuation wall. The proposed project includes a noise attenuation wall around the generator which would, in Staff's opinion, reduce any impacts from noise to a level of less than significant. Ingress and egress to the site is along a 20 foot wide recorded easement on the Metropolitan Water District easement. Concern was raised regarding access to the site during inclement weather. This issue has been rectified and has been incorporated in the Conditions of Approval per the Department of Public Works. The condition requires that the 20 foot wide access road to the property shall be improved to all weather standards prior to issuance of certification of occupancy. EXISTING ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The project as conditioned, conforms with existing zoning (S-P) affecting the subject property and is compatible with Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) land uses recommendations for the site (S-P). As such, it is likely that Plot Plan 86, Revised No, I will be consistent with the City's General Plan recommendations for the property in question, upon the plan's final adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed project is a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA guidelines. Class I exemptions relates to the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alterations of existing facilities of both investor or publically-owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewage, or other public utility services provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition , or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92--- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-__ approving Plot Plan 86 Revised No. 1 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw Attachments: Resolution No. 92-_- page 6 Conditions of Approval - page 11 Exhibits - page 16 a. Vicinity Map b. SWAP Map c. Zoning Map d. Site Plan e. Elevations f. Floor Plan g. Landscaping Plan S\STAFFRPT\86-REV.PP 5 The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP"} was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 66, REVISED NO. I TO CONSTRUCT A 225 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, A 120 SQUARE FOOT GENERATOR PAD (WITH GENERATOR) AND A 1,000 GALLON PROPANE TANK SITE (WITH PROPANE TANK) ON A PARCEL CONTAINING .68 ACRES LOCATED AT 30975 LA SERENA WAY (EAST SIDE OF LA SERENA WAY, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH OF SOUTH KEARNY ROAD) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-050-015. WHEREAS, Inland Valley Cablevision filed Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on January 6, 1992 at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECU LA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: 1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. S\STAFFRPT\86-REV.PP 7 6. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Revised Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The proposed Revised Plot Plan is a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA guidelines which pertains to minor additions to existing structures. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 to construct a 225 square foot addition to an existing structure, a 120 square foot generator pad (with generator) and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site (with propane) on a parcel containing .68 acres located at 30975 La Serena Way (east side of la Serena Way, approximately 500 feet north of South Kearny Road) and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 946-050-015 subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1992. JOHN E, HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN 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 6th day of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S%STAFFRFT\86-REV,FP 10 The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1, will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinance No. 348 and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The proposed use will be placed on or adjacent to an existing structure. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is categorically exempt per the CEQA Guidelines. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal's existing site. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way (South General Kearney Road), which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. S\STAFFRPT\88-REV.PP 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No. 66, Revised No.1 Project Description: A 225 square foot addition to an existing structure, a 120 square foot generator pad (with generator) and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site (with tank). Assessor's Parcel No. 946-050-015 Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 225 square foot addition to an existing structure, a 120 square foot generator pad (with generator) and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site (with tank). The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of 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. This approval shall expire on January 6, 1994. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor 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. S%STAFFRPT%86-REV.PP 12 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRPT~86-REV.FP 11 16, 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. PRIOR 24. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the Department of Public Works. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion control runoff mitigation plans will be required. All plans shall be submitted with appropriate notes as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works. All site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects. The developer shall comply with the drainage requirements of the Department of Public Works. The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. If necessary, a drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be 92.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. S\STAFFRPT~ae*REV.PP 14 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Environmental Health Rancho Water District Metropolitan Water District Public Works Department Fire Department Eastern Municipal Water District 7. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit D. 8. No roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on any building within the project site. 9. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 10o All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 11. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. Public Works Department PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 12. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; Parks and Recreation Department; and Metropolitan Water District. 13. The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 14. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Department of Public Works. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 15. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted as directed by the Department of Public Works at the time of application for grading plan check. S\STAFFRPT\86-REV.PP 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRPT\ee-REV.FP 16 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 25. A 20' wide access road to the property shall be improved to all-weather standards within the recorded private access easement as approved by the Department of Public Works. S\STAFFRPT\86-REV.PP 15 CITY OF TEMECULA ) P 1/2 AC MIN SWAP MAP r PP CASE NO-REVISED ~. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) EXHIBIT A SITE RO VICINITY MAP r CASE NO./r,:~,/!~E P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) EXHIBIT ,D VJ , _ _ · ! _ .1 I / I I I pARCEL 8 I 211.95' ,---- C S I TE PLAN pARK AREA NO. 23890 pARCEL A / / / /. ~ / / / ~ -:a./ /// q\~ / , ~mj~ \ r PPBG CASE NO.P~EVISED P.C. DATE EXHI.BI1- ~ CITY OF TEMECULA Z) ELEVATIONS r pP f6 "~ CASE NO.~?,EVi:~ED /to.Z ~p.c. OATE / --G -~1/ CITY OF TEMECULA ) EXH I.BI T P ---] i FLOORPLAN AS ~,.P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) N PLAN r PP CASE NO./~VL<!cN P.C. DATE/- RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1992 Case No.: Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No.1 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: ADOPT Resolution 92- denying Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Rancho Temecula Bible Church REPRESENTATIVE: California Geo Tek, Inc. PROPOSAL: A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. 29825 Santiago Road Specific Plan 180, Rancho Highlands PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Specific Plan 180 Specific Plan 180 Specific Plan 180 Specific Plan 180 Not Requested Church/School North: South: East: West: Single Family Dwellings Single Family Dwellings Vacant Church S\STAFFRPT\580-1 .PUP 1 ITEM # 6 ITEM # 8 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning January 6, 1991 Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 This project was continued off calendar at the May 6, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant submitted revised drawings in November of 1991 which addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission relative to density reduction. The item was then scheduled for public heating at the request of the applicant, in order to shorten processing time. Subsequent to the item being scheduled for public heating, Staff identified several issues on the proposed map which were brought to the applicant's attention in September of 1990 and March of 1991. As a result of the applicant's failure to address these concerns relative to the Tentative Map, the proposed project must again be continued to February 24, 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: CONTINUE Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 to February 24, 1992. ITEM # 7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 6, 1992 Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 15 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution 92- approving Conditional Use Permit based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Jubany Development Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Helena Lin Jubany PROPOSAL: Tenant Improvement for a Roller Skating Hall completely enclosed in an existing structure. 28860 Front Street C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) 1-15 C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) Not Requested Vacant North: South: East: West: Commercial Retail Office 1-15 Retail/Office S%STAFFRFlr~I 5.CUP PROJECT STATISTICS Skating Hall Skating Area Support Area Capacity Number of Required Parking Spaces Number of Existing Parking Spaces 13,300 square feet 10,620 square feet 2,680 square feet 200 Persons 43 107 BACKGROUND The skating hall is located in an existing commercial center which was previously approved by the County. The applicant applied for this Conditional Use No. 15 permit on November 27, 1991 to obtain approval for a Roller Skating Hall, which is a conditionally permitted use in the C-P-S zone district. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a Tenant Improvement in an existing building for a Roller Skating Hall which includes a large open area for skating and a support area including office space, snack bar, lockers, restrooms and a party room. ANALYSIS The only potential concern for this project is the number of parking spaces available for the center. However, the following discussion should demonstrate that the existing 107 parking spaces are adequate for the entire center with full occupancy. The following table summarizes the required number of parking spaces for each of the uses in the center: Use SQuare Feet Number of Parking Soaces ReQuired Auto Repair 4, 150 28 Restaurant 1,593 11 Retail &Office 3,900 20 Skating Hall 13,300 43 Vacant 7,805 40 Total 30,748 142 Parking Spaces Provided 107 Parking Shortage 35 The above analysis shows that the center at full occupancy will be short 35 parking spaces. Presently 7,805 square feet of the center remains vacant, besides the skating hall. $~STAFFRFI~I 5.CUP 2 This center, as approved, is under parked for retail and office uses. If the center were all leased out as retail and office spaces the parking requirement would be 154 spaces where only 107 spaces are provided. The skating hall will not exacerbate the situation for a number of reasons: It is predominately a night time user. The existing uses are predominately day users. The clientele for the skating are expected to be teenagers, who usually car pool and/or are dropped off by parents, For the above mentioned reasons, staff feels adequate parking exists. A Condition of Approval has been added as a safeguard which allows the Director of Planning to bring back the CUP before the Planning Commission for further review in the event parking becomes a problem. EXISTING ZONING, SWAP AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The project, contingent upon approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit, conforms with existing C-P-S zone affecting the subject property, and is compatible with Southwest Area Plan C (Commercial) land use recommendations for the site. Overall parking available to support the proposed use is considered adequate at present. As such, it is likely, Conditional Use Permit No. 15 will be consistent with the City's General Plan recommendations for the property in question, upon the Plan's final adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it has been found to be a Class I Categorical Exemption, Section 15301. This section identifies interior alterations to existing structures as categorically exempt. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This project is, in Staff's opinion, a good amenity the community and as discussed in the Analysis section, it is not anticipated the use not cause a parking shortage in the center. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the existing zoning, SWAP designation and it is anticipated the project will be consistent with the Future General Plan. FINDINGS The project will not cause a shortage of parking spaces in the center as the skating hall is predominately a night time user; the existing uses are predominately day users, and the clientele for the skating hall are teenagers who usually car pool or are dropped off by parents. The project is a positive recreational amenity for all members of the community, but particularly for children and young adults. S~BTAFFRPT~I 5.CUP 3 The site is suitable for the proposed use and it will not have a negative effect on the other businesses in the center in that the existing parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate all the demand generated by this use and all other uses per Finding No. 1. The project as Conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, in that the Conditions of Approval include measures that will ensure the public health and welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 15 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw Attachments: Resolution - page 5 Conditions of Approval - page 9 Exhibit - page 12 a. Vicinity Map b. SWAP Map c. Zone Map d. Site Plan e. Hours of Operation f. Roller Skating Facts S%STAFFRPT%15.CUP ~, ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. S%STAFFRPT~15,CUP 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 15 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A ROLLER SKATING HALL IN AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 28860 FRONT STREET. WHEREAS, Jubany Development filed CUP No. 15 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said CUP application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said CUP on January 6, 1992, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said CUP; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the'general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. The proposed CUP is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: A. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that CUP No. 15 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time, (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no CUP may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any CUP approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed CUP, makes the following findings, to wit: The project will not cause a shortage of parking spaces in the center for the following reasons: the skating hall is predominately a night user; the existing uses are predominately day users; and the clientele for the skating hall are teenagers who usually car pool or are dropped off by parents. S\STAFFRPT~I 5.CUP 7 The project is a good amenity for the community in that the teenagers will have a healthy activity to spend their time on. The site is suitable for the proposed use and it will not have a negative effect on the other businesses in the center in that the parking spaces will be sufficient to accommodate all the demand generated by this use and all other uses per Finding No. 1. The project as conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, in that the Conditions of Approval include measures that will ensure the public health and welfare. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the CUP proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. This project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be a Class I Categorical Exemption, Section 15301. SECTION III. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves CUP No. 15 for the operation of a Roller Skating Hall in an existing building located at 28860 Front Street subject to the following conditions: 1. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1992. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN 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 6th day of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S%STAFFRPT~I 5.CUP 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit No. 15 Tenant Improvement for a Roller Skating Hall completely enclosed in an existing structure. Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this Conditional Use Permit is for tenant improvement of an existing structure within the C-P-S zone district for a Roller Skating Hall. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 15. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on January 6, 1994. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. The Director of Planning may, at any time, bring CUP No. 15 back to Planning Commission for reconsideration if he finds that the Roller Skating Hall is placing a burden on the other tenants of the center by using too many parking spaces. The applicant shall receive approval from the Riverside County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. $%aTAFFP, F~l 5.CUP 10 Building Department 7. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 8. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction work. 9. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 10. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Engineering Department No Conditions S\STAFFRPT~15.CUP 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRPT%15.CUP 1 ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ) VICINITY MAP r CASE NO. C,L)P~% P.C. DATE \-C~-~, CITY OF TEMECULA ~ SWAP MAP r ~ CASE NO. C-L~~r\~ P.C, DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ,,R.4.s (180 ZONE MAP r CASE NO.~-U~ P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) FREEWAY 15 Driveway U ff B ~ervioe Are~ ~-~, = ~i~ i s , Iff~L"rfl EH~'~I UNIT C hi ~,,~,~1 (7.550 s.f.) ('I,2,/Z~(~Z/~! Driveway I~) 1'111~1 IFIIc~IF FRONT STREET C r CASE NO.CU~ P.C. DATE DEC-23-1991 11: 35Ar'1 FROM Day is &Deal, CPAS 17146941999 P. U2 To: Saied Naaseh Frum : Helena Lin Jubany Pueblo Vlejo Shoping Plaza Operatir~g hours: Cal Realty.- Eurodeli.- F~restone Tire.- Foto Studio.- Alarm -R- Us.- Monday to Friday 9.00 AM to 5.00 PM Monday to Saturday 7.30 Ar~ to 5.00 PM Monday to Friday Saturdays Monday to F~iday Saturdays Monday to Friday Saturdays 8. O0 AM to 5.00 PM 8.00 AM ~:c, 3.00 PM 10.00 AM to 4.00 PM 10.00 AM to 2.00 PM 10.00 AM to 5. O0 PM 10.00 AM ~o 2.00 PM Skating Hall Mondays'- Tuesday to Thusday.- Fridays.- Saturdays.- Sundays.- Operatin~ Hours: Clouse 5.00 PM to t1.00 PM 4.00 PM tO 12.00 PM Noon to Midnigth Noon to 11,00 PM T TOTA[. P. ~2 ROLLER SPORTS FACT SHEET 24,000 skating athletes register annually for 800 local, invitafional, and league competitions sanctioned by the United States Amateur Confederation of Roller Skating. The skaters belong to more than 900 clubs located throughout the 50 states. Nearly all of these clubs are based at RSROA member skating centers. The U.S. Amateur Confederation of Roller Skating is recognized as the National Governing Body for amateur competitive roller sports in this Country. The Confederation is a Class A member of the United States Olympic Commiffee and roller skating is recognized as an Olympic-level sport within the U.S. Roller skating athletes participate in the U.S. Olympic Festival, formerly known as the National Sports Festival. The Festival, an event of the U.S. Olympic Commiffee, Includes 34 sports and 3,000 of America's best amateur athletes in Olympic and Pan American sports. Roller skating is a Pan American sport. World Class athletes who qualify through participation in the 1986-87 competitions and training programs may earn places on the 1987 USA Roller Skating Team for the Pan American Games in Indianapolis, August 7-23. Artistic, speed and hockey events are all included in the Pan American competition. Roller skating joined the Pan Am Games program in 1979. Roller skating is not yet a participating Olympic sport. It meets the necessary reclulrements set by the International Olympic Commiffee, but has not yet been able to win enough votes in IOC Pro- gram Commi~ee meetings to earn a place in the schedule. As roller sports continue to develop in Eastern Bloc nations, the necessary votes should be won, In the United States, the largest number of skaters participate in artistic events, speed skating is next, and roller hockey Is smallest. Worldwide, however, roller hockey Is the most popular. In 1985, over 180 public broadcasting stations nationwide talecast highlights of the National Ar- tistic Roller Skating Championships, The 60-minute sports special featured the medal-winning performances of the best artistic skating athletes in the U.S. The U.S. Amateur Confederation of Roller Skating is a member of the Federation Intemationale de Roller-Skating (FIRS), which is the international governing body for roller sports. FIRS was established in Montreux, Switzerland, in 1924. ROLLER SKATING HISTORY Roller Skating Is All-American Although there were many models of European roller skates in use throughout the ~9th century, New Yorker James Plimpton invented the modern roller skate in '~863. It was called the "rocking skate" and was the first to enable skaters to control their direction. Plimpton introduced recreational roller skating through a private club he formed, called the New York Roller Skating Association. He invited prominent New Yorkors, local officials, the clergy, and the press to attend skating assemblies, so he could promote roller skating among the upper classes of the city. He also made an early contribution to the liberation of women. Plimpton especially extolled the health benefits of roller skating for young women. Since many women were not allowed outside of their homes in men's company unless they were very well chapcloned, Plimpfon pointed out to concerned parents and churchmen that they'd have the opportunity to closely supervise the young women's activities while they were at the skating club. National Roller Skating Week National Roller Skating Week commemorates roller skatlng's American birthday each year In the fall. It serves as an opportunity to stimulate public awareness of the fitness and fun potential of this recreation. Rink operators promote through special skating center activities, portfes, and contests Intended to get people on skates and have fun. The RSROA develops an informational kit each year in preparation for the festivities. It Includes facts and figures of interest to the media, to educators, and to the general public. Local skating centers focus their awareness activities to coincide with the information in the kit. Special skating center activities may include: · Hosting roller skating birthday parties, inviting area residents to skate at no cost. · Ceremonies in which the staro's governor and/or the clty's mayor sign a proclamation recogniz- ing Roller Skating Week. · Private sessions saluting area educators and schools. · Cooperative promotions with local businesses that highlight community service. · Fund-raising sessions for charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association and the American Heart Association. RECREATIONAL ROLLER SKATING FACT SHEET Rollin' Fun For Everyone Over 30 million Americans of all ages roller skate for fun and fitness. Health/Fitness Appeal Roller skating is recognized as an excellent fitness activity by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, the American Heart Association, and by leading health authorities. Celebrity Spokespersons Debra Maffett, Miss America 1983 and co-host of PM Magazine fn Los Angeles. Danielle Brisebois, teen co-star of Archie Bunker's Place and stage and television personality. Alex Dreier, veteran network newscaster, lecturer and broadcaster. Media Appeal An All-American Pastime Many national advertisers select roller skating to promote their products because it's identified as family fun, endorsed as a healthful activity, is attention-getting and youth- oriented. Because the modern roller skate was invented by New Yorker James Plirnpton, Americans celebrate a roller skating birthday each year as part of National Roller Skating Week. Industry Leadership For 49 years. the industry leaders in recreational roller skating have been members of the Roller Skating Rink Operators Association. Two-thirds of all commercial roller skating centers in the U.S. are members of this professional associa- tion. Co-op Exposure Cooperative partners will find direct access to a highly iden- . O ortunities tiftable and captive market audience. This audience is loyal and long-term. Highest visibility is available PP,--'/' through RSROA publicatio s./~ / AEDIA APPEAL Roller skating is action-packed, attention-grabbing and nearly as much fun to watch as it is to do, Over the years major advertisers--many among the Fortune 500--have used roller skating to showcase their products. Recent major advertisers include: · IBM Personal Computers · Dr. Pepper ,Michefob ,KooI-Aid · General Mills ,McDonalds · Coca Cola · Dannon Yogurt ,Volkswagen *Sony ,Budweiser ,Burger King ,JelI-O ,Gatorade ,Just Pants ,Levi's 50t Jeans /:/TNES, A. PPEAL Roller skating offers a quick way to get a superior aeroblc workout and burn calories (up to 650 in an hour), A study completed in ~98~ under the supervision of UCLA physiologists and Dr. Allen Selner of Sher- man Oaks, California, confirmed that roller skating is equivalent to running in terms of its health benefits--caloric consumption, reduction of body fat, and leg strength development. In a comparative study of 44 spods conducted for the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Spods, roller skating ranked third, tied with swimming and just behind running and cycling, when ranked for overall fitness benefits. Roller Skating is Recognized by Leading Health and FItness Authorities ,The President's CouncH on Physical Fitness and Sports ,The American Heart Association · Dr. Kenneth Cooper, fitness advisor to the U.S. Air Force and the "inventor" of Aerobics as a lifetime exercise program for cardiovascular fitness · Dr. Kenneth Rose, Chairman of the Committee on Exercise and FItness for the American Medical Association "Enjoyment is the key ingredient in any exercise program. One of the big pluses about skating is that it's not boring. You hear so many people who turn off on jogging, for instance, because they find it monotonous. But we've found that people are staying with roller skating." --Marin Talbot YMCA Director Beverly HilLs, California DEMOGRARflF,5 Who Roller Skates? More than 30 million Americans. A recent survey by National Family Opinion, Inc. of Dayton, Ohio, found that 3t .5 million people enjoy roller skating In the U.S. Youngsters Roller Skate The largest percentage of male [59 percent) and female [55 percent) skaters are 6 to 15 years according to the Family Opinion survey. Why9 ,They can meet and socialize with their own age group. ,They enjoy skating to the varlely of music formats offered at the skating center. ,it's fun and inexpensive. Families Roller Skate Seventeen percent of America's households have one or more family members who roller skate. Why? · It's a fun activity all family members can do. · It's a popular group activity among churches, YMCA, Y~VCA, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire, PTA, Big Brothers, Parents Without Partners, etc. Where Do These People Skate? · At 2,000 roller skating centers coast-to-coast [22.5 million people skate indoors exclusively] · On boardwalks, park paths and any stretch of smooth pavement [7.3 million skate indoors and out, while 1.4 million skate outdoors exclusively] · In metropolitan, suburban and rural communities Where Do They Come From? Households with: .Larger families .Higher average annual incomes .Younger, better educated parents .Parents in white coltar occupations It is staff's opinion that the request to expand this operation should be denied. Additionally, the existing facilities should be made to conform with the building and fire codes. As an option the Planning Commission may allow the applicant thirty (30) days to comply with all the City requirements. If the property is not brought into compliance within that period then the Planning Commission may direct the Building Official to start the revocation process on the Public Use Permit Number 580. This option is available to the Planning Commission through Ordinance 348, Section 18.31, Findings and Procedure for Revocation of Variances and Permits (refer to Exhibit "F"). According to this Section the Building Official has the authority to revoke this permit if one or more of the following findings are made: That the use is detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or is a public nuisance. 2. That the permit was obtained by fraud or perjured testimony. 3. That the use is being conducted in violation of the terms and conditions of the permit. That the use for which the permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more. Clearly, in Staff's opinion, findings No. 1 and No. 3 could be made for this project in that the mobile structures have been deemed unsafe by the Department of Building and Safety and are not approved as classrooms and the Conditions of Approval for Public Use Permit Number 580 have not been fully complied with (i.e., the project was never built per the approved site plan). ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY The SWAP and zoning designation is Specific Plan. The project is not consistent with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan Design Guidelines. The objective of these guidelines is to establish a unique community identity. The mobile structures and the landscaping do not create this unique community identity and are not consistent with the rest of the Specific Plan interns of the architecture and landscape design. Therefore, the project is not consistent with SWAP and the zoning. The project will not be consistent with the future General Plan as it will jeopardize the public health and welfare with unapproved structures that are used as classrooms. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff has concluded that these structures are not safe to be used as classrooms and they need to be certified by the Building and Safety Department and the Fire Department. The project is not consistent with existing zoning, the SWAP and it is anticipated the project wi)l be inconsistent with the future General Plan as discussed in the Analysis section. The structures have been in violation of several codes and standards for over five years. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of this request. S\STAFFRPT~580-1 ,PUP 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 REVISED NO. 1 ALLOWING EXPANSION OF RANCHO TEMECULA BIBLE CHURCH AT 29825 SANTIAGO ROAD; AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-130-001 WHEREAS, the Rancho Temecula Bible Church filed Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Public Use Permit on January 6, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Public Use Permit and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Public Use Permit; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING CO MMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: The approval of this project is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, in that the drive aisles do not meet the minimum 24 feet required by Ordinance No. 348 and the Fire Department, and in that the existing structures are not approved to be used as classrooms. There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1, will not be consistent with the City's future General Plan, in that it will be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare for the reasons mentioned in Finding Number 1. The project is inconsistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, in that the mobile units do not meet the Design Guidelines. S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- S\STAFFRPT\580-1 ,PUP ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S\STAFFRPT%580-1 .PUP The project has been a nuisance to the adjoining property owners, in that the chain link fence does not provide an effective buffer between the school playgrounds and the existing residences. The project applicant has been uncooperative with Staff in correcting the mentioned deficiencies in the Staff Report in that the structures remain unapproved and present a danger to the students using the facilities. SECTION 2. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1 a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula denying Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1 allowing operation of the Rancho Temecula Bible Church and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-001. SECTION 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1992. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN 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 6th day of January, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 7 Any outside lighting shell be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor 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. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated October 10, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated December 12, 1991, a copy of which is attached. One hundred thirteen (113) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit E and shall be designed in accordance with Section 18.12, Temecula City Ordinance No. 348. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3.inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area 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 not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone 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. 10. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. 11. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed ~long the entire length of the project site's southerly boundary consistent with Rancho Highlands Specific Plan. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. S\STAFFRPT\580-1 .PUP 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Public Use Permit No.: 580 Revised No. 1 Project Description: Revisions to Previously AoDroved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-016 Planning Department The use hereby permitted by this public use permit is for revision to previously approved Public Use Permit No. 580, to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within one (1) year of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on In the event the use hereby permitted cease operation for a period of one year or move, this approval shall become null and void. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 marked Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 9 22. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 23. Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit, Certificate of Occupancy). 24. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. Engineering Department PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 25. As determined by the City Engineer, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Department. 26. The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 27. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 28. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 29. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 30. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. 31. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. S\STAFFRPT\580-1.PUP 12 12. All street lights and other outdoor 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. 13. Eight (8) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the City Building Official, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety guaranteeing construction of the required perimeter screen wall per the approved plans. 15. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 16. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars (~1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (925.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty- eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). 17. A landscape plan shall be submitted in accordance with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan subject to the Planning Director approval prior to issuance of building permits. 18. The applicant shall submit all the information requested by the Building Official and the Fire Department within thirty (30) days following this approval. Furthermore, the applicant shall comply with all the conditions of approval for Building Department, Fire Department and condition No's. 11 and 18 for the Planning Department, within ninety (90) days. If the applicant fails to comply with any of the above deadlines, the Building Official shall start the Public Use Permit revocation per Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.31. Building and Safety Department 19. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical, 1990 National Electrical Code, California Administrative Code title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 20. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the Regulation of Light Pollution. 21. Obtain all building permits prior to the commencement of any construction work. S~STAFFRPT\580-1.PUP 11 May 6, 1991 Mr. Charley Ray, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, California 92390 SUBJECT: PUP 580 - Revision No. 1 Dear Mr. Ray: As requested, we have reviewed the subject project for the purposes of evaluating the District's ability to provide sanitary sewer service. An existing eight (8)-inch diameter sewerline is located in Santiago Road, fronting the subject project. At the present time, this Santiago Road sewer has available capacity to serve the subject project. It must be understood that the available capacity of the District's sewer system is continually changing due to development within the District. As such, service will be provided based on the timing of the subject project, the service agreement from the District, and the status of the District's permit to operate. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the DistrictIs Customer Service Department at (714) 766-1810. Very truly yours, Director of Planning HAS/DC:ib .~) =' cc: John Fricker - EMWD Customer Service Department 6/I-ib 91-1077 Mail To: Post Office Box 8'~00 · SanJacinto, California 92'~8~,- t300 · Telephone ¢71.4) 925-7676 · Fax (714) 92%0257 Main Office: 20.~5 S San Jacinto Street, San Jacinro · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 3~0 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA 32. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. 33. All driveways shall be a minimum width of 24 feet. Existing parking areas and driveways shall be brought into conformance with Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12. 34. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. 35. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid per original Conditions of Approval of Public Use Permit No. 580. The charge shall equal the prevailing area drainage plan fee multiplied by the area of new development. The current fee due is $2,441.84, and is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. 36. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 37. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 38. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 39. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 40. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. S\STAFFRPT~SB0*I .PUP 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRI . DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN ~ACINTO AVENUI~, PERR[S, CALIFOILNIA 92370 (714) 637-3183 (}LEN J, NI~WMAN FBIECRIBF December 12 199I TO: CITY OF TMCULA ATIN: ?LANNIX~G DEFT EE: PUBLIC USB PERk{IT 580 Revise 41 Amended The design ol the site improvements and use of che various buildings currently on the property. were apparently done wl=hou= any regard to the approved site plan or conaiticns of a~proval. The Fire Department is requeeCin~ the following items prior to e CerCif£caUe of Conformante: ~. D=ivewa~e =eaesl~ned co provide 2~' uwo way traffic e=ound ~he 2. ~n-aite we=aT system wi=h fire [low and fire hydran= spacing accordin~ to a~proved conditions. 3. exletln~ mobile unlcs must be ce=clfled by appropriate agency for COnStruction :ypa accordin~ to use. All questions regardin~ the meaning of conditions eha~l be referred uo the Plannin8 and Engineerin~ staff. RAYMOND H. I~EGIS Chief Plre Department Planner Sicheal E. Gray, Fire Captain Specialist October 10, 1991 Mr. Charly Ray City of Temecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Water Availability Tract Map 20591 P.U.P. 580 Revision No. 1 Rancho Temecula Bible Church Dear Mr. Ray: 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. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P. E. Manager of Development Engineering SB:SD:ajth245 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician CITY OF TEMECULA ~ CASE NO . VICINITY MAP P.C. DATE ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS S\STAFFRPT~S80-1 .PUP CITY OF TEMECULA ~ ZONE MAP CASE NO. P.C, DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ~ SWAP MAP CASE NO. P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA ) CITY OF TEMECULA ~ \~ CASE NO.~U~~ ~C.,o~"~'t,~ P~pp~V~t S~.e., ~,~ ~p.c. DATE SECTION 18.31. FINDINGS AND PROCEDURE FOR REVOCATION OF VARIANCES AND PEII~ZTS. Any conditional use permtt, publtc use permit, variance, commercial WECS permtt, or accessory IIECS permit may be revoked by the Director of Butldtng and Safety upon tinting that one or more of the following conditions for revocation exist. (1) That the use ts detrimental to the public health, safety or ~ obtained by fraud or per;lured testimony. ( ) That the use ts betng conducted tn tioletton of the terms and conditions of the pemtt. (4) That the use for ~htch the permtt ~as granted has ceased or has been suspended for one year or more. Upon determlnatton by the Dtrector of Butldtng and Safety that grounds for revocation exist, the folloWrig procedure shall take effect: (1) NOTICE OF REVOCATION, Notice of revocation and a copy of the ftndlngs of the Dtrector of Butldlng and Safety shall be mailed by the Dtrector by certified mall to the o~ner of the property to ~htch the permit or variance applies, as sho~q by the records of the Assessor of RIverside County. The dectston of the Director of Buildtrig and Safety shall be ftnal unless e notice of appeal is timely ftled. (2) NOTICE OF APPEAL. i~tthtn 10 days following the matltng of the notice of revocation, the owner of the property to whtCh the permit or variance applies may file ~th the Plannln Director a notice of appeal frm the dectston of the Director o~ Building and Safety. A notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the filtng fee set forth tn Ordinance No. 671. A notice of appeal not accompanied by such fee shall be tiemad null and void and shall not be processed. (3) SETTING HEARING; COSTS. Appeals ~Ithtn the area .tuftsdiction of the East Area Planntng Counctl, flth the exception of appeals concerning commercial I/ECS permtts, shaql be heard by the Council or, if the Council so elects, shall be heard by a County Hearing Officer pursuant to and tn accordance ~th Ordinance No. 643. All other appeals, Including appeals concerning c~,,,:erctal klECS permits, shall be heard by the Planning Cam~tsston, of tf the Cemtsslon so elects, shall be heard by a County Heartrig Officer pursuant to and tn accordance w~th Ordinance No. 643. . Notice of the time, date and place of the heartng shall be g~ven as protided tn Section 18.26(c). Zn the event that an appeal is heard by a County Hearing Officer and the owner of the property to whtch the permtt or vartance a pltes does not preyat1 tn the appeal, the miner shall not be obJ~tgated to PaY a~v hearing costs. Zn the event that en appeal ts heard by a County Hearing Officer end the owner of the property to ~htCh the permit or variance applies prevails tn the appeal, the o~er shell not be obligated to paY all hearing costs. 199 EXHIBIT F S\STAFFRPT\580-1 .PUP EXHIBIT G S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP (4) TESTIHONY UNDER. OATH. All testimony at the hearlng shall be taken under Oath. (5) NOTICE OF DECISZON. Notice of the Planning Cmmnisston or Planning Council's decislon and a report of the proceedings shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors not later than 15 days following the date the decision is adopted. A copy of the notfce and the report shall be matled to the applicant and filed with the Clerk of the a e Planning Cemisston or Planning Council does not reach a decision due to a tie vote, such fact shall be reported to the Board of Supervisors in the sane manner and within the sane time for reporting decisions and such a failure to reach a decision shall cons tt tute affi rmance of the But 1 ding Dt rector's revocatt on of the pemtt or variance. (6) PLACEMENT OF MATTER ON BOARD'S AGENDA. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall place the Notice of Decision on the Board's agenda for the next regular meeting to be held following the lapse of 5 days after the Notice is filed with the Board. {7) TRANSFER TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON APPEAL. The revocation or non-revocation of a permit or variance by the Planning Commission or Planning Council shall be final unless, within ten (lO)days following the matter at which the Notice of Decision was on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors, the following occurs: a. An appeal to the Board of Supervisors is made by the owner of the property which is the subject of the revocation proceedings, or b. The Board of Supervisors orders the matter transferred to it for further proceedings. {8} FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. If either of the actions mentioned in paragraphs a. and b. of Subsection 7 above are taken, the Board of Supervisors may: a. Refuse to review the Planning Cmwnission or Planning Council's decision, in which case the decision shall be final, or b. Review a transcript or recording of the testimony. and all other evidence introduced before the Planning C~mnission or Planning Council, and based upon that record, affirm or reverse the decision of the Planning Cumnisston or Planning Council or refer the matter beck to the Planning Comnission ' (g) or Planning Council for the taktn of further evidence hearing additional argonant in whVch case notice shall or given to the owner of the property which is the subject of the proceedings, or c. Set the matter for hearing before itself. At such hearing the Board of Supervisors shall hear and decide the matter de novo as if no prior bearing had been held. Notice of the time, date and place of the public hearing shall be given as provided in Section 18.26(c). ACTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. The decision of the Board of Supervisors on revocation of a permit or variance is final. 200 PUBLIC USE PEP.MIT NO. 580 Conditions of Approval Page -2- 11. 12. 13.' 14. 109 parking spaces shall be provided as sho~n on the Approved Revised Exhibit A-el. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. A minimum of 3 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Revised Exhibit A-#1. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 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 in size with letter- sting not less than 1 inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at o~ner's expense. Towed vehicles may be redaimed at or by telephoning In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicaCing the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the sanctuary, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Fire Department Planning Department Environmental Health Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the sanctuary, a liquefaction and soils study shall be submitted and approved by the County Geologist. All permanent structures shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved report. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit C. Floor plans shall be in substantial conformante with that shown on Exhibit D. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 Project Description: Church and school Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-001 Area: Rancho California This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 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. 1. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Revised Exhibit A-#I. 2. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one (1) year or mores this approval shall become null and void. 3. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the street improvement reconnendations outlined in the County Road Department transmittel dated 7-29-86, a copy of which is attached· Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated 7-23-86, a copy of which is attached. 6. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittal dated 7-18-86, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 5~6 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 7-21-86, a copy of which is attached. All landstam__be plauts4Ja se. cordsmee with Exhibit B (with the exception of Nerium Oleander, which shall be replaced with any one of the following plants: Pittosporem Tobira, Dodonaea Viscosa, Nandina Domestica, or Euonymus Kiautschovica, and shall be 5 gallon containers) prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in s viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. PUBLIC USE PERHIT NO. 580 Conditions of Approval Page -4- 25. 26. 27. The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory requirements of all Riverside County Ordinance and State Laws, and shall conform substantially with approved Specific Plan 1.80as filed in the office of the Riverside County Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the sanctuary the developer shall submit an Energy Resource Conservation Plan to the Department of Building and Safety for approval. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Building construction designs shall incorporate site orientation and product design that maximizes solar access potential. b. Architectural features and landscaping shall be used to reduce s,~-mer heat to the greatest extent possible. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed on Santiago Road, along the church site, as approved by the Road Department. The use of outdoor lighting shall be minimized; recreational, parking lot and decorative lighting shall be turned off when the associated facilities are not in use. 28. Grading shall be performed in accordance with the following criteria: ae 14here cut and fill slopes are created in excess of ten [I0) feet in vertical height, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Plannlr~ Department prior to approval of grading plans. The plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover, shrubs and trees. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The ~raded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual impacts to surround- ing areas. The overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in concert with the existing natural contours and scale of the natural terrain of a particular site. The toes and tops of all slopes in excess of te~ (10) feet in vertical height shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slope where drainage and stability permit such rounding. PUBLIC USE PEI~IT NO. 580 Conditions of Approval Page -3- Department, a iix ot high sin 1 fence shall southwest ana southeast project boun~aries, tha~ is, alon2 the parkin~ area at the southwest cozner all ~ ~v a=o~d the play fiel~ to ~ere ~he parkinS begins on the east side o~ ~he project. - la~scapi~ screen alo~ e c~a lt~ ~c . prior to ~he issuance o~ occupancy perils. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be ~de with ~son~ block and a ~a~e vhich screens ~he bins ~rom external viev. 18. 111 lsndscspln2 mad frff2s[fosx.sball ks Installed laaccordancerlth approved plans prior ~o the lsauance off occupancy permits. The property is located vtthln thlrty (30) miles of Hount Palomar Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be minimized, especially during the late night and early morning hours. All outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure sodium lamps tha~~ are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the h~rizontal plane passing through the luminare. All lighting shall be in lonformance with the Lamp Type and Shielding Requirements Per Fixture, a copy of which is attached. 20. All existing structures on the subject property shall conform to all of the applicable requirements of Ordinance 348. 21. Three Class II bicycle racks shall be provided-in convenient locations to facilitate bike access to the project area. Prior ~o,,2eellmpl~_., .mry permits. all required landscape planting and irrigatioeh~.bSsn installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Dlreees~t!~kia~k~,smi SeZoty. The plants shall be healthy and free of reeds, disease or pests. The irrigation 'system shall be properly constructed and in good vorktng order. 23. ~rlor to occupancy o~ any use allowed by this permit, all of the foregoing conditions of thls conditional use permit shall be complied with. EXHIBIT H S\STAFFRPT~580- 'l .PUP PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 Conditions of Approval Page g. h. i. Cut or fill slopes exceeding one hundred (100) feet in horizontal length, shall be graded to meander the toe and top of the slope. Brow ditches, terrace drains and other minor swales shallbe lined with natural erosion control materials or concrete. Grading work shall be balanced on site. ~GrSded bur undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and planted with interim landscaping. ~q/10-31-86 September 4, 1991 Ronald J, Parks Mayor Patdell H. InSill Mayor Pro Tern Kard F. Llndewtans Councilmember Mr. Leonard Fowler California Geo Tek, Inc. 42030 Avenida Alvaredo Suite A Temecula, CA 92590 Councilmember J. $al Mufloz Councilmember David F. Dixon C~y Manager (714| 694-1989 FAX (714J 694-1999 Subject: Public Use Permit No. 580 (P.U.P. 580} Revision No. I Dear Mr. Fowler: Pursuant to our phone conversation of September 3, 1991, I am forwarding this correspondence confirming the City Planning Director's decision to allow an additional 2 weeks to complete the application P.U.P. 580, Revision No. 1 prior to the City's initiation of P.U.P. revocation proceedings. (Reference correspondence to Pastor Kerry Martin, Dated August 23, 1991, copy to California Geo-Tek). The decision to allow this delay in revocation proceedings recognizes your unfamiliarity with the background of the proposal in question, and your stated willingness to act in good faith towards its completion. The extended deadline for application completion is September 23, 1991. Should the application for P.U.P. 580, Revision No. 1 remain incomplete beyond September 23, 1991, revocation procedures previously noted will be immediately forthcoming. Please contact me at (714) 694-6400, should you require further information or clarification of this correspondence. Charly Ray/~ '~Thornhill Planning Director CR\GT:vgw CC: Tony EImo-Building & Safety Rancho Temecula Bible Church s d 90 CERTIFIED MAIL Ronald J. Parks Mayor Patrlcfa H. Birdsall Mayor pro Tem Karel F. L|ndemans Councilmember Peg Moore CouncalmemOer J. Sal Mufioz CouncalrnernDer David F. DIxon City Manager 1714) b94-1989 PAX (714) 694-1999 RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED AuguSt 23, 1991 Rancho Temecula Bible Church Pastor Kerry Martin 29825 Santiago Road Temecula, CA 92591 Subject: Public Use Permit (P.U.P.) 580-Revision No. i Dear Pastor Martin: Please be advised that the City of Temcula will initiate Public Use Permit (P.U.P.) revocation 'procedures pursuant to section 18.29.F of the City Development Code (enclosed), if the above referenced application remains incomplete, thereby preventing further processing of the proposal and subsequent review by the City Planning Commission. UpQn your receipt of this notice, you are provided 10 days to submit all previously requested information as indicated by the attached Development Review Committee comments dated March 28, 1991; and the initial project Notice of Determination of Application Completeness dated March 11, 1991. Should the application remain incomplete after 10 days, revocation proceedings will ensue. Please contact me @ (714) 694-6400, should you have any questions regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, Charly Planning Assistant Gary Thornhill Planning Director Pastor Martin October 10, 1990 Page 2 - The following Public Use Permit No. 580 Conditions: Condition No. 1: The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Revised Exhibit A-#I. Condition No. 1:3: Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit C. Condition No. lu,: Floor plans shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit D. Condition No. 15: Prior to final building inspection a six foot high chain link fence shall be installed along the southwest and southeast project boundaries, that is, along the parking area at the southwest corner all the way around the play field to where the parking begins on the east side of the project. Condition No. 16: Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, an addendum to the landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning Department. This plan shall provide for dense six foot high landscaping screen along the chain link fence. Condition No. 18: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Condition No. 20: All existing structures on subject property shall conform to all of the applicable requirements of Ordinance No. 3u,8. Condition No. 22: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. Condition No 23: Prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit, all of the foregoing conditions of this conditional use permit shall be complied with. Conditions of Approval also include payment of required development mitigation fees, including but not limited to the following: Signal mitigation fees. Fire mitigation fees. Flood mitigation fees. and, School fees or an exemption letter from Temecula Unified School District. Mayor Ron Parks Mayor Pro Tem Karel F. Lindemans CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, Califomia 92390 (714) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 Conference Notice October lO, 1990 Councilmembers Patricia H. Birds~ll Peg Moore J. Sal Mu~oz CERTIFIED MAIL - P~s~ I ~s~t- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Pastor Kerry Martin 29825 Santiago Road Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Buildinq and Land Use Dear Pastor Martin: It has come to the attention of the City Attorney's Office that you are in violation of the following provisions of Riverside County Ordinances Nos. 348 and 457; an adopted reference of City of Temecula Ordinance No. 90.04. - One mobile office and one mobile classroom without a Public Use Permit. - Modular office ("Temporary Assembly"). - Blacktop with playground equipment, basketball court without Public Use Permit. - 10' chainlink fence with gate in violation of existing Public Use Permit. - Trespassing on neighbor property. - Storage shed without a building permit. - Lack of approved landscaping plan and landscaping screen per Publlc Use Permit No. 580. Building permits for all structures on site. and, Pastor Martin October 10, 1990 Page 4 Please note that my office is not at City Hall. Should you need to contact me, ) may be reached at (714) 545-5559. Sincerely, Scott F. Field City Attorney City of Temecula copy: Dave Dixon, City Manacjer Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Anthony Elmo, Buildin9 Official Gibbs & Craze Co., L.P.A. [other] [other-not certified] BS: CNotice MVviol {3/23/90) CERTIFIED MAIL - P-35~ 135 656 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Pastor Martin October 10, 1990 Page 3 Please be advised that this/these violationl s ) can be remedied by court order throuqh civil injunction or prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor with a maximum fine of one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or a six month jail sentence for each criminal violation charqed. Please be further notified that this/these violations{ s) can also be prosecuted as a nuisance, and that failure to remedy the violation{s) within a reasonable time, will result in a special assessment on your property taxes of all costs of enforcement, including attorney's fees. However, before any legal action is begun, an office conference has been set up to discuss this/these matter(s). The purpose of the office conference is to provide an opportunity to resolve this/these code violation{s) without the necessity of formal legal action. The time established for the office conference is Tuesday, October 16, 1990 at 10:00 a.m., p.m; at Temecula City Hall located at 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, California. If you fail to appear at this conference, this office will be forced to assume that the above chargeIs) is/are correct and shall act accordingly. However, you may wish to avoid the office conference date and by having the correction confirmed through a personal inspection by the Building Official, Mr. Anthony Elmo. He may be reached at {714) 694-6400. The violation{s) may be corrected in the following File a revised Public Use Permit application with the City of Temecula Plannin9 Department, along with appropriate fees. Obtain, or provide documentation of, required Building and Safety permits for all existing structures on site includin9 play equipment and fencln9. Comply with Conditions of Approval Nos. 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 23. Pay appropriate development mitigation fees required by Public Use Permit No. 580. LOCAL REPORT TEMECULA -- A 10-foot high wire fence marks the property line between Rancho Temecula Bible Church and School and Barbara Hughes' back yard. And she is sick of looking at it. 'My family has absolutely no privacy with that thing," said Hughes. 'We can't have a barbecue, we can't have anything without facing a lot of people in our ~ backyard." Hughes' teen-aged daughter does not like to sun-tan in the Imckyard any more, . becguse she has been beckled by the school's teen-aged bo~ so many times. "My daughter goes~mt to sun herself and there's 20-some boys running around for P.E. (physical educa~on) class. She should be able to go out in the yard and use it whenever she wants to, we all should." Her husband, Robert, who commutes from Temecula to his job in Costs Mesa, is · awakened at 10 p .m. daily to the sounds of . starting can trod bri~l~t lights shining through the bedroom window. Hu~,hps Pastor Kerry Martin of Rancho Temecula said he wants to be able to save money for permanent buildings at the church. 'We have almost all temporary buildings and our church is very active and growing," he said. "We don't want to have problems with our neighbors here, but ifI am going to spend money, it's going to be on permanent buildings, not a wall.~ Martin said that his public-use-permit from the city only requires a chain-link "If she (Hughes) wants a wall, maybe she ought to pay for it? he said. "Otherwise, we can't seem to make her happy? Church officials are now talking to the city Planning Department and may be required to put up a w~ll, Martin said. "That would be an expensive proposition. We would be willing to split the cost with the neighbors if they wanted t~.t's no good,' she said. Dinners are a problem, too. "Whenever we sit down to eat dinner, the kids are playing ball over at the church and invariably, as soon as we get started on the meal, a ball comes flying over into our yard. Of course, the kids can't climb a ten-foot high fence, so one of us always gets up and gives them back the ball. It's just continual annoyances," Hughes said. The family wants the fencing removed and replaced by a wall. "If it won't block out the sound, at least it will give us a little privacy," Hughes said. Neighbors Ray and Elllien Colbert agree. "Nobody likes that fence ,. said Eftlien Colbert. "It's not exactly attractive and our neighbors are really having a hard time selling their house because people take one look at the fence and what's behind it -- (the mobile units that make up many of the church's buildings) and they don't want to move in there. It's making our property values go down." Together, the families of Cabo Street hnve hron~,hf c~mnlnints tn the city .omeo.n.rs .a.b__ ......, ,o,..,o.n., .n.....n..,,,,.. hn..ar...n, tohu,,, o. Colbert, behind the Rancho Temecule Bible Church a~ Sch~l Is · 1 O-foot hl~ ~fence ~ere now, but rat ants say ~e, complex. ~e churchschool lot abuts ~elr ~mes and neigh- fencing is ugly '~ .... ., ~ Church 's fen e:.d sturbs Te ula MAnY ~SNZSE/r~ C.t~n -.-~,: " ~ ~o phone cal~ ~ning s~ff we~ - ~en you have ~ w~e up at 4 a..~{ ~¥' not retume~ I~ n, EXHIBIT I S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP My newest concerne seem to be with our Tememcula Planning Department. ~lt is my understanding this property has nine violations pending. Why action has not be taken against the pastor is beyond me. No one at the Department seems to know either. Everyone empathizes with my problem and agrees I have a point but then refers me to someone elses phone number or asked me to write another letter. rm done with writing letters. A SOLID WALL needs to divide my property from the church/schools. The planning department needs to get me that wall by enforcing buildin9 codes or they can shut down this church/school for violations. It has been three years of waiting patiently and being put on hold by from one employee to the next. Let's get the job done or get someone in the Department who can do the work effectively. Temecula, California 92592 cc: California, News city counci' Temecula City Planning P. O. Box 3000 Temecula, California August 15, 1990 Dear Mr. Marshall: As per your request yesterday, I am writing the city another letter in regards to Permit Use #580 Rancho Temecula Bible Church on Santiago. You should now be in receipt of a complaint form filed in June 1990, a neighborhood petition signed in July 1990, and a memo from Gary Thornhill, to David Dixon dated August 30, 1990. Also, I have spoken numerous times to Karen Castro, Charlie Rey, two times to you, once to Dave Dixon, twice to Gary Thornhill and other employees whose name I do not remember. However, by now I would think the entire department remembers my name and most of the employees have told me not to call them anymore as the case is out of their hands. Most recently, Charlie Rey has redirected me to you....you tell me however the problem is being discussed once again by the City Manager and the City Attorney. Both the City Manager and the City Attorney were discussing this same problem lost August to no avail for me. It seems entirely redundant to repeat my concerns about the property on Santiago...the Church. Quickly outlined, the once small historical church has grown and also became a school from grades K to 12. There is no solid screening between our properties. I am subjected to not only constant weekend Church activities including Wednesday night youth group meetings and other Church related meetings which involves automobile headlights, people talking, general activity noise and loss of pMvacy but now I have to deal with daily school activities with an enrollment over 200 plus students. This includes a school bell, physical education classes, traffic and general noise and activity appropriate to any school situation. I do not feel comfortable using my backyard. I feel exposed, vunerable to theft, trespassing persists, headlights illuminate our house, sleep is lost and our teenage daughter gets heckled by students everyday. She cannot work on a tan like other teens. We have no backyard yet pay heafty taxes for one. To make matters worse, last year the church poured black top and erected a I0 foot chain !ink fence without a permit along our property line. They put up a basketball pole, and hoops. Kids love to play volleyball, hockey and other sports daily in this area. Balls are always coming into our yard. They yell to us to retrieve the balls or some come into the yard to get the balls. This fence is ugly. Seriously affecting the value of my property. It needs to come down The church put thai fence up knowino full well thou we also hope the city puts time limitations on the use of these temporary buildings as they are nonconforming, mixmatched group of mobiles which is very unsightly. hank you for your consideration of this matter. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP ATTACHMENT NO. 4 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Aooroval Condition No. N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No. 40 Condition No. 39 Condition No. N/A Condition No. N/A Condition No. 35 S\STAFFRPT\580-1,PUP FINDINGS The approval of this project is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, in that the drive aisles do not meet the minimum 24 feet required by Ordinance No. 348 and the Fire Department, and in that the existing structures are not approved to be used as classrooms. There is a reasonable probability that Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1, will not be consistent with the City's future General Plan, in that it will be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare for the reasons mentioned in Finding Number 1. The project is inconsistent with the approved Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands, in that the mobile units do not meet the Design Guidelines. The project has been a nuisance to the adjoining property owners, in that the chain link fence does not provide an effective buffer between the school playgrounds and the existing residences. The project applicant has been uncooperative with Staff in correcting the mentioned deficiencies in the Staff Report in that the structures remain unapproved and present a danger to the students using the facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-_ denying Public Use Permit No. 580 Revised No. 1, based on the analysis and findings contained the Staff Report. vgw Attachments: Resolution No. 92-_- page 6 Conditions of Approval - 9 Exhibits - page 14 A. Vicinity Map B. SWAP Map C. Zone Map D. County Approved Site Plan E. Proposed Site Plan F. Section 18-31, Ordinance 348 G. County Conditions of Approval H. Misc. City Correspondence I. Neighborhood Complaints Development Fee Checklist - page 19 S\STAFFRPT\580-1 ,PUP PROJECT STATISTICS Gross Area 3.92 Acres Number of Buildings 5 Assembly Area 1930 Square Feet Number of Classrooms 10 Number of Existing Parking Spaces 44 Number of Proposed Parking Spaces 58 Number of Faculty/Employees 13 Number of High School Students 13 BACKGROUND On December 4, 1986 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Public Use Permit Number 580. This permit allowed the applicant to build a Sanctuary, to relocate an existing church building to the site to be used as a multi-purpose building and to locate two mobile units to be used as classrooms for the school for a total of four structures. The project, as constructed, is not consistent with the County approval. In addition, mobile structures were placed on the site without proper permits and approvals. These structures are used as classrooms. Exhibits "D" and "E" show the original site plan approval by the County and the existing site plan, respectively. On July 5, 1990 the residents complained to the City regarding the noise from the increased number of students and the ineffectiveness of the chain link fence as a buffer between the school and the residents (refer to Exhibit I). At that time the City became aware of the inconsistencies of the built project with the approved exhibits. The City indicated these inconsistencies to the applicant in the October 10, 1990 correspondence from the City Attorney and requested the applicant to file for a Revision to Public Use Permit No. 580 (refer to Exhibit H). On February 26, 1991 the applicant filed for this revision. At the March 28, 1991 Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting and two subsequent DRC meetings the following issues were identified: Uncertified and unapproved mobile structures used as classrooms are existing on site. Substandard parking aisle widths exist on site. The chain link fence on the southern property line is not a sufficient buffer between the church playground and the existing residences. The applicant has been aware of these issues; however, they all remain unresolved. Therefore, Staff has brought the matter before the Planning Commission for action. ANALYSIS This project was approved over five years ago by Riverside County and it has always been in violation of the approved Public Use Permit No. 580. The facility is in violation of several building and fire codes; therefore, Staff is not supportive of expanding the operation. S\STAFFRPT~580-1 .PUP 2