Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022101 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this I meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will I enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE FEBRUARY 21, 2001 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2001-004 Commissioner Webster Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 21,2001. R:\PLAN COMM~Agendas~2001~2-21-01 .doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of December 6, 2000 2.2 Approve the minutes of December 20, 2000 COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Director's Hearnq Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and File PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. 4 Pann ng Application 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Sprint PCS Unmanned Cellular Facility to desiqn, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless communication facility located at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site located at 41520 Margarita Road - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner - continued from February 7, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~2001~2-21~01 .doc 2 5 Planning Application 00-0416 (Development Plan) - Scott Electric Buildinq, to design and construct a 13,550 square foot office/warehouse buildinq on a 1.06 acre lot located at the north side of Roick [third pad (APN 909-282-013)] - Rick Rush, Planner I - continued from February 7, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0416 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,550 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (SCOTF'S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-047. 6 Planning Application 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) -Scotts Manufacturinq Facility- Kearny Real Estate Lot Split, to subdivide 31 + net acres of industrially zoned property into two (2) lots. Proposed Parcel 1 is the Scotts Manufacturing Facility site, currently under construction. Proposed Parcel 2 is the area originally desiqnated for the expansion of the Scotts facility located at the southeast corner of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of Winchester Road - Carole Donahoe, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Reaffirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted; 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0513 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30044), THE SUBDIVISION OF 31_+ NET ACRES INTO TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL LOTS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF DENDY PARKWAY AND THE EXTENSION OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-370-022, -025, -026 AND -027 R:\PLANCOMM~gendas~2001~2-21-01 .doc 3 7 P annin¢~ Application 00-0110 (Development Plan) - Tres D. LLC to desiqn and construct a ; industrial storaqe facility comprised of eight buildinqs with a total of 641073 square feet on ,~ 1.82 acres - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0110 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 7.2 Adopt a ResolutiOn entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-01'10 -A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL STORAGE FACILITY (WESTSIDE STORAGE) COMPRISED OF EIGHT BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF 64,073 SQUARE FEET, ON 1.82 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER ROAD WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-056, 909-310-063, &909-310-065. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: March 7, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecuia, CA 92590 R:\pLANCOMM~Agendas~2001~*21-O 1 .doc 4 ITEM #2 MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 6, 2000 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday December 6, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Telesio. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners *Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Commissioner Chiniaeff. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Attomey Curley, Attorney Paula Gutierrez Baeza, Fire Captain McBdde, Project Planner Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner DeGange, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:20 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, relayed his comments regarding Agenda Item No. 3 at this time since the item was not a public hearing item; read into the record his comments (which were submitted to staff at the meeting) regarding his recommendation for the Planning Commission to recommend a change to the City Code to eliminate compact parking spaces for the following reasons: that vehicles of all sizes utilized the compact spaces, the frequent damage to vehicles, and the narrowed access lanes. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would be bdnging forward a Development Code amendment in approximately two to three months. Commissioner Webster recommended that the Commission discuss this item at this time in order to provide direction to staff, recommending that when Development Code Amendment is brobght before the Planning Commission, that this matter could be addressed at that time. Commissioner Telesio relayed that primarily people are driving larger care at this time, concurring with Mrl Lynn that vehicles of all sizes do utilize the compact parking spaces; and noted that he Was not opposed to consideration of one standardized size for all parking spaces. Mr. Lynn relayed tl~at there are existing compact parking spaces in the City that are below the minimum size (per Code requirements). i Chairman Guerriero concurred with Mr. Lynn, recommending that after additional investigation, that the Planning Commission consider making modifications with respect to allowing compact parking spaces. It was determined ihat the compact parking spaces issue would be agendized for a future meeting. 1 Aqenda 2 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 6, 2000. i Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 4, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. ~ COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Compact Parkinq Spaces It was determined that this issue would be agendized for a future meeting. 4 Planninq Application No. 98-0484 (Wolf Creek General Plan Amendment); No. 98- 0481 (Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12); No. 00-0052 (Wolf Creek Tentative Tract Map No. 29305); No. 00-0029 (Wolf Creek Development Aqreement); and 98-0482 (Wolf Creek Ehvironmental Impact Report) on parcels totalinq 557 acres located on the east side of PalM Road between Loma Linda Road and Fairview Avenue - Carole Donahoe '; RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a r0solution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WOLF CREEK (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0484), AND APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 12 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0481) ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0052 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29305, THE SUBDIVISION OF 557 ACRES INTO 47 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK SITES OF THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMALINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180- 001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE WOLF CREEK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DEAL POINTS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00.0029) AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT A, ON PARCELS TOTALING 557 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVlEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950-110-002, .005, -033 AND 950-180-001, -005, -006 AND -010. 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-040 A REsoLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WOLF CREEK spECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 98-0482) AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE WOLF CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD, BETWEEN LOMA LINDA ROAD AND FAIRVIEW AVENUE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 950~110-002, -005, -033 AND 950-180.001, -005, -006 AND --010. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), noting that the project had been presented to the Planning Commission on September 6, September 20, and October 4, 2000, advising that at the October 4~ Planning Corem ssion meeting the Planning Commission moved to recommend denial of the project; relayed that at the October 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission consi~lered the ResOlutions of denial prepared by the City Attorney's office, noting that during consideration of the Resolutions, the Planning Commission moved to reconsider the project which was the rationale for the project being presented at this time; advised that it had been the Planning Commission's request for the developer to address the items specified in the Findings associated with the Resolutions of denial for this headng; noted~that Attachment No. 6 (per agenda material) was the developer's full wdtten response regarding the resolutions, advising that she would be summarizing the data; and relayed that Project Planner Naaseh would present the Development Agreement points for the Planning Commission's consideration in order for the Planning Commission to provide a recommendation and comments to the City Council. Associate PlannerlDonahoe recapitulated the recent modifications to the project, as follows: Noted the revision from the planned high school site to the proposed 40-acre sports park which triggered the following revisions: the modification of the Community Park to the current proposed Neighborhood Park, and the Neighborhood Park which was now proposed as an activity node. Relayed that the multi-family apartments were removed as one of the options, noting that there still existed an option for senior multi-family housing in Planning Area No. 18. i Advised that the small lots (4,000-4500 square foot lots) have been eliminated, noting that the minimum lot size would be 5,000 square feet. Noted that th~ single-family dwelling Courtyard Housing in Planning Areas, 7, 10, and 18 would come forward with Planned Development Overlay (PDO) zones. With respect to the implementation of narrower streets, noted the exhibit entitled 'Option 2 - Through Local Streets," advising that this element would be implemented, where feasible, in the neighborhoods, noting that the parkway landscaping would need to be maintained by an HOA. With respect to the revisions to the Commercial Areas in Planning Area No. 12, and 13, noted that the applicant did provide a revised list of commercial uses in response to the Commission's previously expressed comments. Advised that the applicant updated the matrix with the Zoning Ordinance, reflecting the lot size changes, noting that the lot coverage was not modified, advising that it was the applicant's opinion that with the existing setback standards the lot coverage would not be a significant factor. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that she would not address the issues which were covered in the Development Agreement, while noting that the cul-de-sac length was revised to reflect a 600-foot maximum in lieu of 1320 feet; with respect to the request to have Energy Conservation Measures implemented into the Specific Plan, relayed that Conditions of Approval were added to address this issue; with respect to the request for coordination with Metropolitan Water Distdct regarding the pipelines at the south end of the project, noted that mitigation measures and conditions have been included to address this matter;, noted the request of the Temecula Community Services Distdct to add three additional conditions to the Specific Plan (presenting the conditions via overheads), advising that these conditions would ensure that if the Development Agreement was not approved, that there would be the ability to revert back to the odginal format in terms of the Community Park and the Neighborhood Park in order to meet Quimby requirements; and relayed that Development Services Administrator McCarthy was available for questions from the Planning Commission regarding these particular conditions. For Chairman Guerdero, Associate Planner Donahoe cladfied the rationale for the language if feasible being added to the document, noting the need for flexibility. Commissioner Webster queried why a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop regarding this project was never held, referencing comments from previous meetings. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff did meet with the City Council regarding the Development Agreement. Associate Planner Donahoe noted, additionally, that there have been several meetings held with the Subcommittee, relaying that Councilman Naggar and Councilman Pratt served on this Subcommittee, confirming that no Planning Commissioners were on this particular Subcommittee. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified that the courtyard option would not be restricted to seniors only, noting that these dwellings would be single family units, advising that there was no language added which would preclude the developer from designating this area for seniors only. It was noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived to the meeting at 6:20 P.M. Project Planner Naaseh presented the Development Agreement Deal Points (per supplemental agenda material), noting that staff has been negotiating with the applicant for the past few months, advising that the City Attorney and the applicant's attorney are still working out the legal details of the Development Agreement document; relayed that the Deal Points represented in the data were sufficient information for the Planning Commission to m;'ke a recommendation to the City Council; presented a detailed overview of the Deal Points of the Development Agreement; and for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the ten percent (10%) was added to the DIF component for the parks, advising that the City would be receiving ten percent (10%) more than the current DIF for parks, noting that this amount was included in the $2,800,000 figure. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that a DIF component was adopted, advising that there was a component related to park improvements. ~ With respect to thb meeting held on Monday, December 4, 2000 with the Subcommittee, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the Subcommittee's comments had been added to the Deal Point summarization data (per supplemental agenda material). For Commissionei Webster, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the proposed Administrative Facility would be located adjacent to the Fire Station site, noting that the specific plan for this site was undetermined at this point in time. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the proposed Fire station would enhance the emergency response times for the annexed Vail Ranch area; and noted that the City was in charge of the construction of the Fires Station site, advising that the project was conditioned to have the Fire Station be completed by the 400th building permit or the applicant would not be issued any additional building permits due to the impact with respect to the 5-minute response time. Fire Captain McBdde relayed that the emergency response times for Vail Ranch would not effect this particular project, advising that this proposed Fire Station would aid in the service of the Vail Ranch area; and Via overhead maps provided additional information regarding the response times, Which would only be improved with the proposed Fire Station with this particular project. !i For Commissione~ Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the entities contributing to the cost of the sound wall could potentially be Assessment Distdct No. 159, the Pechangas, or altamate sources. In response to Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the 134' ROW improvement of Pala Road was a right-of-way dedication, noting that the City would be in control of the improvement plans, advising that it had not yet been determined whether Pala Road would be constructed as six lanes all the way to Wolf Valley Road, noting that this issue would be addressed with the City Council. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh provided additional information regarding the Sub'committee's recommendation with respect to the applicant being responsible to pay the future Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee when it was adoPted, noting that the impacts addressed were regional and not based on a project by project basis; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that various Subcommittee comments had not been agreed to by the applicant; in response to Commissioner Webster's querie{, relayed that the Deal Points provided as supplemental agenda material were the same Deal Points provided in the agenda packets with the exception of the addition of {he Subcommittee's comments; and clarified Condition No. 65 (referencing page'15), which stated no occupancies will be allowed that will result in a service level of less than rD" on Pala Road, or at any of the Pala intersections from Rainbow Canyon Road to Wolf Valley Road. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the Deal Point regarding LOS Level D associated with Planning Areas 20, 21, 22, and 23, noting that the alternate portions of the subdivision would be developed within the limits of the LOS at this time; and noted that the casino's plans had been taken into consideration in the traffic projections presented. In response to Chairman Guerriero's quedes, Project Planner Naaseh noted that the Wolf Valley 12' median installed between Pala Road and the easterly boundary of Planning Area No. 14 would be landscaped, advising that if language was not included in the Specific Plan document to address the landscaping issue, that it would be added. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that this issue was addressed in Condition No. 26c. (of the Tentative Map) which required a raised landscaped median. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh provided additional information regarding the permitted uses within Planning Area No. 12 addressed in the Deal Point data. With respect to the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning, Commissioner Webster noted that he had previously recommended that taverns, and bar uses not be excluded, querying the rationale for these existing exclusions; and relayed that during the previous public heating associated with this item, that there had been a verbal agreement between the developer and the Pechanga tribe with respect to utilizing an Indian monitor in lieu of an archeologist, noting that he did not see this agreement referenced in the Specific Plan Condition No. 20, or in the Mitigation Monitoring Program. After additional investigation, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that it was determined to leave the condition as stated, advising that staff was of the opinion that the applicant's agreement to work with the Pechangas was sufficient; and provided additional information regarding Condition No. 20 (of the Specific Plan) which addressed this matter. With respect to the narrow road option, in response to Commissioner Webster's quedes, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Public Works Department would make the final determination with respect to this implementation, advising that it was anticipated that, where feasible, this element would be installed in the local neighborhoods. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if certain criteria were met with respect to the Average Daily Tdps (ADTs) then this element would be implemented. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified the nexus between the ^DTs and the feasibility of this option. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review the street widths at the time the Tentative Maps are brought forward for the particular planning areas. For Commissioner Webster, Public/Traffic Safety Commissioner Edwards relayed that the narrower streets for the Wolf Valley Project were discussed at a recent Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting, noting that it was a receive and file item, clarifying that no action was taken with regard to this item; and provided additional information regarding the negative impacts associated with the implementation of 36' wide streets (referencing the public speaker comments where residents relayed concern with respect to the impacts regarding the narrower streets implemented in their neighborhood), advising that it was the consensus of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission that a wider street width would be more appropriate for reasons of safety. With respect to COndition No. 17 (of the Specific Plan conditions), regarding reclaimed water usage, Commissioner Webster queried whether this would need to be in compliance with Senate Bill 2095 which was the new law recently enacted which was the Water Recycling and Landscaping Act. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that this condition reflected comments received during the environmental review process, advising !hat this element was encouraged, where feasible. With respect to th~ Findings in the Resolutions for the Tentative Map, specifically Finding No. G (regarding energy conservation), Commissioner Webster queried how this issue was implemented in the Specific Plan. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that the app!icant was raquirad to address conservation issues, where feasible. With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding to the Mitigation Monitoring Program included ~with the Findings for the Environmental Impact Report, Associate Planner Donahoe noted staff's intent to have an inclusive condition in order to be able to refer back to the General Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring Measures without increasing the Mitigation Pro~ram, advising that the condition in the Specific Plan referencing this matter made it subject not only to the Mitigation Measures in the Program but also to the General Plan. ~ With respect to COmmissioner Webster's queries with regard to the revised densities, Associate Plannerl Donahoe relayed that she had utilized the actual dwelling units per acre of each of the planning areas to obtain the densities in the categories. : In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries relayed to staff prior to the meeting, Associate Planne~ Donahoe relayed that with respect to the densities data, that she had utilized the net acreage in those areas in her density figu.re analysis, whereas the applicant was utilizing a gross number, as opposed to a net figure, advising that she could understand the rationale for the applicant's figure analysis. With respect to th6 Pala Road improvements, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether staff was :of the opinion that the improvements denoted under the CFD were consistent with the infrastructure improvements in the Conditions of Approval on Phase I, and II, referencing Condition No. 67a, regarding this issue. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was the opinion of Director of Public Works Hughes that if the CFD was formed and the City had control of the improvements, then building permits WOuld be issued based on the fact that the road system was in the hands of the City at the time, and was fully funded which meant that the building of the improvements cot~ld proceed, advising that staff was of the opinion that this would constitute a process similar to bonding for subdivision improvements, ensuring that it would be built; relayed that in the COAs there still was a requirement to have Pala Road constructed as four lanes Prior to the Issuance of the first building permit; and advised that the sound wail would be part of the funded improvements under the control of the City at that time (via the CFD), noting that it would be completed with the widening and the ultimate improvements of Pala Road. It was noted that ~t 7:18 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:28 P.M. After additional investigation, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the project was conditioned so that the developer was required to have in place the interim four-lane improvements (to Pala Road) pdor to the issuance of the first building permit; noted that there was a traffic study submitted to the City that revealed that in excess of 615 dwelling units could be built on this site without exceeding LOS D on Pala Road with the four-lane improvement; advised that it was the intention of the City to have in place the CFD to fund the Pala Road improvement (the ultimate improvements), noting that if the CFD was in place pdor to the issuance of the first building pen'nit then the City would be in control of the funding mechanism for the read, relaying that the improvements plans were 70-80% complete at this time, advising that at this point bonds could be sold, and under the direction of the City staff, the ultimate improvements of Pala Road would be constructed inclusive of the median and the sound wall; relayed that it would take approximately 3-6 months to obtain the funding, and approximately 12-18 months to complete the improvements; confirmed that it was the plan to have these improven~ents in place prior to the first occupancies at Wolf Creek, relayed that there was a stop gap in the Specific Plan which required that pdor to the 473ru building permit the funding mechanism would have to be in place, and prior to beginning Phase B (the 823=building permit) the improvements would have to be completed; and noted that as the Tentative Tract maps are presented that there would be the opportunity to revisit this issue. With respect to Commissioner Webster's quedes at to whether or not the Development Agreement was an equitable deal, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that by comparison, alternate Development Agreements have been set at $500 per dwelling unit, and that this Development Agreement would be at $1500. Via overhead slides, Mr. Barry Bumell, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the Village Center overlay from the General Plan, noting that this project plan was consistent with the configuration; presented the park sites, and alternate recreational facilities; specified the location of the center median, the Fire Station, and the provisions for turning motions; presented the option plan for the narrower streets, and the separated parkways; reiterated that the 4,000-4500 square foot lots have been eliminated which addressed numerous Commission concerns; clarified the use of the phrase if feasible denoted in the documents, relaying that when there was a menu of options that would address a particular issue, the phrase if feasible was utilized due to the situations where it would not be an applicable element; in response to Commissioner Webster's quedes, referenced the section of the Specific Plan under Residential Orientation where it was stated siting of buildings shall take advantage of natural elements such as topography, soil orientation, and prevailing breezes, providing assurance that there was language in the Specific Plan to address this matter, as well as in the Conditions of Approval; with respect to the recommendation to add bars or tavern uses to the permitted uses in the commercial area, relayed that the applicant would have no objection to this addition; and provided additional information regarding the proposed densities, noting the plan for approximately 1900 units unless the senior housing option is constructed whereby the densities would be over 2,000 units. Mr. William Gdffith, representing the applicant, relayed that this project plan has had significant amount of changes to the plan, noting the removal of the 4,000-4500 square foot lots which was an issue of concern for the Commission and the community; and cladfied that the only apartment alternative would be for the senior housing option, relaying that the courtyard housing would be units for sale, and not rental housing. Mr. Griffith provided an overview of various issues addressed in the Development Agreement, as follows: · Relayed that with respect to the bullet point addressing the Deer Hollow improvements, that it was the applicant's desire that this project not be accelerated, noting that it'Was the applicant's opinion that the land dedication of 12.37 acreage with a real value of $2.25 million was a generous and adequate gift to the City, advising that in light of the alternate circulation priorities, the Deer Hollow project should not be accelerated; · With respect,to the Administrative Facility, noted that this element was included in response to Commission recommendations for there to be opportunities for civic or public uses within the Village core; · W th respect.~to the Fire Station, relayed that the dedication of 1.5 acres for a credit of $114,000 represents an additional gift to the City of approximately $150,000- 160,000; : With respectlto the CFD description, advised that it would be his desire to amend the description, as follows: The Pala Road improvements shall include pavement, curb, guttersl sidewalk, lights, and median landscaping, with the addition of the sound wall, and the underground utilities improvements, advising that this was a vital issue as it pertains to the applicant's commitment to the neighborhood concerns wi{h respect to the Subcommittee's comments regarding this issue, noted that the developer offered to advance 100% of the cost of the sound wall in relation to any intedm improvements of Pala Road, noting that the applicant has met with Mr. ILucier and other members of the community, advising that the applicant wa~ concerned with the intedm improvements of Paia Road not including the sound wall, providing the rationale for this commitment; · With respect to the Commercial DIF fees, clarified that to the degree that available credits are not utilized for the residential area, it would be the applicant's' desire to have the bedefit of applying any residual credits to the commercial area, thereby reduc ng the.~cost of developing this particular area; · With respect:to the Subcommittee's recommendation regarding the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee, advised that at this point the applicant was not in agreement with this request, relaying that this particular property has no habitat issueS, noting that it was the applicant's opinion that it would not be equitable for the City to impose this fee since at this point did not exist, and since this fee would be designed to share the cost of habitat among those developing habitat; ,~ · With respect to the LOS D in Planning Areas No. 20, 21, 22, and 23, relayed that as indicated by the Public Works Department, that via the cun'ent lien of $2 million on this property, and the prior cash commitment to the development of Highway 79, that the applicant has a right to certain capacities within this system; advised that the applicant only anticipated those conditions being exceeded via development of the County residential developments, clarifying that the applicant was not in agreement that this issue should be part of the Development Agreement, noting that the project was conditioned regarding the LOS Level D obligation, and would not desire to'have this project's development stopped via traffic capacity being utilized by the County developments; · With respect to the Wolf Valley median, advised that the applicant has agreed to a 12' landscaped median; and · Noted that the applicant has worked diligently with staff with regard to the Deal Points, relaying appreciation to staff for their hard work, advising that this was an excellent opportunity for the City to obtain improvements, financing, and infrastructure upfront, and to address issues of concern with respect to fire stations, schools, drainage, and parks, For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith clarified the applicant's concem regarding the Commercial DIF, providing an example, noted that if the number of residential units developed was reduced, that the applicant would desire to have the residual credits considered for the commercial area. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Gdffith clarified that the Adminstrative Facility would be a public use, noting the potential uses at this site. Attorney Curley clarified the. linkage of uses for this type of DIF fee, noting that this was a Corporate Facilities Fee that was being negotiated; and relayed that this fee, as setforth in the City's Ordinances has limitations on its use which would be for government public, as opposed to a general community type of use. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Gdffith relayed that in discussions regarding the sports park, there has been discussions with respect to placing clubhouse meeting-type areas at this site; and noted that one of the permitted uses in the Commercial area in Planning Area No. 12 would be a church use. Commissioner Telesio queried the legal issues associated with the Subcommittee's recommendation that the applicant be responsible to pay the future Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Fee when it is adopted. In response, Attorney Curley relayed that this fee would be implemented at the point in time that the applicant was building when the MSHCP was adopted, advising that the fee would not recapture fees for dwellings that have been built prior to the adoption. For clarification, Deputy City Manager Thomhill relayed that this fee would become applicable when building permits were issued, confirming that prior construction would not be subject to the fee; noted that there was an intedm fee being proposed at this time, relaying that the fee was not solely applied to development with habitat, but that all development paid into the program to aid in the acquisition of the huge amount of land that would be required as part of the MSHCP. With respect to Commissioner Webster's previous recommendation to introduce civic uses proximate to the Village core, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that at the Administrative Facility site there was the potential to place a police substation, a building permitJPlanning Services facility, a Community Services facility (due to the proximity to the parks), noting that there may be an opportunity to create a mini-annex to City Hall; and relayed that as a fallback, if the City determined not to utilized this area, then the type of uses Commissioner Telesio mentioned could be constructed in this area (i.e., a church use, a daycare use). Commissioner Webster cladfied his recommendations at the previous meeting, specifically to implement the Village Center Plan with a public use type of element in this area, specifically recommending that there be a dedicated church site; relayed that with the Zoning Codes and Laws, a church use is conditionally permitted in all zoning areas; and advised that in his opinion it was unlikely a church would be developed in the Commercial areas due to the lack of retail in this area, clarifying that it was his recommendation to have a designated church site in the Village core, but not in the commercial area. In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Gdffith relayed that if a church came forward with an interest to develop a site, he would be willing to convert a portion of the residential area for a chumh use, clarifying the impacts of designating a site for a specific church use which would tie up the property if there was not a church interested in locating at this particular site; and provided additional information regarding potential sites for church uses. Commissioner W6bster recommended that there be a church site designated for a specific period of time. In response, Mr. Grifflth relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to a deSignated church site in Planning Area No. 12 for a reasonable period of time as part of thel Development Agreement. Commissioner Tetesio noted the potential need for a church site at this site. With r~spect to the Pechanga archeological issues, Mr. Gdffith relayed that the applicant intended to work with the Pechangas regarding this issue. With respect to Commissioner Webster's quedes regarding the applicant's wdtten response to the Fipdings associated with the Resolutions (per agenda material), specifically with respect to page 3, second paragraph, at the end where it stated/t must be assumed that ~ome relief from the Cib/'s Development Standards would be granted, Mr. Bumell noted the following: the elimination of the smaller lots, that certain Open Space standards have been added, that the Design Standards were extremely comprehensive, ahd that the courtyard housing was implemented in lieu of apartment complexes; and clarified that the applicant was requesting minor areas of relief form the standards. ; With the exclusiori of the courtyard housing area, Commissioner Webster queded whether zero lot lines would be permitted in the project. In response, Mr. Bumell relayed that a zero lot line.would be allowed, noting that it would typically not be utilized in this project's lot sizes i5,000, 6,000, and 7200 square foot lots), relaying that the applicant would be agreeable to prohibiting zero lot lines. At this time Chairman Guerriero opened the public comment period. It was noted for the record that the following individuals opted not to speak, filling out a request to speak form solely to register that they were proponents of the project: Mr. Doug Haserot Ms. Lynette Dent Mr. Hugh Young Mr. Donald O. iLohr Mr. Tony Terich 41976 Avenida Alvarado 24970 Carancho Road 45254 Esplendor Creek 43503 Ridge Park Ddve 31132 Dog Leg Circle The following individuals were opposed to the project: [3 Mr. Rick Barrem 45639 Corte Lobos a Ms. Pamela Miod 30995 Via Saltio [3 Mr. Mark Brod~rick 45501 Clubhouse Drive The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: Opposed to the proposed densities, specifically with respect to the Courtyard Housing option. Recommended iimiting the density to a maximum of 1500 homes. Queded the Councilman's recent argument with the County's plan to implement the Morgan Hills project if this particular project with a higher density was being considered for approval within the City limits. Noted concern with respect to the cumulative impacts of this project not being addressed. Relayed concern regarding traffic impacts generated from this project without a plan for altemate transportation plans. Noted the tack of Open Space between the Redhawk area and this project for trails. Advised that this project was not consistent with the Growth Management Action Plan. Applauded the developer for the reduction in densities. Referenced an article in the Californian newspaper from September 10, 1999, reading the following: Mr. Deputy City Manager Thornhill says a lot of things that are going to impact us we don~t have a lot of control over, adding that City staff members will have to talk with County officials to study the effects of projects outside City limits,; and advised that the City did have control over this particular project. For Mr. Barrera, Commissioner Webster clarified that with respect to the Councilman's comments referenced, that his comments had been relayed as a private citizen, and not as a representative of the City. In response to Ms. Miod, Commissioner Webster relayed that the trail referenced was located on the Redhawk side of the property line. The following individuals were proponents of the project: [] Mr. Jason Parks [] Mr. John Stanlil [] Mr. Wayne Hall 32828 Caserta Drive 45299 Paseo Durango 42131 Agena Street The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons: Relayed that the City of Temecula needs more space for children to be able to play sports, noting the benefits of the sports park. Noted that the traffic would be reduced with the sports park proposal due to families traveling a shorter distance for sporting activities. Complimented the City of Temecula for its exemplary park system. Noted that the proposed Fire Station would be a great asset to this portion of the city. Applauded the developer for his agreement to work with the Pechangas regarding the monitoring issues. Noted opposition to any alcohol being sold in the permitted uses in the Commercial area. Relayed a desire for Pala Road to be constructed as six lanes. Mr. Joseph R. Terrazas, 31160 Lahontian Street, relayed his concern with respect to the inadequate EIR and Traffic analysis; queded the ability to sell bonds for the necessary road improvement;projects; noted concern with respect to the additional traffic generated due to the sports park proposal; recommended that Pala Road be constructed as six lanes to Wolf Valley Road; and noted that he was pleased with the applicant's comments regarding the sound wall issue. Mr. Peter Lucier, 31257 Hiawatha Court, representing the Wolf Valley HOA, thanked the Commission, staff, and the developer, for their diligent efforts with respect to this project; relayed concern with respect to the potential sale of liquor at any of the uses in Planning Area Nos. 12, and13; noted the need to widen Pala Road to six lanes to Wolf Valley Road; relayed that although the sound attenuation had been addressed in the Developer Agreement, that there were no Conditions of Approval addressing this matter;, and relayed concern with respect to the traffic, specifically in conjunction with the casino project. Mr. Charles Hankley, 31745 Via Cordoba, applauded the developer for the project plan, relayed his concerh with respect to the traffic impacts associated with this project, noting the heavy traffic fldws existing on Loma Linda Road, and Via Cordoba, relaying the additional traffic that the school would generate; and advised that the streets in this area could not afford to be impacted negatively with respect to additional traffic. For Mr. Lucier, Dirbctor of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the referenced permitted uses of the Commercial !area were excluded uses, clarifying that on page 15 (of the agenda material) that this was a list of prohibited uses. For Mr. Hankley, Commissioner Webster concurred that cut-through traffic on Via Cordoba and Loma Linda Road was a significant problem, noting that the proposed improvements to Highway 79 South, the Pala Bddge, as well as the improvements to Pala Road and W01f Valley Road would direct traffic away from Loma Linda Road; and advised that the City had no control over the location of the school sites. In response, Mr. Hankley noted the need for additional Police enforcement in the Via Cordoba area. At this time Chairman Guerriero closed the public comment portion of the meeting. The applicant's representatives provided the followinq rebuttal comments in response to the Commission and community comments: · Mr, Camille Bahd, [epresenting the applicant, cladfied the intent to have differentiated permitted uses in the two commercial areas (Planning Area Nos. 12, and 13.) Mr. William Gdffith, representing the applicant, relayed the following: · In response t@ previously made comments, specified the differences between the Wolf Creek D~velopment and the Morgan Hill Development (which is in the County), noting that the Morgan Hill Project was currently zoned for one unit per ten acres, under the Regional County Plan, which would enable the Morgan Hill Developer to develop 45 units, with a total of 1300 units, relaying that by comparison, the target density under the General Plan for the Wolf Creek Project would be for 2601 units, clarifying that the presented proposal was for approximatel 1900 units, or with the senior housing option, just over 2000 units; relayed that the Wolf Creek property was currently zoned for a combination of Low, Low Medium, Medium, and High densities, noting the applicant's determination to comply with the Growth Management Plan, proposing the lower end of the density range while still providing a broad spectrum of amenities (i.e., school site, fire station, civic centers); advised that the Morgan Hills Project would not be inclusive of an commensurate measure of amenities; With respect to traffic, noted staffs review and support of the traffic analysis; relayed that the read system in this portion of the City was designed based on the General Plan's target density of over 2600 units, advising that due to this particular project's proposal to develop substantially below that density that there was the creation of a potential excess capacity; · Relayed that this property was not environmentally sensitive; Advised that in his opinion this particular project plan meets the guidelines of the City (per the General Plan documents, the GMP, and meeting all of the criteria with respect to issues that staff has raised regarding the project over the past three years); Noted the applicant's previous involvement in the development of numerous award- winning Master Planned communities; · Provided additional information regarding the circulation plan; In response to Mr. Broderick's, comments, reiterated that the project was being developed within the policies of the General Plan, and the GMP; in response to Mr. Lucier's concerns, relayed that the applicant has held numerous meetings with Mr. Lucier, noting that it was the applicant's desire to work in cooperation with both the City and the neighborhood with respect to defining solutions to the noise on Pala Road, the widening of Pala Road, and the associated congestion relief; Advised that the assiduous efforts of the applicant, the staff, and the revisions incorporated in response to Commission comments have culminated into this proposed project plan; Thanked the Commission for its consideration of this matter, relaying hopes of support for this particular proposal. At 8:45 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:54 P.M. The Commission relayed the following closing remarks: Commissioner Mathewson noted the following: Relayed appreciation to the applicant for addressing the Commission's concams since this project was last visited; For the record, noted that he had participated in ex-parte communications; meeting with the applicant and staff on December 4t~ in order to discuss the proposed modifications to the project plan; 15 R:P~nCemm~nmute~'120600 Advised that his primary concerns had been addressed with the proposed revisions to the project. · With respect to the density issues, relayed that he was a strong advocate of following the :GMP and the General Plan, noting that in comparison to what the minimum derisity designation allowed (per the General Plan), that this particular project preposed a seven percent (7%) increase from the minimum density, noting that if the sen~ior multi-family element was implemented, the project would prepose a thirteen percent (13%) increase in density above the absolute minimum density allowed; advised that he could support the preposed densities in conjunction with the numereu~ amenities preposed (i.e., a 40-acre park, land dedication for the fire station, the linear parkway), relaying that the preposed amenities would not solely benefit the project itself, but the community, as a whole; relayed that the sole multi- family area would be limited to senior housing, noting that the senior housing and the courtyard;homes would have a significantly less negative impact with respect to school enrollment in this area; · With respect to lot sizes, cladfied that the discussions pertaining to the smaller lots were re~3ardi~g the minimum lot size and not the average lot sizes, noting that in the first'two ~reas to be developed the average lot size would be dramatically higher than the minimum; · With respect to the Village Center proposal, relayed that with the siting of the courtyard hou, sing around this center, this planning element aided in achieving the ultimate purpose of a Village Center, as identified in the General Plan; advised that the permitted uses that have been identified for the commercial areas were adequate, noting that he could support Commissioner Webster's recommendation for adding a tavern, or bar use in the Neighborhood Commercial area, noting that with respect to the community concern expressed regarding excessive alcohol consumption; that in his opinion this issue was an enforcement matter, advising that to attractYesidents to the pedestrian center in the evening hours a tavern, or bar use would be appropriate; · With respect to the architectural guidelines for the residences, and the issue of a mix of one-story, and two-story dwellings, relayed that after additional investigation of the voluminous Design Guidelines which were inclusive of language encouraging one-story homes, that it was his opinion that the Specific Plan was not the document best-suited for regulating these specific elements; recommended that if this project gOes forward and is approved, that all product reviews come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval; with respect to Deputy City Manager Thomhitl's previous comments regarding the option to hire an architect consultant for aid in the project review, recommended that this option be utilized; noted that these provisions would address garage setback issues and alternate architectural treatments that have been previously sited as concerns by the Commission;' With respect !o the proposed traffic improvements, advised that the data presented earlier in the meeting by staff addressed this issue, ensuring that this matter would be addressed adequately; noted that the Development Agreement (if it goes forward, as proposed) provided him with a great level of confidence that the traffic issues would be propedy addressed (inclusive of the sound wall); in response to a community resident's comments regarding concern with respect to funding issues and the potential for the intedm traffic improvements to not be completed, for Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the funding would ultimately be available due to the applicant's willingness to loan funds upfront for these improvements; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's request for confirmation of this agreement, the applicant's representative nodded affirmatively; and With respect to the previously expressed desire of the Commission to implement smaller streets and sidewalk setbacks, advised that he strongly recommended that these elements be incorporated into the project plan. Commissioner Telesio noted the following: Commended the applicant for continuing to work with staff and the Commission in order to meet the goals of the Commission, the General Plan, and the GMP; Noted that in his opinion, the applicant has met the standards relayed by the Commission with the recent revisions to the project plan; Relayed that he was comfortable forwarding this project to the City Council with a recommendation for approval; With respect to the community resident's expressed comments, noted that the majodty of these concems were based on misinformation, relaying hopes of the Commission or staff providing clarification to the community; Regarding the proposed courtyard homes, and the multi-family senior housing, noted the need for diversity with respect to the provision of housing products; Concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation with respect to the product reviews being brought forward to the Planning Commission; With respect to traffic issues, relayed that this matter had been adequately addressed; Regarding the concern with respect to allowing a bar or tavern use in the commercial area, relayed that he concurred with Commissioner Mathewson that the excessive use of alcohol was an enforcement issue, noting that in his opinion these uses should be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); and Relayed that in his opinion, the applicant has done an excellent job planning a project appropriate for this area, noting that the proposal was well under the densities allowed for this area (per the General Plan). Commissioner Webster noted the following: For the record, relayed that he had not met with staff or the applicant to discuss the project plan since the Planning Commission's workshop, which was held on October 18, 2000, noting that the sole staff member he had discussed this issue with was the.City Attorney. Noted his e~reme disappointment with staff due to the exclusion of the Planning Commissioners in the Subcommittee that worked on this project. ! Advised that 'in order for this project to receive his support for conformance with the City's General plan, General Plan EIR, the Development Code, the Design Guidelines, and the GMP, that the project would need to incorporate the following elements: , · With respe~ to Condition No. 6a, and 6b (regarding the mitigation measures within the Specific Plan conditions), recommended that the language if feasible.!be deleted from the conditions due to violating the intent of the CEQA Act, not!ng that either this language could be deleted, or there would need to be provisions for a performance standard, recommending the deletion of this language; · With respect to Condition No. 17 (regarding the feasibility of a reclaimed water system Within the Specific Plan conditions), recommended that there ~be assurance that this condition was in accordance with Senate Bill 2095; · With respect to traffic impacts and accumulative impacts, relayed that in order to agree with the analysis, that there should be assurance that the Deal Point Item (per the Development Agreement) stating that no additional occupancy is allowed when traffic reaches levels less than a Level of Service (LOS) D, for 1- 15 InterChanges, as well as Highway 79 South (between the freeway and Pala Road), recommending that this requirement should be placed on all phases of the project; advised that if the project's EIR analysis, and the City's traffic analysis is correct, this is a mute point, while noting that in order to alleviate the con'ems and issues expressed with respect to traffic impacts and cumulative impacts, it was his opinion this Deal Point should be included. · Noted that this project should have a complete Mitigation Monitoring Program inclusive of the applicable portions of the General Plan EIR; · With respect to the Specific Plan, regarding the street options referenced in Condition Nos. 12, 12a, 31 and 75, recommended that there should be one option f(~r this element (rather than the two street options indicated), recommending that the one option be for narrower streets, specifically with a thirty-six foot (36') read fight-of way which would provide for two eighteen foot (18') lanes, a four foot (4') sidewalk, and a six foot (6') parkway (with the sidewall~ separated from the curb); · With respect to the CFD Deal Point (within the Development Agreement), regarding the Pala Road improvements, concurred with the inclusion of the requirement to widen Pala Road to six lanes to Wolf Valley Road, noting the applicant's requirement to provide the dedication of the right-of-way, and not to pay fqr all the improvements. · Concurred that an architect consultant should be hired by the City to review the PDO, noting that an independent review would be beneficial. · With respect to the Land Use Plan map, regarding Planning Area No. 24 (the proposed regional park area), recommended that if the park plan did not go forward,iithe option to construct 5500 square foot lots should be revised to require ~200 square foot lots; with respect to Planning Area No. 23, recommended that this be revised to require a 6,000 square foot lot minimum to provide a better transition between the Village Center core to less dense residential; with respect to Planning Area No. 21, recommended revising this to require 7200 square foot lot minimums, noting the lack of 7200 square foot lots which should be implemented to create consistency with the Development Code. · Noted that he was pleased with the applicant's previous expressed response regarding the agreement to include a church site designation for a specified pedod of time, recommending that staff and the applicant work together to establish an appropriate period of time for this designation. · Recommended that there be no allowance for zero lot line houses for the single- family residential area. · With respect to the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the 5,000 square foot lots which stated the request to use the Zoning Ordinance of Medium Density Residential, noting that the City's Development Code for Low Medium Density is basically 5, 000 square foot lots and above, recommended that this be kept at the Low Medium Density zoning in order to be consistent with the Development Code. · With respect to the minimum sideyard requirements, within the Residential Development Standards, relayed that for the 5,000 square foot lots, it was his recommendation that this standard be revised to be consistent with the City's Low Medium requirement which is a five foot (5') minimum sideyard, with a fifteen foot (15') minimum for the sum of the two sideyards; · With respect to lot coverage, regarding the 6,000 and 7200 square foot lots, recommended that there be a maximum thirty-five percent (35%) lot coverage for the lots with two-story dwellings, and forty-five percent (45%) maximum for the lots with one-story dwellings; regarding the 5,000 square foot lots, recommended that there be a maximum lot coverage of forty percent (40%) for the lots with two story dwellings, and forty-five percent (45%) for the lots with one-story dwellings; · With respect to architectural forward requirements that the Commission addressed in the past, recommended that on the exhibits denoting the garage options, that the split garage option be deleted which does not comply with an architectural forward element, noting that with this configuration the front door was tucked inside the house; and · With respect to the Design Standards, regarding the option for multi-family senior housing in Planning Area No. 18, recommended that if this option is implemented that garages be a requirement for this development, in lieu of carports. Chairman Guerriero noted the following: Thanked all the citizens who came forward dudng the past months to address the Wolf Valley Project, noting that their comments were appreciated by the Commission, and specifically by him; Thanked the applicant for taking the time to meet with the community residents; and Advised that all of his concerns have been addressed by staff, the applicant, and the citizens that have relayed their comments, noting that in his opinion this was a good project,"iand his recommendation would be to pass it on to the City Council, recommending approval. Commissioner Telesio requested the applicant to address the recommendations setforth by CommiSsioner Webster. Addressing commissioner Webster's previously mentioned recommendations (See pages 17-19 of the minutes.), Mr. Gdffith, representing the applicant, relayed the following: · With respect to the street option recommendation, and the church designation issues, relayed that the applicant had agreed to incorporation of these elements. · Relayed that at this stage of the process, he would be reluctant to revise the Land Uses, noting ihat these elements have been carefully planned, advising that the 4,000-4500 sguare foot lots had been eliminated due to Commission concern; reiterated that the lot sizes denoted were minimums, noting that in the 6,000 square foot lot area, that the average lot size would be approximately 8,000 square feet. In response, Commissioner Mathewson noted that his concern was regarding Planning Are~ No. 24 (the potential sports park site). For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Griffith relayed that he was convinced that the City would gO forward with the proposed sports park, noting that to accommodate the Commission's concern he would agree that for an alternative (if the sports park plan did not ~o forward) that Planning Area No. 24 could be revised to maintain a minimum lot Size of 7200 square feet, reiterating that it was not his desire to revise Planning Are~ Nos. 21, and 23, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his reluctance. With respect .t° the church site designation, reiterated that the applicant would work with staff for an appropriate period of time for this designation. With respect ito the Design Standards, specifically, regarding the recommendation for sideyard requirements, noted that he would be reluctant to agree to this element, relaying that the Design Standards are consistent from product category to product category. With respect;to maximum lot coverage requirements, noted that it was the applicant's opinion that the critical variables are the setbacks which are internally consistent, relaying that he would not desire to agree to a lot coverage reduction without a clear understanding of the impact this element would have on other variables. : With respect:to the recommendation for narrower streets, relayed that the courtyard area would be a great opportunity for this element since the streets could be reduced further, noting that with respect to the neighborhood streets, the applicant would suppoi~ the thirty-six foot (36') section that Commissioner Webster recommended. 20 R:Ptw~omm~mimze~/120600 Advised that it was his opinion that this project package was well-defined, noting the new and modified criteria, recommending that the project go forward with the recommendations he has relayed. MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion died for lack of a second.) Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040 with the following modifications: Add- That the three added Community Services conditions be added to the Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental agenda material via a memorandum from the Community Services Department). That all of his previously mentioned recommendations (see pages 17-19 of the minutes) be incorporated into the project plan. , That Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation for the product review to be conducted at the Planning Commission level be implemented. It was noted that this motion was not seconded and therefore died. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Commissioner Webster relayed his desire to include the Land Use revisions for Planning Area Nos. 21, 23, and 24 in the motion for approval, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his recommendation. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that the minimum lot sizes would not be the average lot sizes, noting that Commissioner Webster's Land Use recommendation may restrict the variability in the housing products, and may additionally discourage the development of one-story homes. Commissioner Webster was not in agreement that his recommended Land Use revisions would have an impact on the development of one-story homes. With respect to the one-story verses two-story dwelling units issues, Commissioner Mathewson noted that he, too, was of the opinion that the recommended lot coverage requirements would negatively impact the potential for one-story homes, although he shared Commissioner Webster's concerns, it was his desire to provide the flexibility in order to encourage the development of one-story dwellings, relaying that in his opinion the additional lot coverage issue could be addressed in the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Webster reiterated that the Development Code standard was basically a thirty-five percent (35%) maximum lot coverage, noting that he was opposed to some of the existing development in the City where there were houses filling the entire lot, located proximate to the neighboring houses (i.e., the Temeku Hills Development), relaying that in these developments the residents were unable to park their vehicles in their own driveway due to the housing unit filling the lot; and advised that his recommendation was to ensure that the general policy goal for design excellence on all developments be implemented, while still providing flexibility. Commissioner Telesio advised that by limiting the lot coverage, this standard would be encouraging the development of two-story homes. MOTION: (Ultimaiely the following motion was amended.) Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -*040 with the following modifications: Add- That the three added Community Services conditions are added to the Conditions of Approval (as per supplemental agenda material via a memorandum from the Community Services Department). That all of Commissioner Webster's previously mentioned recommendations (see pages 17-'19 of the minutes) be incorporated into the project plan with the exception of the revisions to Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23. That Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation for the product review to be conducted at the Planning Commission level be implemented. Commissioner Webster seconded' the motion. In response to Mr.liGriffith's queries, Commissioner Telesio confirmed that the motion on the table was inclusive of the recommended revision in lot sizes in Planning Area No. 24 (to a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet) if the proposed sports park did not go for~vard, noting that Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23 would not be revised, additionally, noting that the lot coverage and the setbacks would not be revised. Commissioner M~thewson queried what the Commission's action should be with respect to the Development Agreement, which had not been finalized at this point in time. , Commissioner Telesi0 relayed that the Development Agreement was still in the draft mode. Commissioner Mathewson noted that there were certain issues addressed in the Deal Points of the Development Agreement that he had strong opinions about, querying what action was expected by the Planning Commission with respect to this document. COmmissioner Webster relayed that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council should not be inclusive of the Development Agreement since the Planning Commission was not involved in the process, and due to the Development ~greement going before the City Council at a future point in time. Attomey Curiey relayed that it was recommended that the Planning Commission provide comments in response to the Deal Points of the Development Agreement (as per the supplemental agenda material) in order to provide Planning Commission input to the City Council. For Commissionei Mathewson, Attorney Curley relayed that the Development Agreement would ibe a consensual document, noting that if the document was agreed to, it would become a legal document; and advised that proposing the Deal Points as Conditions of Approval would be problematic. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he would support the Development Agreement as proposed to the Planning Commission, strongly encouraging that the habitat fee be included in the Deal Points, providing additional information regarding previous comments the Commission presented regarding the Deal Points. With respect to the Development Agreement, Chairman Guerriero noted that the applicant had expressed several concerns, as follows: 1) the applicant was not in favor of accelerating on Deer Hollow, and 2) with respect to the CFD, the applicant had expressed concerns. Commissioner Webster relayed that during the ensuing process, these points of disagreement would be worked out. Commissioner Telesio requested confirmation that the Planning Commission was not supporting all of the Deal Points in the Development Agreement. Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, relayed that this document should be excluded in the Planning Commission recommendation due to the existing contention on certain points, and since it was still a work in process. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Commission to the City Council should relay a recommendation regarding the Development Agreement. Attomey Curiey relayed that the numerous motions have become convoluted, advising that when there is a consensus to move forward with a motion, that the Planning Commission should provide clarification so that all parties had a clear idea of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council, noting that it would be recommended that Commissioner Webster's recommendations be articulated in the final motion. Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney for the applicant, specified his understanding of the motion. Attorney Cudey relayed that as the Planning Commission discussed the motion it was clear that the speclficities included in the motion needed to be clarified prior to the vote being taken. Commissioner Webster relayed that the motion was inclusive of ali of his previous recommendations with the exception of revising the lot sizes for Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the setback standards and lot coverage requirements were also excluded. Commissioner Webster noted that the setback standards and lot coverage requirements were not excluded from the motion, clarifying the motion that he had seconded. For clarification, Affomey Curley provided the following elements included in the motion that he had noted,i'.requesting that the Commission add additional input if there were alternate conditions desired to have included in the recommendation to the City Council, listing the elements, as follows: That Staff's recommendation be approved with the attached modifications. With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b, to delete the phrase if feasible. With respect to Condition No. 17, to review conformance to S.B. 2095. With respect to the traffic and cumulative impacts, to ensure that the Deal Point in the Development Agreement was followed through regarding the maintaining of the Level of Service "D." The Mitigation Monitoring Program would be augmented. With rbspect to the street option concerns, requested specificity regarding these particular associated recommendations. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the recommendation was to not have options, but to implement a thirty-six foot (36')s~ndard. To incorporate the Land Use Map revisions to Planning Area No. 24; and That the three added conditions from TCSD be added (per supplemental agenda material). Commissioner W~bster relayed that the following recommendations were also included in the motion: The r~commendation that the split garage option would be removed from the D~sign Guidelines, The recommendation to incorporate garages, in lieu of carports, for the multi-family senior housing. The recommendation for the City to hire an architect for the review of the PDO, and The r~'commendation for the Product Review to be presented to the Planning Commission for review and approval. In response to Atto~mey Curley, Commissioner Webster confirmed that all of the above elements were included mn the motion. Commissioner webster relayed that the lot coverage requirements were also included in the motion. In response, commissioner Telesio noted that this recommendation had been excluded. Commissioner Webster advised that the sole exclusions were regarding Planning Area Nos. 21, and 23; advised that if Commissioner Telesio desired to modify the motion in order to exclude the residential Design Standards, the motion could be amended. For Commissioner iTelesio, Commissioner Webster noted that there was a differential between the recommendation of minimum lot sizes for planning areas, and the recommendations for revisions to residential development standards for planning areas, clarifying that these were two separate recommendations, noting that if it was the desire to exclude these two recommendations, this exclusion would need to be denoted. The followinq discussion ensued reqardinq the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council reqardinq the Deal Points of the Development Aqreements: Commissioner Mathewson noted that the Planning Commission recommendation had become convoluted, relaying that there appeared to be a consensus to approving the project plan with certain modifications; advised that he was concerned with respect to the recommendation regarding the Development Agreement; and queried the Commission for its desire with respect to recommending the Development Agreement in its conceptual form. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission was provided the Deal Points of the Development Agreement, and subsequently the Subcommittee's comments, noting that these comments had not been incorporated into the document. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his opinion that it was expected that the Planning Commission would provide a recommendation regarding the Development Agreement in its conceptual form, noting that the Subcommittee comments were faidy straight forward, and that he was comfortable recommending approval with the attached comments. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Commission had received the Deal Points of the Development Agreement in the agenda material, noting that the supplemental agenda material was inclusive of the same Deal Points with the Subcommittee's recommendations. Chairman Guerriero relayed that if the Planning Commission was to approve the conceptual form of the document, he could support that action, as long as the points could be rebutted with the City Council, noting that the developer was in disagreement with various Deal Points, advising that he was in agreement with the developer. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the developer would have an opportunity to relay his points of disagreement with the City Council. Commissioner Mathewson noted various Deal Points that the Planning Commission had commented on. For clarification, Attorney Curley relayed that the Deal Points of the Development Agreement were the core elements that would be placed in the final Development Agreement which would be a voluminous document, noting that the presented points were the planning elements that the Planning Commission needed to provide input on for the City Council's consideration; cladfied that these points were more than mere concepts, noting that these points were the core elements that would be incorporated into the legal document; noted that the Planning Commission did not need to redraft the document, but to relay to the Council comments, clarifying that specific points could be recommended for removal. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was not in agreement with the Subcommittee's comment regarding the multi-species issue, noting that he could support approval without this element, relaying that it was his desire for the applicant to have the opportunity to address this issue without the approval of the Planning Commission. Chairman Guerrier0 noted the applicant's disagreement with respect to permitted uses in Panning Area No. 72,=~ relaying that he agreed with the developer. Commissioner Mathewson noted that with respect to the habitat issues, he was of the that the pl~n should go forward. opinion In response; Commissioner Telesio relayed that the applicant should have an opportunity to address the habitat issue without the weight of the approval of the Planning Commission. For clarification, Attomey Cudey relayed that the Planning Commission could specify the points that were not supported, listing the elements of disagreement while approving the document in its entirety, in concept. Commissioner Mat.hewson relayed that there were differences of opinion within the Planning Commission. Mr. Alhadeff relayed that it was his opinion that the Development Agreement could be approved by the Planning Commission in. concept and principle, relaying that the points of disagreement could be specified. Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission has mentioned the following Deal Points as items of concam: the level of service, the habitat issue, and Planning Area No. 12; advised that if the previous three points were the sole elements to be addressed that the Planning Comr~ission could provide input regarding these specific elements, subsequently apprqving the remainder of the document. The Planning Commission relayed the following specified recommendations regarding the following listed elements of the Development Agreement, recommending approval reqardin,q the remainder of the document: With respect to including habitat issue in the Development Agreement, it was noted that Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Mathewson were proponents of having this element included, while Commissioner Webster and Chairman Guerdero were opposed to the inclusion of this element. With respect to the area In Planning Area No. 12, the developer provided additional information, noting ithat this issue could be worked out and that the Planning Commission need not address this matter. With respect to thelrecommendation regarding the requirement that the LOS not go below LOS "D" during any phase of the project it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this element should be included. (It was noted that Commissioner Chiniaeff was absent.) At this time the Planninq Commission resumed to the previous discussions, addressing the motion for approval for the project, as follows: With respect to the motion, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could not support modi~ing the lot size coverage. AMENDED MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion died for lack of an amended second.) Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public headng; and to approve staff's recommendation subject to the modifications clarified by Attorney Curiey and subsequently by Commissioner Webster (see page 25 of the minutes in the bulleted comments of Attorney Curley and Commissioner Webster), noting that Commissioner Webster's recommendation regarding lot coverage standards would not be included. For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could not support Commissioner Webster's proposed modification to the maximum lot coverage, or the sideyard setback requirements. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the setback standards implemented in the Temeku Hills Development, which had been referenced at an earlier point in the meeting. Commissioner Telesio relayed that with Commissioner Webster's recommended sideyard setbacks the houses would be smaller and stacked. Commissioner Webster noted that he would not amend his second on the motion to include these exclusions. FINAL MOTION: (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 28)Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing;-to recommend approval of the presented Development Agreement with the exception of the specified comments relayed with regard to three of the Deal Points (denoted on page 25 of the minutes); and to approve staffs' recommendation, adopting PC Resolution Nos. 2000-037, -038, -039, and -040, subject to the following modifications: Add- That the three Community Service conditions (as per supplemental agenda material) be added into the Conditions of Approval. With respect to Condition No. 6a, and 6b (regarding the mitigation measures within the Specific Plan conditions) that the language if feasible be deleted. With respect to Condition No. 17 ( regarding the feasibility of a reclaimed water system within the Specific Plan conditions) that there be assurance that this condition was in accordance with S.B. 2095. That the Mitigation Monitoring Program be augmented to include the applicable portions of the General Plan EIR. With respect to the references in Condition Nos. 12, 12a, 31, and 75, that there be one option for narrower streets, specifically with a thirty-six foot (36') road right-of-way, with a parkway separating the sidewalk from the curb. That the City hire an architect consultant to review the PDO. That Planning Area No. 24 (the proposed regional park area) be revised to maintain a minimum lot size of 7200 square foot lots (if the proposed park plan does not go forward). That them be a chumh site designation in Planning Area 12 for a specified period of time (to be determined by staff and the applicant). That a tavern or bar use be added to the list of permitted uses in the commercial area (via a Conditional Use Permit). With respect to the garage options denoted in the exhibits, that the split garage option be deleted from the Design Guidelines. With respect to the Design Standards, regarding the option of multi-family senior housing in Planning Area No. 18, that garages be a requirement, in lieu o[ carports. · ~ That the product review be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Chairman Guerrie~:0 seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who voted n_go, and Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Director of.Planning Ubnoske queried whether the Planning Commission would support an 'additional workshop meeting on January 31, 2001, noting that dinner would be provided. In response, it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule an additional meeting on January 31, 2001. B. With respect to queries the Planning Commissioners have with respect to any projects Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that there be call to staff in advance of the meeting, relaying that concerns could be addressed without utilizing the audience time. C. With respect to the Joint Planning Commission/City Council Subcommittee meeting that was discussed, Director of Planning Ubnoske apologized that this meeting was never scheduled, relaying that it was an oversight on staff's part, noting that .it was unfortunate that no individual called to remind her of the desire to hold this meeting, advising that the Planning Commissioners should feel free to call her r&garding any issues of concern. COMMISSIONER REPORTS For Chairman Guerdero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the upcoming workshop With the City Council was scheduled in order to address the Roripaugh Project, prO~Viding additional information. In response to Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there was a full agenda for the December 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. C. Commissioner Mathewson commented on the unresolved issues at the Cosco site with respect to signage and landscaping. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would provide an update at a future point in time. Do Chairman Guerriero noted that he had met with City Manager Nelson and Deputy City Manager Deputy City Manager Thomhiil, relaying that he had requested that a list be compiled regarding the medians that had been targeted for landscaping, but had not yet been landscaped, requesting additional information regarding this matter. ADJOURNMENT At 10:14 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday, December 20, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 20, 2000 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Wednesday December 20, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Commissioner Webster. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Senior Engineer AIegria, Attorney Curley, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Associate Planner Anders, Associate Planner Thomsley, Project Planner Preisendanz, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 20, 2000. Chairman Guerriero relayed that it had been requested that Agenda Item No. 3 be heard after Agenda Item No. 7; and with respect to Agenda Item No. 6, advised that this matter would be continued to the January 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the Agenda, as revised. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. R:Pla nComm/min u{e$1122000 COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Director's Headnq Report- receive and file No action was taken with respect to this Agenda Item. 3 Harvoston Workshop- Villaqe Center/Parks lhi$ Agenda Item was heard out of order; see page 10. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planninq AppliCation No. 00-0278 (Development Plan) to design and construct a 15,883 square foot office buildinq (Keeton Buildinq), on a .64 acre lot located at the southwest knu~kle of Enterprise Circle north and known as Assessors Parcel No. 909-282-013 - Thomas Thomsle¥ 4.1 Adopt a NcJtice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION No. 2000-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0276 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,883 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING (KEETON BUILDING), ON A .64 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST' KNUCKLE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909- 282~013. Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the access, parking provisions, architecture with the enhanced articulation, and the landscaped plan which was consistent with the westerly neighboring property; relayed that the applicant had requested two minor exceptions, as follows: 1) a request for a minor reduction in the parking spaces, noting the applicant's proposal for 34 parking spaces, PrOviding additional information regarding the tenants for the building, and 2) a request fei' a modification of the requirement for a ten foot (10') setback, noting the applicant's proposed nine foot (9') setback at specified locations, providing additional information regarding the rationale for staff recommending approval of these minor exception requests; with respect to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), noted that the Development Code has a target ratio of .4, relaying that the applicant is proposing a FAR of .57, advising that staff opined that based on the enhanced architecture and landscape plan, that the applicant qualified for the FAR increase, noting the applicant's letter (per agenda material) which outlines the applicant's rationale for meeting the criteria for this FAR Bonus, specifically due to the following components: 1 ) the R:PlanComm/rnmute~122000 2 operational functions at the site, being a consolidated collection of businesses related to Development, and 2) the project's provision of exceptional architectural and landscape design amenities; noted that this project was an in-fill project and therefore was eligible for a CEQA exemption; and advised that Condition No. 13 (regarding an application for a tot merger) should be deleted, which was inadvertently added to the conditions, but did not apply to this project. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley noted that the FAR Bonus request was minor, relaying that staff opined that this project qualified for the increase primarily due to the architectural enhancements; and confirmed that it was staff's opinion that based on the tenants and the associated activities of these uses, that the reduced parking provisions would be sufficient. Commissioner Chiniaeff commented on the increase in building size (i.e., the FAR Bonus) in conjunction with a reduction in parking, relaying concern with respect to the long term use of this building (i.e., if this tenant was to relocate). In response to.Commissioner Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Thornsley clarified that the 39 parking spaces (required per Code) took into consideration all of the occupied spaces of the building, noting that the 34 parking spaces proposed were within the parameters of allowable reductions for a request for a minor exception; and via overheads, specified the areas for the proposed nine-foot (9') setback. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there was a standard condition which could be added to this project if it was not included, which states that if there is a change of use at a future point, that the parking revisions would be reviewed by staff, noting that if the parking was inadequate the tenant would not be permitted to occupy this building. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding the calculations for inhabitable space; applauding the applicant, relayed that the inside dimensions of every room (which the applicant provided) were included in the calculations; via overheads, specified the areas that could be removed from this building in the calculations for habitable space (i.e., the hallways, and the electric room). Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant concurred with the recommendation to delete Condition No. 13, and was in agreement with the remainder of the Conditions of Approval imposed on this project; with respect to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query regarding reciprocal parking, relayed that there was no reciprocal parking agreement, while noting that there were reciprocal ingress and egress easements, and drainage easements; specified the tenants who would occupy this building, noting that there would be no available space to lease to speculative tenants, providing additional information regarding the parking needs for this site; with respect to the nine-foot (9') setback, provided additional information; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed additional information regarding the potential for visitors at this particular site, advising that the sole period of time when the parking would be full would be on the rare occasion that there was an office party (i.e., Christmas Party), noting that the parking needs have been determined based on the existing parking needs of the uses; provided additional information regarding the dramatic additional costs to modify the building to be a three-story buildihg in order to provide for additional parking; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that on-street parking was not prohibited in this area. The Commission relayed closing comments, as follows: Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was pleased with the enhanced architectural design, while advising that the red sandstone veneer would not be his preference; and noted his support df the project. Relaying appreciation with respect to the architectural aspects of this building, Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with respect to the request for minor exceptions, primarily regarding the parking reduction and the FAR Bonus, advising that in his opinion the bb d ng would be under-parked, noting the potential for more than five visitors at one timei with respect to the landscape plan, noted that he did not concur that this plan was exceptional, since it did not meet the minimum standards per the Code requirements; opined that this was too large a building for this lot; and relayed that he would not support the project, as proposed. Further commenting on the parking provisions, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that realistically, the pa~king on Winchester Road, back to Enterprise Circle which was utilized by the bank use, would additionally be utilized by this particular property; noted that while he did not concur with the applicant's rationale for a reduction in parking spaces, that it was!his opinion that the parking proposed would be adequate, noting that the Code did allowlfor a request for a minor exception with respect to this issue; and recommended that'all the 15-gallon sized trees be replaced with 24-inch boxed trees. Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeff, Chairman Guerriero recommended that 24- inch boxed trees be installed. In response to Commission comments, Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect for the applicant, provided the rationale for the applicant's supposition that the landscape plan was upgraded, noting that there were existing pear and pine trees (approximately 48- inched boxed sized trees) that the applicant was proposing to box and place in prominent location§, advising that the palm trees that would be installed at this site were 8-10 feet in height which was equivalent to approximately a 36-inched boxed size; and relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to modifying the size of the four-to-five 15- gallon sized trees to 24-inched boxed trees, noting that in his opinion the larger tree was not the most suitable, advising that to attain an ultimately healthier large tree, it would be preferable to plant ~t a 15-gallon size. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that in his opinion the landscape plan was not exceptional; and reiterated that he was not in agreement with the reduction in parking spaces. For CommissionerlMathewson, Mr. Vince Didonato, one of the applicants, noted that he and Mr. Markham Worked in conjunction with one anther on numerous projects; and relayed that he ne~er had more than one visitor at a time to his business. Mr. Markham clarified that the applicant had worked diligently with staff regarding the current project proposal, noting the compromises made by the applicant; and provided a history of the landscaping requirements of the adjacent properties. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; to approve staffs recommendation with the following modifications: -Modify That the project be conditioned to replace the 15-gallon sized trees with 24- inch boxed trees. That a condition be added stating that there be a review of the parking provisions upon the change of use of the property. That Condition No. 13 (regarding the application for a lot merger) be deleted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent and Commissioner Mathewson who voted n_~o. 5 Planninq Application No. 00-0332(Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) to design, construct, and operate a 16,726 square foot church on 5.2 vacant acres within Planninq Area 2 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan on the south side of north General Kearny Road and known as Assessors Parcel No. 921-090-079 - Rolfe Preisendanz 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0332 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 16,726 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS ON 5.2 VACANT ACRES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC. PLAN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-090- O79 Via overhead site plans and elevation plans, Assistant Planner Preisendanz provided an overview of the project, highlighting the proposed church use, and the hours operation; relayed the location of the site within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; specified the buildings on the site plan, the access, the parking provisions, and the adjacent properties; noted the architectural design which was consistent with the requirements of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Design Guidelines, advising that the varying roof designs would enhance the visual interest; noted that this particular Specific Plan limits the heights of the buildings to 50 feet (50'), relaying that the applicant is proposing a 28- foot (28') high building from the finished floor to the top of the roof line, with the addition of a 29-foot (29') steeple, totaling an overall height of 57 feet (57'); referencing the Development Code, noted the exclusive elements from the calculation of the height of a building; via color renderings, presented the colors and building materials utilized for the proposed buildings; provided additional information regarding the floor plan; and noted the landscape plan which exceeds the standard requirements. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Preisendanz relayed that the EIR analysis for the Specific Plan was reviewed in conjunction with this proposal with respect to the traffic impacts, noting that a church use was identified in the Specific Plan; and with respect to the access, confirmed that there would be one-lane in, and one-lane out, relaying that left-calls would not be restricted, noting that staff did not raise a concern during the review of this project with respect to the need for two outbound lanes (out of the driveway),i~ For Chairman Guerriero, Senior Engineer Alegria relayed that consideration for two outbound lanes (in :the driveway) was not addressed during the review of the project. Commissioner Teles~o concurred with the need for two outbound lanes exiting the project site. In response to Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding a past approval of a project with a steeple element, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the term variance utilized with respeE~[ to that approval was not necessary, confirming that the same reference in the Deyelopment Code would have applied. For Chairman Gue~'riero, Project Planner Preisendanz relayed that the steeple was solely an architectural element; and noted that the landscape plan encompassed 42% of the site, which was'.not inclusive of the Detention Basin. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant Planner Preisendanz specified the location of the church driveway across from this site. Mr. Kent Cornwall .representing the applicant, noted the need for a church of this type in this area, relaying the standard process whereby after a church population reaches a certain point (100 f,amilies), there is a new church (i.e., ward) built; confirmed that the primary use of the Site would be on Sundays, providing additional information regarding the traffic impacts; With respect to the proposed driveway width, noted that while the required width waslapproximately 24 feet (24'), that this driveway would be approximately 34 feet (34') in order to place an additional lane at this location, if deemed necessary; with respect to the potential to have a joint driveway use with the proximate church use, advised that staff had relayed that since that use had previously developed its site plan, that it ~vould not be appropriate for this particular project to impose modifications on that site, reiterating that the applicant widened the driveway width for this particular proje'~;t; for Commissioner Teles'o, provided additional information regarding the potential ratio of inactive members, clarifying that parking was based on the seating capacity in the sanctuary (per the Code requirements), noting that the proposed parking for this site exceeded the standards; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, confirmed that the Steeple was constructed of a metal material, noting that the ends of the building were constructed of a stucco material, and that the mini-storage building would be construct,~of materials consistent with the main building (i.e., brick). Mr. Tracy Ham, 30026 Santiago Road, representing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Da~ Saints in this area, noted the specific need for this proposed facility; and relayed that this use would be an asset to the community, advising that the site would be utilized for community events (i.e., blood drives, Boy Scout meetings, job fairs). Mr. Robert Ford, 29715 Valle Verde, relayed that his residence was located proximate to this project, noting his support of the project, advising that in his opinion this was the most appropriate use for this particular site. The Commission noted closinq remarks, as follows: Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan this site was designated as a church site; and advised that the proposed project would be appropriate for the site. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that this was a great project; and recommended that there be striping in the driveway for two outbound lanes. Commending the architect for the well-designed project, Commissioner Telesio concurred with the need for this church use in the community; commented on the previous approval for an alternate church use plan with a steeple that extended past the standard height requirements; and noted his support of the project. Commenting on the beautiful architecture, Chairman Guerriero relayed that he was pleased with the proposed project. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing, and to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Commissioner Mathewson queried whether there would be two outbound lanes added in the driveway area. In response, Assistant Planner Preisendanz advised that staff would work with the applicant to address this issue. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. Planning Application No. 00-0257(Conditional Use Permit) to desiqn, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsh Reservoir site located at 41520 Marqarita Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-230-002 - Rolfe Preisendanz 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 This Agenda I{em was continued to the January 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Planninq Applibation No. 00-0389 (Development Plan) to design, construct, and operate a 38,3~,9 square foot industrial buildinq for Nascal Interplex, Inc. on 4.09 vacant acres Within the Westside Business Centre located on the south side of Remington Avenue and known as Assessors Parcel No. 909-370-013 - Rolfe Preisendanz i~ 7.1 Adopt a re§olution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APP~LICATION NO. 00-0389, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO iDESlGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 38,349 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOR NASCAL INTERPLEX, INC. ON 4.09 VACANT ACRES WITHIN WESTSIDE BUSINESS CENTRE, PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 24085-3. GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF REMINGTON AVENUE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-013; Project Planner Pr~isendanz presented the staff repor~ (per agenda material), highlighting the Ioc~tion of the site, the type of manufacturing uses, the hours of operation, the areawhich would be potential utilized for expansion at a future point in time, the access points inclusive of two driveways, the parking provisions, and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Which was below the target ratio of .4 for this Light Industrial Zone, which was proposed to be a FAR of .22; with respect to the design of the building, noted the enhanced artichlation, specifying the architectural definition at the entry which would provide visual interest, the use of windows and window shapes to break up the massing; provided additional information regarding the colors and materials proposed at this site; noted the front lobby/atrium area inclusive of a sunken planter, the location of the offices, the shop area, the manufacturing area, the outdoor employee lunch area, and the break room; and relayed ~the landscape plan which exceeded the standard requirements, noting the riverbed-type element along the front of the project, and the additional area proposed to be Decomposed Granite (DG) ((which was designated for potential future expansion). Mr. Walt Allen, representing applicant, noted the benefits of designing a building with a known tenant; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, specified the location of the fault zone; via overhead site plans, provided additional information regarding the potential future expansion area, noting that the applicant was not anticipating immediate growth; and for Chairman Guerriero, provided additional information regarding the components that would be manufactured at this use. For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Preisendanz confirmed that the Fire Department did review this project, relaying that staff could provide this data to the Planning Commission. In response, Chairman Guerriero advised that he would have preferred to have the information included in the agenda material, noting his concern regarding the transport of chemicals. In response to the discussion, Mr. Allen relayed that the applicant has provided the necessary data to staff and the Fire Department. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the Fire Department has reviewed and conditioned this project. In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would include in the agenda packets, data related to the hazardous material for the Planning Commission's review for future projects. The Commission relayed conclusionary comments, as follows: Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the Public Works Department further review the fault study for this project; and in response to Chairman Guerriero's concerns, advised that the Fire Department reviewed the hazardous material, noting that issued of concern would be addressed via that review process. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he was pleased with the innovative design elements associated with this project; relayed his support of the project; and echoed Chairman Guerriero's comments, advising that he would recommend that information regarding the hazardous materials be included in the agenda material. Noting that he would concur with the recommendation to include the hazardous material information in the agenda packets, Commissioner Teleaio commended the architect for the well-designed project; relayed that the material which was provided regarding this project provided a clearer synopsis for review of the data; and noted his support of the project. Chairman Guerriero relayed his support of the project, while noting his concern regarding not having the hazardous material to review. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing, and to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. At this time the Commission Considered Agenda Item No. 3. 3 Harveston Workshop- Villaqe Center/Parks Associate Planner, Anders relayed that the applicant's representative would be presenting the Park Plan and the Village Center concept associated with the Harveston Project. ,' Mr. Bill Storm, representing the applicant, introduced Mr. Don Smith, the Master Planner for the Harveston Project, who would provide the presentation. Mr. Don Smith prq,vided a PowerPoint presentation, highlighting the goals of the project which encompassed the development of a high quality parks and recreation system, a trail system whichiserves both recreational and transportation needs, and a complete integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public, and open space land uses. With respect to the overall Open Space and Recreation System, Mr. Smith provided a detailed overview ~f the Lake Park located in the center of the community linked with a paseo system to Provide connection to the Community Park; relayed the series of mini- parks which would be located at the entrances to the neighborhoods; relayed the loop road plan, noting that the trail system along the loop road would provide connectivity to alternate portions of the project; noted the combined school/park site; noted the pavilion located along the !ake edge, relaying that there was a park element surrounding the lake; with respect ;to the south end of the lake, noted the plan for an amphitheater, and the beginning of tlie Village Center; relayed that the lake activities would potentially include paddle-boating, canoeing, and fishing; noted that a key element to the recreational program was the planned "Beach Club," or "Lake Club," which would be available to residents and would encompass a meeting space, potentially a catering- styled kitchen, and a pool, relaying the plan for distinctive architecture at this site; apprised the Commission of the paseo trails system which connected the lake to the Community Park and would include a ten-foot pedestrian walkway; noted the Community Park which was Io~ated on the loop road, relaying that this park would have lighted ball fields; noted the intent to create a positive aesthetic element by softening the walls surrounding the project via landscaped elements (i.e., vines); relayed the Arroyo Park Plan which would be a park in its natural state, noting the potential for implementation of pedestrian trails, and a nature center at this site; relayed the entry designs which would be landscaped and specified the location of the bicycle trail which provided connecting links to the community. Via a continuation of the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Smith provided an overview of the Village Center con, cept for this particular project, noting the potential types of commercial uses in this centen (i.e., a doctor's office, a dentist's office, coffee shop, deli, florist) in order to serve the Ibasic needs of the residents and to provide a place for community gathering; relayedithat the higher.density residential units would be located proximate to the Village Centeri presented the illustrative site plan, noting the proposed sidewalk cafes, building sto?efronts on the street, and parallel on-street parking, advising that the center would be within walking distance to most of the residences; relayed that there would be opportunities to place apartments or offices over the commercial development; reiterated the plan for an amphitheater which could be utilized for plays, musicals, weddings, and alternate activities; specified the location of the apartment housing and the smaller lot development proximate to the Village Center; provided additional information regarding the design elements, signage, and lighting, presenting photographs of alternate Village Center projects; noted that there would be community facility sites, a church site, and an assisted living area; relayed the location of the proposed roundabout (i.e., traffic circle); and provided an overview of the transit plan. With respect to the use of the lake, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether the boating activities would be limited to the homeowners or would be available to the community, as a whole. In response, Mr. Storm noted that at this point in the plan, the boating would be limited to the homeowners, retaying efforts to implement a public maintenance plan for the park surrounding the lake, advising that if it was determined that the lake, itself, would be maintained by the City, then the boating activities could be open to the public. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his hope that staff would work with the applicant in order for the boating activities to be available to the community. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the Village Center, Mr. Smith relayed that the plan was inclusive of wide walkways, parallel parking, noting that the street section would be narrow with provisions for one lane for traffic; and advised that the specificities regarding the commercial/residential mixed units had not been determined at this point in time. Commissioner Telesio noted that he was in favor of the applicant pursuing the concept of the commercial/residential mixed dwellings; and concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, noting that it would be an asset to the community if the boating on the lake were open to the public. Mr. Smith requested the Commission to forward any additional comments or questions to the applicant, providing copies of the presentation in order for the Planning Commissioners to note their remarks. Commissioner Telesio relayed that it would be his desire for the Commission to be presented information regarding the actual elements that would be utilized in this project plan, noting that the photographs of alternate developments may set an expectation level that was not realistic, requesting that the applicant clarify the differences between the actual project implementation and the photographs. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that the photographs depicted the design elements that the applicant intended to utilize in this particular project, Commenting on the Lennar Communities homes tour he took in Orange County, Chairman Guerriero noted that Lennar Communities had developed communities that captured numerous desired elements, applauding the treatments to the small lot design, and the higher density areas which provided a pleasing visual appearance; and concurred with Commissioner Telesio, noting that his expectation at this point would be the implementation of a project inclusive of the elements presented in the photographs. For clarification, Mr. Smith relayed that the two projects depicted in the photographs as prototypes (i.e., the Woodbridge Project, and the Santa Margarita Project) were both affordable communities at the time these projects were built. R:Pla nC omm~min utes/122000 11 In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Mr. Storm relayed that there still was not agreement between the staff and the applicant regarding the timing of the development of the Community Park, noting that discussions were continuing; advised that the lighting issue would be addressed, noting the plan to install the lighting prior to occupancy of residential areas p~oximate to the park; and advised that since the alignment of Ynez Road, and the Cherry Street overcrossing had not yet been determined by the City, that the exact location of the park had not been finalized. For CommissionerlChiniaeff, Mr. Storm specified the location of the Stockmar property in relation to this project site. With respect to the phasing of the Community Park, Development Services Administrator McCarthy relayed that staff's efforts were aimed at ensuring that the lighting for this park was installed and operational prior to the construction of any houses proximate to the pgrk; noted that typically TCSD has required active park amenities to be constructed at the ,twenty-five percent (25%) level of building permits, relaying the importance of this requirement due to the need to mitigate the active sports fields needs of the residents of this project without further impacting the current sports facilities which are operating at capacity levels; advised that the location and phasing of the park has been the developer's option, noting that there have been discussions regarding relocating the park; and modifying the phasing plan; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the twenty-five percent (25%) level of permits would occur during this project's first phas~ of development, as currently proposed, noting that the developer has proposed to develop the park during Phase III which would be at a level of over fifty percent (50%) of the build out of the project. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's request to have the issues of the joint use of the lake addres{ed, Development Services Administrator McCarthy relayed that TCSD views the needs of the community as outlined in the adopted Parks and Recreation Plan of, the City, noting that currently a lake facility has not been identified as a need; relayed th~it TCSD pursues the needs identified in this plan which are primarily the active sports a~:eas; advised that the City is familiar with the maintenance costs and issues associated With bodies of water due to the existing maintenance of the Duck Pond, clarifying that the maintenance of a body of water was extremely costly; relayed that with this partic;Jlar project, the lake and the Lake Park were proposed to be owned by the HOA, noting that it was staff's recommendation that the facilities should be maintained by the HOA; and advised that staff did consider the feasibility of having the HOA maintain the !~ake, and the City maintaining the Lake Park, apprising the Commission of the.! negative issues associated with the maintenance of the Lake Park, as follows: water qbality issues which would effect the edge of the park, the nuisance birds which would ;~lso be in the park, the lack of a satisfactory mechanism for charging the assessment fees for this maintenance, providing additional information regarding Proposition No. 218 which would be applicable for these fees, noting that to raise the fees, as costs increased, an election would have to be held. : In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Development Services Administrator McCarthy noted that the lake~ in the Cities of Irvine and Santa Margarita communities are maintained by the HOA, confirming that staff has had discussions with alternate cities regarding lake facilities; and for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that the exact costs for maintaining thi~ proposed lake have not been calculated. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that while the general consensus of staff was that the lake was an amenity, that TCSD pursued participating in the funding of facilities identified in the Parks and Recreation Plan. Chairman Guerriero recommended that since there has been confusion regarding the criteria qualifying an entity as an am_ enity for the community, that this issue shoutd be clarified for the Planning Commission's information. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that in his opinion the lake constituted an amenity for the community since the public had access to it. Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeff, Commissioner Telesio noted that even if solely the homeowners were able to utilize the boating facilities on the lake, that the lake was still a community amenity due to the visual aesthetics; and relayed that if the boating was open to the public the lake would be considered a greater amenity. Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that even though the lake could potential be utilized for private use, that the area surrounding the lake would be open for the public's enjoyment (i.e., to jog, or walk around the lake), advising that staff's primary concern was regarding the City maintaining the lake due to the costs associated with the maintenance, noting that staff could bring back additional information regarding the estimated costs; and reiterated the restrictions associated with Proposition No. 218, relaying the requirement for a two-thirds vote for an increase in fees. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that staff further investigate avenues for the boating activities on the lake to be open to the public, noting that it would be a great opportunity for the community. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm advised that if the City did not maintain the lake, the developer stilled planned to install it; noted that in alternate projects, the lake was still the most desirable amenity in these communities; relayed that the lake, the surrounding park, and the landscaping along Margarita Road and alternate areas would be installed during the first phase of development, advising that the Community Park has never been considered vital with respect to this particular project, noting that TCSD had requested that the applicant construct the 16-acre Community Park and that while the applicant was agreeable to installing the 16-acre park, that it was the applicant's opinion that constructing this facility during the first phase was too soon in the program in light of the alternate proposals in the first phase; noted that the applicant's experience with the maintenance of lakes was that 8 acres of lake was less costly to maintain than 8 acres of turf, encouraging staff to further investigate; acknowledged staff's concern with respect to the issues related to the maintenance of the park surrounding the lake (per Development Services Administrator McCarthy's comments), relaying hopes of this matter being worked out; and with respect to ownership, noted that if it would be feasible to have the lake, as well as the park surrounding the lake, publicly owned, that the applicant was flexible with respect to this matter. Senior Planner Hogan relayed that staff viewed the lake as a community amenity as per the General Plan standards, whether this amenity was publicly owned or privately maintained; noted that the maintenance issue would be addressed by the City Council in the final approval process; with respect to the Community Park, advised that the timing of this construction was still an issue, relaying that this matter could potentially be addressed in the Development Agreement; clarified that it was staff's opinion that the Community Park would serve to accommodate the active recreation needs of the residents of this development; and noted that both of these park areas could be considered amenities under the General Plan. Commissioner Telesio clarified that the lake facility would be available to the public with the exception of th~ potential to have the boating available only for the residents. Chairman GuerrierO relayed that his primary concern with respect to whether the lake was considered anI amenity was based on the relationship to the allowable densities (per the GMP), noting t,hat if the lake was not a community amenity, benefiting the community at large, then the project would be considered at the lower end of the density range. In response, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that unless the developer fenced-off the lake area, staff would consider the lake a community amenity. Commissioner Chi&iaeff relayed that it was his understanding that an amenity would not be required to benefit the entire community to qualify as a community amenity; and with respect to the Community Park issues, noted that Paloma Del Sol Park was constructed years before the homeowners of that development were utilizing the park, advising that he would take this fact under consideration when determining the timing required for this projec! to develop the Community Park. For CommissionerMathewson, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that he would not qualify the developer's Quimby requirements, alone, as an amenity, noting that this particular project would be inblusive of a park, the park improvements, and active ball fields. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, noted that at the school site there would be a joint use which could address the initial needs for active recreation in the first phase of development; and provided additional information regarding the amenities of the project, noting thatithe lake would be provision for a gathering place for the community. In response to Mr. 'Fagan, Development Services Administrator McCarthy relayed that all assessment fees are associated with Proposition No. 218 requirements, providing additional information regarding the restrictions associated with the proposition. Commissioner Tel~sio reiterated that he did not see the advantage associated with the City owning the lake, noting that if it were owned by the HOA, it would be accessible to the public with the bxception of the paddleboats. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his opinion that if the public had access to the boating it would, be a groat asset. Chairman Guerrier0 reiterated the relationship between a community amenity and the consideration to approve a density higher than the lower end of the density range. For Mr. Fagan, Chairman Guerriero clarified that the primary issues regarding the lake was not with respect to which entity roaintained the facility, but with respect to whether the public would have complete access to it, relaying that in his opinion if it was not accessible to the public, the lake would not qualify as a community amenity. Commissioner Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, relayed disagreement with Chairman Guerriero's comments, noting that whether or not the public could utilize the paddleboats, this lake would be considered a community amenity, siting alternate lake projects which were gated in order to prevent the public from having access to it. Mr. Storm provided additional infor .mation regarding the lake, relaying that if the HCA paid all the costs for the maintenance of the lake it would most likely be their desire to have the use be exclusive, noting that the applicant would be open to the concept of a publicly owned, publicly maintained lake, as well as, the area surrounding the lake. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that from a realistic perspective, this lake facility would most likely not be able to support the needs of 60,000 City residents. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his desire that access to the lake by the community be maximized, to whatever extent possible. Chairman Guerriero commented on a previous project which was approved by the Planning Commission with the proposed densities due to the amenities included in the project plan, noting that the City Council did not agree with the Planning Commission's determination with respect to qualifying amenities and therefore would not support the proposed densities, clarifying that it was his understanding at this time that for a use to qualify as a community amenity it would need to benefit the community, as a whole. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that in his opinion the proposed lake would qualify as a community amenity. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the public would have the use of the lake site, noting that the only restriction that has been discussed was with respect to boating on the lake. Commissioner Telesio recommended that there be investigation as to the feasibility of imposing a fee on a use-by-use basis for the use of the lake (i.e., boating) to both homeowners and public members. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that the applicant would further investigate this issue. At this time the Planning Commission resumed the regular order of the Agenda, and heard the Planning Director's Report. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Noting that this was the year's end, Director of Planning Ubnoske thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work, relaying wishes for a Happy Holiday Season. For informational purposes, Attorney Curley relayed that if the Planning Commission responded to the request of the Harveston applicant to annotate the handout, that this information be given to Director of Planning Ubnoske in order for staff to keep a Icg of the concerns and issues of the Commission, advising that staff would forward the data to the applicant. R:Pla nComm/minule$/122000 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the period of time for the Planning Commission to appeal a Director's Hearing decisions Was 15 days, noting that the Action Agendas could be provided to the Planning Commission. In response, Chairman Guerriero noted that he had received the Action Agendas in the past, querying why the data had not continued to be forwarded. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that he did not access his e-mail. Commissioner Mathewson thanked staff for their diligent efforts during 2000, querying whether the Cosco issues had been addressed. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would check on the matter. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that it would be helpful if the Planning Commission held onto the data regarding Agenda Item No. 6 (the Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility issue) which had been continued. With respect to the recent meeting he attended regarding the selection of a consultant for the General Plan update, Commissioner Teiesio requested Senior Planner Hogan to provide an update. In responsb, Senior Planner Hogan noted that Cotton, Bridges, & Associate~ was the firm that the interview panel recommended as the primary choice; noted that staff investigated the traffic consultant associated with this firm; and advised that the contractual issues with this consultant had been initiated. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he was looking forward to the Fire Department video prese.ntation regarding the implementation of narrower streets which would be held at al future meeting. Chairman Guerriero thanked staff for a job well done with respect to the 2000 projects. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that sh~ would further investigate the feasibility of sending interested Commissioners to the APA Conference. Chairman Guerriero expressed a special thanks to Jean and Elton Ward for their faithful attendance to the City meetings, and wished them a very Merry Christmas.: ADJOURNMENT At 9:06 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerriero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning February 21, 2001 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for December 2000 and January, 2001 Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action December 21, 2000 PA00-0402 Minor Conditional Use Permit Richard Cisneros Approveci to install a dance floor and have a live disc jockey at Rockin Baja Lobster January 25, 2001 PA00-0434 Request to create a parcel Peter Minegar, Approved map that will consist of one Sullivan Bay parcel (23 units) totaling Company 12,890 square feet Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:\DIRHEAR~MEMO\2001 \Dec20OOJan2001 .memo.doc 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R: \DIRHEAR\MEMO\2001 \Dec2000Jan2001 .memo.doc 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 21, 2000 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Case No: Case Name: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Action: Planning Application No. PA00-0402 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Rockin Baja Lobster Dance Floor CUP Richard Cisneros, 13301 Old Winemaster, Ct., Poway, CA 92064 27783 Ynez Road A request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit to install a dance floor and have a live disc jockey at Rockin Baja Lobster. This project is a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA (Section Number 15301, Existing Facilities, for minor alterations.) Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner Approval Approved P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAE~2000\ 12-21-00 AGENDA.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 25, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTSi A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. 'If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink' "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other a~enda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Case No: Case Name: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineeri Recommendation: PA00-0434 (Tentative Parcel Map Number 29438) Sullivan Bay Company Peter Minegar, Sullivan Bay Company 41675 Enterprise Circle South Request to create a parcel map that will consist of one parcel (2 units) totaling 12,890 square feet. This project is exempt from Categorical Exemption 15315 Rick Rush Mayra De La Torre Approval CEQA review due to Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions ACTION: APPROVED P:\PLA NN1NG\DI RHEAR\2001 \01-254) 1 AGENDA..doc ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner February 21, 2001 PA00-025? (Sprint PCS Unmanned Cellular Facility) Due to the lack of a quorum for the February 7~h Planning Commission meeting, this application has been continued to the February 21s~ meeting. The agenda packet remains unchanged, however the draft resolution and conditions of approval has been updated to reflect the proper hearing date. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 2 Exhibit A: Revised Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 3 Original Staff Report from February 7, 2001 - Blue Page 4 R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~memo 2-21-01.doc 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~memo 2-21-01.doc 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 WHEREAS, Tim Lencioni, representing Sprint PCS, filed Planning Application No. 00- 0257, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0257 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time~ and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 00-0257 on January 17, 2001, January 31, 2001; and on February 7, 2001, due to a lack of a quorum, continued the public hearing to February 21, 2001 at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testi~ either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0257 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 00-0257 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010. F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, the applicable sections of the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the' Municipal Code. R:~c U P~2000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~'evised staff report, doc 4 C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for the (PI) Public Institutional district. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to;ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent With these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. ,; E. The de~ision to conditionally approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all appl!cable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has previously been prepared and approved by the Planning Director for this same site on July 11,1996 for a facility with a potentially greater impact. Whereas the conditions under which the Negative Declaration and amendments were prepared have not changed substantially and the project is consistent with the environmental review pursuant to Article 11, Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Planning Commission has determined that no further environmental review= is required foi' the proposed project and that the previous Negative Declaration will be re-(~ertified for this project. Section 4. 'Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) request for a conditional use permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility located east of the Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-230-002, subject to the project specific cohditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commissionl~this 21't day of February 2001. ATTEST: Ron Guerfiero, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} R:~c U P~2000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~evised staff report, doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21~t day of February, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~c U P~2000~0-0257 Splint PCSVevised staff repo~doc 6 EXHIBIT A REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS\memo 2-21-01.doc 3 CITY OF TEMECULA REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility. DIF Category: Potentially Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 940-230-002 February21,2001 February21,2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. An environment review was completed for this application, which determined that a Negative Declaration with a De Minimus finding was appropriate. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The permittee/appiicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or R:~c u p~2000\00-0257 spdnt pcs~revised staff report.doc 8 cooperate fully, permittee/appticant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, ~mployees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. ~ 3. All conditions Shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional useI permit. 4. This Condition'~l Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. 5. The permittee shall obtain C~ty approve for any modifications or revisions to the approval of thi~ Conditional Use Permit. 6, This approval ~hall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. :~ 7. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Elevations), F (Landscape Plans), and G (Material and Color Board), contained on fi,!e with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 8. Landscaping i0stalled for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the I~ndscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or a'ny successors in interest. 9. The colors an~l materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. 10. Any future pro'~)osal for antenna co-location, as allowed by the Antenna Ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and will require an additional Minor Conditional use Permit to ,be approved by the Planning Director at a Director's Hearing. , Prior to the Issuance. of Grading Permits 11. The applicani' shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 12. The applicani shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one sigped set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. ,~ R:\c u p~000\00-0257 spdnt ~3cs\revised staff report.doc 13. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, and G", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department Planning division staff. The applicant shall submit five (5) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of Exhibits "D" through "F", and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) to the Community Devalopment Department for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance/facility removal agreement (per Chapter 17.40.210), or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure that the intent of Chapter 17.40 Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with. The agreement shall be signed and submitted to the Planning Director prior to the approval of the building permit or other entitlement for use. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 17'. All previously existing landscape planting and irrigation shall be restored consistent with the previously approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.. 18. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, the Developer, at no cost to any Government Agency, shall complete all conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 19. The lease area, as designated on the construction plans, shall be fenced. 20. A copy of the proposed recorded public utility easements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. 21. A compaction report shall be submitted to the Department of Public for review and approval for the mono-pine pole and all proposed structures. R:\c u p~2000\00~0257 spdnt pcs~revised staff report, doc 10 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 22. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecu a Municipal Code. 23. Exterior service lighting shall comply with the provisions of Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical pians submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any Outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. Provide structural calculations for monopole foundation, all concrete block walls, and concrete walls with chain link extensions with appropriate stamp of a registered professional wiih original signature on plans for plan review. 24. 25. 26. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review, · 27. Obtain a location street address number prior to submitting structural plans to Building and Safety for plan review. FIRE DEPARTMENT, 28. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 29. 30. The Fire'Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fi,re protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) The Fire Prevbntion Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-Bi Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). R:\c u p~2000\00-0257 sprint p~s~revised staff report.doc 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. As required by the California Fire Code, when any podion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall fhrnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1.4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4,3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and /or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided, The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) R:~c u p~2000\00-0257 spdnt pcs~revised staff report.doc 12 40. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 41. Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 '~ X 11 inch paPer must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention ;,for acceptable file formats and approval. h OTHER AGENCIES 42. The applicant Shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the letter from Rancho California Water District dated July 25,2000. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept alt the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with the~e conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subjec to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\c u p~000\00-0257 sprint pcs\revised staff report.doc 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT FROM FEBRUARY 7, 2001 R:\C U P~000\00-0257 Sprint PCS~rnemo 2-21-01.doc 4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner February 7, 2001 PA00-0257 (Spdnt PCS Unmanned Cellular Facility) At the direction of the Planning Commission on January 17, 2001, Planning Application PA00- 0257 was continued in order for the applicant to work with staff to address design concerns with the mono-pine (tree). As a result, the applicant has modified the design and graphically illustrated the exact rendering to be constructed. Staff has worked with the applicant to reduce the circumference of the antenna panels in order to bring them tighter to the tree trunk, as well as increasing the density of the branches. The item was continued until the January 31, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, however the applicant was not able to meet our deadline. Within this review period, the applicant has provided a more concise and descriptive color board, which will assure that the antenna panels are painted the same color as the foliage. Additionally, the plantings of pine trees within the proposed lease area will soften the impact of the mono-pine. Staff has also added the following conditions of approval which staff is confident that this will insure that the project will be developed exactly as the exhibits demonstrate. Those conditions are as follows and have been incorporated in the attached amended Conditions of Approval: 11. Any future proposal for antenna co-location, as allowed within the Antenna Ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and will require an additional Minor Conditional use Permit to be approved by the Planning Director at a Director's Hearing.(This condition has been reworded to cladfy the type of permit required.) 16. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance/facility removal agreement (per Chapter 17.40.210), or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure that the intent of Chapter 17.40 of the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with. The agreement shall be signed and submitted to the Planning Director prior to the approval of the building permit or other entitlement for use. Staff finds that the revised design is consistent with the Antenna Ordinance and recommends approval with the attached revised conditions. Attachments PC Resolution - Blue Page 3 Exhibit A: Revised Conditions of Approval for PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 7 Original Staff Report from January 17, 2001 - Blue Page 14 R:\C U P~2000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Revised Staff Report.doc 1 Exhibits for pA00-0257 (Conditional A. Viciqity Map B. Zoni,ng Map C, General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. G. Use Permit)- Blue Page 15 Landscape Plans Material and Color Board (viewing at the meeting) R:\C U P~2000~00-0257 Sprint PCS',Reeise,~ Staff 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:~C U P~2000~00-0257 Spdnt PCS~,Revised Staff Repo~l. doc 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 WHEREAS, Tim Lencioni, representing Sprint PCS, filed Planning Application No. 00- 0257, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0257 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 00-0257 on January 17, 2001, January 31, 2001 and February 7, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0257 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 00-0257 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. ' Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, the applicable sections of the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. R:~C U P~000\00-0257 Spnn! PCS\Revised Staff Report.doc C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landsca and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Codel As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for the (PI) Public Institutional district. D. The inature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code:to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. ~ E. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City;!Council on appeal. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 3. i Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has previously been prepared and approved by the Planning Director for this same site on July 11,1996 for a facility with a potentially greater impacL Whereas the conditions under which the Negative Declaration and amendments were prepared have not changed substantially and the project is consistent with the environmental review pursuant to Article 11, Section 15162 of the Californiaj~, Env ronmental Quality Act. Therefore, the Planning Commission has determined that no furth~ environmental review is required for the proposed project and that the previous Negative'~' Declaration will be re-certified for this-project. Section 4. i Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) request for a conditional use permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility located east of the Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-230-002, subject to the project specific ~onditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. ~ Section 5. : PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 7~ day of February 2001. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson R:\C U ;:~2000~00.0257 S dnt PCS~Revised Staff Report.doc 5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7~ of February, 2001, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~C U P~2000',,00-0257 Sprint PCS~Revised Staff Report.doc 6 EXHIBIT A REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA00-0257 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R:~C U P~.000~D0.-0257 Spdnt PCS~Revisecl Staff Report.~oc 7 CITY OF TEMECULA REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility. DIF Category: Potentially Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 940-230-002 February 7, 2001 February 7, 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within FortY.Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. An environment review was completed for this application, which determined that a Negative Declaration with a De Minimus finding was appropriate. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropdata statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or R:~C U P~000\00-0257 Spnnt PCS~Revised Staff Report.doc 8 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. Prior 12. 13. cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemni~ defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or of its officerS, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the ,Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional u'se permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permitt~e shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. This approval shall be used within two (2) yearS of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently purSued to Completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. : The development of the premises shall substanbally conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site P an),.E (Elevations), F (Landscape Plans), and G (Material and Color Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscapin~ insta ed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonabl~l~ll satisfaction Of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not bein[~I~1~ maintained, '.the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "G",i (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Deve opme~t Department - Planning Division. Any future proposal for antenna co-location, as allowed by the Antenna Ordinance, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and will require an additional Minor Conditional use Permit to be approved by the Planning Director at a Director's Hearing. to the Issuance of Grading Permits The appliCant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. The applicant shall sign both copies of .the final conditions of approval that will be provided b~' the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division their files. 14. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, and G", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Color and Matedal Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department Planning division staff. The applicant shall submit five (5) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of Exhibits "D" through "F", and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit · "G" (Color and Materials Board) to the Community Development Department for their flies. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations snail be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 16. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance/facility removal agreement (per Chapter 17.40.210), or enforceable provisions in a signed lease that will assure that the intent of Chapter 17.40 Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with. The agreement shall be signed and submitted to the Planning Director prior to the approval of the building permit or other entitlement for use. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 18. All previously existing landscape planting and irrigation shall be restored consistent with the previously approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, the Developer, at no cost to any Government Agency, shall complete all conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 20. The lease area, as designated on the construction plans, shall be fenced. 21. A copy of the proposed recorded public utility easements shall be submitted to the Department.of Public Works. 22. A compaction report shall be submitted to the Department of Public for review and approval for the mono-pine pole and all proposed structures. R:\C U P~000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Rev~sed Staff Report.cloc 10 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 23. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 24. Exterior service lighting shall comply with the provisions of Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shallI be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoinin, g property or public rights-of-way. 25. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction Work. 26. Provide structural calculations for monopole foundation, all concrete block walls, and concrete walls with chain link extensions with appropriate stamp of a registered professional,with original signature on plans for plan review. 27. Provide elecirical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 28. Obtain a location street address number prior to submitting structural plans to Building and Safety for plan review. F RE DEPARTMENT 29. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Bbilding Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force ~t the time of building plan submittal. 30. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or constructioni of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted '~uring the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic~ fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III-A) 31. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III;B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 112' outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Departmentll access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). R:\C U P~2,000'~00-0257 S rint PCS~Re~ised Staff Rel3oi'L~o¢ 11 32. 33. 34. 35, 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)inches, (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a .turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform tO hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. Ali suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and /or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building fipal, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) R:\C U P~2000\00-0257 Sprint PCS'~Revised Staff ReDort. Ooc 12 41. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Ra system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 42. Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 '/~ X 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for acceptable file formats and approval. OTHER AGENCIES 43. The applicaht shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the letter from Rancho California water District dated July 25,2000. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subiect to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R*\C U P~2000~00-0257 SDfint PCS\Revised Staff Repo~ doc 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 17, 2001 R:~C U P~2.000~0-0257 Sprint PCS~Revi~d Staff Reportdo¢ 14 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) Prepared by: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Tim Lencioni / Sprint PCS William Bennett/SBA, Inc. To design, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless telecommunication facility. Norma Marsha Reservoir Site, east of Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road (PI) Public Institutional North: Margarita Village Specific Plan South: Margarita Village Specific Plan East: Margarita Village Specific Plan West: (LM) Low Medium Density Residential GENERAL PLAN: Public / Institutional Facilities EXISTING LAND USE: Rancho California Water Distdct Water Tank R:~C U P~000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Repo~l.doc 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Apartments South: Temecula Valley United Methodist Church East: Detached Single Family Residences West: Detached Single Family Residences, PROJECT STATISTICS Lot Area: Mono-pine Height: 743 square feet 57 feet BACKGROUND The City of Temecuia approved a 60' high monopole on this site in 1996. This approval expired on June 11, 1998. The current application was submitted to the Planning Department on June 30, 2000. The DeveloPment Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 27, 2000. The DRC meeting prompted ~arious comments, which were detailed for the applicant in a letter dated August 21, 2000. There was a follow-up incomplete letter transmitted to the applicant on November 15, 2000, which addressed additional concems. The project was deemed complete on December 5, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to develop an unmanned Spdnt PCS wireless telecommunication facility located at the RanCho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site. The_site.will leased from the Raflcho California Water District and will obtain access from Margarita 15-foot wide access/utility easement. The project proposes a 57' high Sprint (RV35XC100B) mono- pine pole with 6 antenna panels. Each panel is 54' long x 6" wide x 3.5' deep each. Three of the panels at this Ioc, at!0n will be provided for future antenna co-location, ANALYSIS Site Desiqn The project is generally located on the east side of Margarita Road, north of Rancho Vista Road, south of Rancho California Road at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site. The mono-pine POle will be located approximately 30 feet s°uthwest °f the existing water tank east of Margarita Road. The equipment area will be located on a cement slab, within an 8'-5" high retaining block wall and a 5'-0' high chain link fence to be placed on top of the wall for safety. An Emergency Generator Parking area will be developed to the west of the equipment area, between the mono-pine poi? and the equipment area. Access, Traffic and Circulation Access for the site will be taken from Margarita Road. The Public Works Department has reviewed traffic impacts associated with this project and has indicated that the impacts of the project will not be significant. Emergency vehicles are able to traverse the site to provide the appropriate fire and life safety service~. Architecture, Color and Materials The design of the monopoie is considered"stealth", indicating that the antennas will be adecluately camouflaged from view by the use of multiple branches, which will be located on the pole as to effectively demonstrate a typical pine tree. The pole itself will be covered with simulated bark so as to provide the appearance of a living tree. The appearance of the proposed monopine and equipment shelter is contained in Attachment No. 3 / Exhibit 'E". Landscapinq The site is currently landscaped with a sufficient amount of landscaping. Some trees located in the proposed lease area are to be removed.' The applicant has submitted a landscape plan(Exhibit F), that confirms that any trees removed for the project development will be replaced as necessary to provide an equivalent amount of foliage. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project, known as PA00-0257, is the second attempt to develop this site for an unmanned wireless communication facility. On July 11, 1996 a similar project, known as PA96-0063 was approved. The project approved a 60' high monopole, which was not camouflaged as a 'stealth' facility. However the project was never developed and consequently expired on July 11, 1998. An environmental review was completed for this odginal application, which determined that a Negative Declaration with a De Minimus finding was appropriate. Because the current application proposes a shorter monopole that will be camouflaged as "stealth" no new environmental review will be conducted. To support this determination staff has ~eviewed Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines to determine if subsequent review is needed. According to CEQA, if the following conditions are not met then no additional review is needed. > Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect. The applicant is not proposing any substantial changes which would adversely increase any previously identified significant effects. The project proposes mitigation measures that will camouflage the impact of the pole by the use of simulated pine branches and simulated U'ee bark. The height of the proposed monopole has also been reduced from 60 feet to 57 feet~ Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The circumstances that existed at the time the Negative Declaration was prepared have not changed significantly. The development that has occurred in the vicinity of the project is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted, is present. R:~C U F~2000U~-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doC 3 The project has no significant effects that weren't discussed in the previous Negative Declation. No n.ew mitigation measures are proposed for the project. Based on the previous discussion, it has been found that the project will require nc environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. EXISTING ZONING ~AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is (PI) Public / Institutional Facilities. Existing zoning for the site is ,the (PI) Public Institutional. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and ~uality, and staff is recommending approval. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit 1. The pmpose~ conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code. : Staff has rev, iswed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is ..,,~ consistent With the City of Temec. ula General Plan and the applicable sections of th/ Developmen~t Code, and the Mun,cipal Code. ~ The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecuis General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. 3. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls,ii fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Comm ss;onilor Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated !n the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed ~onditional use meets the zoning requirements for the (PI) Public Institutional district. 4. The nature Of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that th~ public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on 'substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. Devel~ 6. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no fish, wild life, or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish. wildlife, or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in-fill site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Attachments- PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 9 Exhibits for PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue Page 15 A. Vicinity Map · B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Landscape Plans G. Matedal and Color Board R:~C U P'2000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~taff Report.doc 5 AI'rACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- APPROVING PA00-0257 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R:~C U F~.000~0-0257 Sphnt PCS~Stafl Repo~doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 WHEREAS, Tim Lencioni, representing Sprint PCS, filed Planning Application No. 00-0257, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0257 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning Application No. 00-0257 on January 17,2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter;, WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission apProved Planning Application No. 00-0257 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 00-0257 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, the applicable sections of the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, and the Municipal Code. C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as wall as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a R:~C U P~2000~00-0257 Spdnt PC, S~Staff Refloll. doc 7 result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for the (PI) Public Institutional district. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not dethmental to the health and general welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consisteni with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. : E. The decision to conditionally approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on substant al evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes an~l ordinances before the Planning Commission. Section 3. ,, Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration has previously been prepared and approved by the Planning Director on July 11,1996 for a facility with a potentially greater impact, whereas the conditions under which the Negative Declaration and amendments were prepared have not changed substantially and the project is consistent with the environmental review pursuant to Article 11, Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality ACt. Therefore, the Planning Commission has determined that no further environmental review is required for the proposed project and that the previous Negative Declaration will be re-certified for this project. Section 4. i~ Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) request for a conditional use pert;nfl to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility located east of the Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-230-002, subject to project specific cond, itions set fodh in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein reference. Section 5. ~i PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 17th day of January 2001. Ron Guerfiero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of January, 2001, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~C LI t:~.000~00-O257 Sprint PCS~Staff ReporLdoc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA00-0257 CONDmONAL USE PERMIT R:~CUl:~2000~0-0257SphmPCS~t~ffRepo~doc 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Al~plication No: Project Descnptmn: DIF Category: PA00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) Request for a Conditional Use Permit to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility. Potentially Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval D~'te: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 940-230-002 January 17, 2001 January 17, 2003 Within Forty-Eight!(48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy- eight Dolla~ ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. An environment review was completed for application, Which determined that a Negative Declaration with a De Minimus finding appropriate. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumer~tality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actidns, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which actio.n is b.r.ough, t_ w:.~hin, the. appropriate'~tute of limitations period and Pub c Resources Cone, u~ws~on 13, unapzer 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City sl~all promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought fort~, with n this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and ~pplicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to Cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the depo{it once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or co(~perate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, pro!eot, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instnJmentality thereof, or any of ~ officers, emJ31oyees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required depositw the Director'; may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. '~' R:~C U 1:~2000~D0-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Repo~.rioc 10 All conditions shall be complied with pdor to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Elevations), F (Landscape Plans), and G (Material and Color Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bdng the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Future co-located antenna panels, in conformance with this application, may be administratively approved by the Planning Director 10. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted on Exhibit "G" (Color and Matadal Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 13. The applicant shall revise Exhibits 'D, E, F, and G', (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, and Color and Matedal Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department Planning division staff. The applicant shall submit five (5) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5'xl 1' copy of Exhibits'D' through 'F', and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G' (Color and Materials Board) to the Community Development Department for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. R:~C U P~2.000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Relx~rt.¢lo¢ 11 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 15. An AdminiStrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not' included on Exhibits 'D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits 'D" and "F",ilor as amended by these conditions. 16. All previousiy existing landscape planting and irrigation shall be restored consistent with the previously approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Director. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation sYstem shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 17. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this perr~it. PUBLIC WORKs DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, the Developer, at no cost to any Government Agency, shall complete ali conditions. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 18. The lease area, as designated on the construction plans, shall be fenced. 19. A copy of ithe proposed recorded public utility easements shall be submitted to the Departmen! of Public Works. 20. A compacti:on report shall be submitted to the Department of Public for review and approval for the mono-pine pole and ali proposed structures. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 22. All design Components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 23. Exterior service lighting shall comply with the provisions of Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on ~lectrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public fights-of-way. 24. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction 25. Provide s~ructural calculations for monopole foundation, all co. ncret? .block w.alts,, a/ concrete v~alls with chain link extensions with appropriate stamp oT a regzs;eree proTess~on~' with odgin~l signature on plans for plan review. 26. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 27. Obtain a location street address number prior to submitting structural plans to Building and Safety for plan review. FIRE DEPARTMENT 28. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau reviews building plans. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 29. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commemial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval pro(ess to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 30. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 31. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the extedor of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 32. Pdor to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior well of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 33. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 35. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 36. Pdor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. R:~C U 1:~2000~0-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report.doc 13 After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency pdor to any combustibl~ building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and Nation~ Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 37. Pdor to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identif~ fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 38. Pdor to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses ~hall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visibl~ and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting ~Color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-family res dential dnits shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 39. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the dght Side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 40. All manual ~and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions i 41. Pdor to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for acceptable file formats and approval. OTHER AGENCIES ' 42. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the letter from Rancho California Water Distdct dated July 25,2000. By plac ng my s gnature below I confirm that I have read, understand, and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditiohs of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:~C U P~2.000~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Rel3ort.do¢ 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~C U F~2000~00-0257 Spdnt PCS~,Staff ReporLdoc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 20, 2000 VICINITY MAP R:\C U P~00-0257 Spdnt PCS~Staff Rel~rt.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PI) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 20, 2000 R:\C U P~00-0257 Sprint PCS~taff R~port.doc 17 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 20, 2000 SITE PLAN R:\C U P~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Re, p~t.doc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - E ELEVAT~i~ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 20, 2000 I R:\C U P~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Repoi'cdoc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA ~HIBIT - F ~NDSCAPE P~NS P~NNING COMMISSION DATE - Decem~r 20, 2000 R:~.C U P~00-0257 Sprint PCS~Staff Report. doc 20 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~C U P~2000~0-0257 Sprint PCS~Rev~sed Staff Repo~doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NOS. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- February 7, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:~C U P~000~0-0257 Sphnt PCS~Revised Staff Repo~.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PI) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES CASE NOS. - PA00-02571 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 R:\C U P~2000~00-O257 Sphnt PCS~Fie ~sed Staff Report.dOC 17 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 SITE PLAN R:~C U P~2000~0-0257 spnnt pcs~Rewsed Staff ReDo~cloc 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA00-0257 ~ EXHIBIT - E =, PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:~,¢ U P~.000~00-0257 S;~fint PCS~ReWsed Staff Report.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA Pinus halepensls - ALEPPO PINE - Low branching (3) 36" BOX (2) 24" 80X R~3amnus california - C0~.£BERRY (~ 5 GALLON ~,. 1. TOP .PINES AT ~ Bo'FrOM 'OF ANTENNA ~ 2. REPLACE EXISTING \ DECOMPOSED GRANITE \ SURFACE. Xylosma c. Compacta (20) 15 GALLON - SHINY XYLOSbI~ PLANTING SITE PLAN o ,, ,, I CASE NO. - PA00-0257 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 LANDSCAPE PLANS R:~C U P~2000~D0-0257 Silent PCS~Revised Staff Repo~t.doc 20 ITEM//5 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Plannino Commission Rick Rush. Proiect Planner February 21,2001 PA00-0416 (Scott Electric Building) Due to the lack of a quorum for the February 7th Planning Commission meeting, this application has been continued to the February 21st meeting. The agenda packet remains unchanged, however, the draft resolution and Conditions of Approval have been updated to reflect the proper hearing dates. Attachment Resolution - Blue Page 2 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 3 Original Staff Report dated February 7, 2001 - Blue Page 4 R;\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric~'~emo to pc.doc 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 01- R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric~nemo to pc.doc 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0416 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,550 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (SCO'I-F'S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-047. WHEREAS, Davcon Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. 00-0416, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0416 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 00-0416 on February 7, 2001, but do to a lack of quorum, continued the public headng to the February 21, 2001 at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due censideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0416; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00- 0416 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, an office/warehouse building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of industrial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality ACt (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, ali applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. R:~D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric~Stafl report 416pa00.doc 6 Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00- 0416 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following cdteda: ~ · The site;is 1.06 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proPosed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The sitel has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Scott Electdc office/warehouse building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0416 for a Development Plan to build a 13,550 square foot office building on a 1.06-acre lot at north side of Roick (third pad), known as Assessors Parcel NO. 909-320-047. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. pASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 21~ day of February 2001. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson A'CrEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubno~ke, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21" day of February, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: ~LANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:'~D P~2000~00-0416 Scott Eleclrtc\Staff report 416pa00.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Sco[t Electric~memo to pc.doc 3 Project Description: DIF Category: Assessor Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0416 (Development Plan) The design and construction of a 13,550 square foot office building on a 1.06-acre lot, located at the north side of Roick (third Pad) known as Assessors Parcel No. 909-320-047. Industrial Park 909-320-047 February 21,200'1 February 21, 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or in.strumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. R:~D P~2000\00.0416 Scott Electric~Staff report 416pa00.doc 9 The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/appli~nt shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction Contemplated b~, this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. ~ The applicant s~all comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0336 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28714). The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), coqtained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additi0nally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. All grourid mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are not placbd in prominent locations visible to the public. b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. c. The final landscape plan shall include locations of all ground mounted utility/ mechanical equipment and provide suitable screening of that equipment. Any outside wal!-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining I~roperty or public rights-of-way. Those lights shown on the elevation plan as "typical exterior building lighting" shall be a decorative type complimentary to the building. Detail~ of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review prior to installation. All parking tot lights and other exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of, Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All me~:hanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. Landscaping st~all substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of tEe Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Pla0ning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance.with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Ele~;tric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 10 10. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. Material Windows, doors Steel Tubing Concrete Masonry Unit Metal (roll-up door and man door) Color Aluminum frames with Blue-Green Vision Glass Frazee Green Luster #AC-089N Split face (natural coloring light gray) Frazee # D-32 Jogging Path Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 13. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 17. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 18. A permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, shall identify each parking space reserved for the handicapped. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inShes by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense, Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." in addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in Size. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. ' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Unless otherwise not~d, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and,their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 20. A Grading Perm t for ether rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 136" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 23. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by th~ Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 21. R:~D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 12 24. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 25. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 26. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 27. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works 28. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 29. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 30. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent propedies as directed by the Department of Public Works. 31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 32. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. The driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. The street light shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. R:~D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 13 f. All condentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 33. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall i,~sue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 34. The Developerlshall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 35. The Developer ~hall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thorougl~fare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor ~n accordance w~th the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 36. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearan(~e from the following agencies: a. Rancho,California Water District b. Eastern~Municipal Water District c. Departm, ent of Public Works 37. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 38. The existing imProvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 38. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire.Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Muni~:ipal Code. 39. Submit at time bf plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 40. Obtain all buildi,ng plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 41. A pre-constructipn meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. R:~O P\2000~00-0416 Scott Ele~ctdc\Staff report 416pa00.doc 14 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a si[e plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday.or Government Holidays Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site- disabled accessibility. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau, R:\D P~2000~00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 15 53. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 54. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction ofiall commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall'Provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual Operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of'3350 GPM with a _2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III- A) 55. The Fire Prevehtion Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" ;outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. HYdrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 56. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the fa. cility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 57. If construction !$ phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 58. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 59. Prior to building,final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any 'portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) ~ 60. 61. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) The gradient fo~ a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) R:\D P~000',00-0416 Scott Ele'ctric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 16 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures, prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 17 71. 72. Special Conditions Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building: Fire protection and tife safety features may include some or all of the foll0wing: an adtomatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (CFC Article 81) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developedapplicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) 73. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. 74. 75. Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 ~ X 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for acceptable file formats and approval. The applicant Shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any cha,,nges in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 76. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 78. Prior to issuan ~ce of building, permits or installation of street lights, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program. OTHER AGENCIES : 79. The applicant ~hatl comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District s transmittal dated October 24, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 80. The applicant ~hall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of ,Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 24, 2000, a copy of which is attached. ;; 81. The applicant Shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control's, transmittal dated December 1, 2000, a copy of which is attached. R:\D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00,doc 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center's transmittal dated October 30, 2000, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Developmen.t Department approval Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:'~D P~000\00-0416 Scott Elecb'ic~Staff report 416pa00.doc 19 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 7, 2001 R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric\memo to pc.doc 4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 7, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0416 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Rick Rush, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00- 0416 pursuant to Section 15332 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0416 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,650 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (SCOTT'S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-047. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Davcon Development Inc., David Wakefield, 42389 Winchester Rd. Suite B, Temecula, CA 92590. Design and construction of a 13,550 square foot office/warehouse building on a 1.06 acre lot. At the noffh side of Roick [third pad (APN 909-282-013)]. BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) North: South: East: West: LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) R:~I P~000~0-0416 Scott Electric~Staff mpoff 416pa00.doc 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Building Area: Building Footprint: ' Landscape Area: Hardscape Area: Parking Area: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: 46,174 square feet 13,550 square feet 9,850 square feet 20,332 square feet 8,564 square feet 5,015 square feet (1.06 acre) 29.3% 21.3% 44.0% 18.5% 10.8% Habitable office area of 8,400 square feet and warehouse area 5.150 souare feet = 34 spaces Warehouse I space per 1,000 square feet Office I space per 300 square feet 36 spaces (31 standard spaces, 2 handicapped accessible spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces equal to 1 space, and a bicycle rack that will hold 6 bikes equal to 2 spaces). 28 feet BACKGROUND The application was submitted to the Planning Department on October 13, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on November 9, 2000, and the project was deemed complete on January 18, 200!. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to design and construct a two story, 13,550 square foot office/warehouse building referred to as the Scott Electric Building on a 1.06 acre site. Scott Electdc and Temecula Building Company will occupy this office/warehouse building. ANALYSIS Site Desiqn and Circulation This project is located on a 46,174 square foot lot. The building is located on the third pad west of Winchester and on tl~e north side of Roick. The project will have access from a single driveway off Roick Drive. Parking is provided along the south and west sides of the building. An outdoor employee patio are~ is being provided adjacent to the western portion of the building. The applicant has complied with the performance standards outlined in the Development Code and the,~, Design Guidelines (i!e. circulation architectural design, site planning and design and compatibility)l~ll R:~D P~2.000\00-0416 Scott Electdc~Staff report 416pa00.doc 2 Parki~ As calculated by the City's parking standards for office and warehouse uses, there should be a minimum of 34 parking spaces. As designed, the applicant is proposing 36 vehicle parking stalls. Architecture The architecture is compatible with other buildings within the Westside Business Center. As proposed, the building will be constructed primarily of'Gray" split face concrete block, with three scored split face block being used for the base, second floor banding and a second floor cap. Single score block is being used above the first and second floor windows, The north elevation, which is visible from Winchester, has 13 windows towards the east elevation with an additional 6 false windows towards the west elevation. These false windows are proposed to break up the appearance of a long expansive wall that will be visible from Winchester. The east elevation, which is visible from Roick Drive, has numerous windows. The south elevation consists of windows for the first sixty feet that may be visible from Roick, The windows are framed with clear anodized aluminum window frames and are made up of Blue-Green clear vision glass. In addition, the front entry is accentuated by the 12' square steel tubing that is in the shape of an electric current. The steel tubing will be mounted on seven (7) nine foot pillars constructed of "Gray" split face concrete block and scored at the top and bottom with 3 score type. The paint schedule for the steel tubing is Frazee Green Luster # AC-089N. None of the elevations have expansive block walls as all elevations are significantly articulated which creates a considerable amount of interest. Landscaping Forty-four percent (44%) of the site has been landscaped. This exceeds the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The slope areas make up 77% of the total landscape area. The southern portion of the site has a 25-foot wide landscape buffer, This area of the site is thoroughly planted and will provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the Landscape Plan and the applicant has addressed those comments on the landscape plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quatity Act. Based upon staff's review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons: · The site is 1.06 acres, which is less than the 5 acres' required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Scott Electric building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Business Park (BP). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). A variety of industrial uses are permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with, the General Plan, Development Code and the Design Guidelines. R:~D 1:~2000\00-0416 Scott ElectricS, Staff report 416paO0.doc 3 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards and guidelines. We b~lieve it is compatible with the nature and quality of surrounding development. and will represent an attractive addition to the City's office/warehouse uses. FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposal, an office/warehouse building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Light industrial (LI) contained in the City's Developi'nent Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of office/warehouse development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality ACt (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated sit~ improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: 1. 2. PC ReSOlution - Blue Page 5 ExhibitlA. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 20 A. '~Vicinity Map B. ; Zoning Map C. i General Plan D. ; Site Plan E. i Elevation F. '! Landscape Plan ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:~D P~2000\00-0416 Scot1 E{ectnc'~Staff rel~rt 416pa00.~oc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0416 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,550 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (SCOTT'S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, 909-320-047. WHEREAS, Davcon Development Inc., filed Planning Application No. 00-0416, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0416 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 00-0416 on February 7, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0416; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00- 0416 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, an office/warehouse building, is consistent with the land use designation and Policies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density of industrial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and all applicable fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. R:~D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric~Staff report 416pa00.doc 6 Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 0416 was made pei' the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following criteria: · The ~ite is 1.06 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The ~ite will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The Scott Electric office/warehouse building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. Section 4." Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 00-0416 for a Development Plan to build a 13,550 square foot office building on a 1.06-acre lot at north side of Roick (third pad), known as Assessors Parcel NO. 909-320-047. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 7th day of February 2001. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of February, 2001, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PL~ANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electfic~Staff report 4161~a00.~oc 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:~) P~000~00-0416 Scott Elec~c~Stafl report 416~a00.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project Description: Planning Application No. 00-0416 (Development Plan) The design and construction of a 13,550 square foot office building on a 1.06-acre lot, located at the north side of Roick (third Pad) known as Assessors Parcel No. 909-320-047. DIF Category: Industrial Park Assessor Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 909.320-047 February 7, 2001 February 7, 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within 1. Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Eiecmc~Staff report 416pa00.c~oc 9 The City shail estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit sai amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. ;i Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/ap'~licant Shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate th~ land use approval without further notice to the applicant. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to ~:ompletion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 4. The applican{ shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring p!ogram for PA96-0336 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28714). 5. The development of the premises shall substantially Conform to the approved Exhibit (Site Plan). ~ontained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: al All gr~)und mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electn,'cal plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the doub!=e detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. c.. The final landscape plan shall include locations of all ground mounted me~anical equipment and provide suitable screening of that equipment. 6. Any outside Wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Those lights shown on the elevation plan as 'typical ~xterior building lighting" shall be a decorative type complimentary to the building. Details of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review prior to installation. 7. All park ng 0~ ghts and other exterior hghtmg 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. 8. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), ;Contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. , 9. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, {he Director of Planning shal! have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued mdintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the or any successors in interest. R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 10 10. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. Material Windows, doors Steel Tubing Concrete Masonr7 Unit Metal (roll-up door and man door) Color Aluminum frames with Blue-Green Vision Glass Frazee Green Luster #AC-089N Split face (natural coloring light gray) Frazee # D-32 Jogging Path Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 12. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 13. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit 'E", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. R:\D P~000~00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.cioc 11 17. 18. 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved cc landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping!and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. A permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility, shall identify each parking space reserved for, lthe handicapped. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches and shall be ceniered 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 gracie, 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 17iinches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Un=,uthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Tow&d vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface iden,tification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet i? size. A of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF?UBUC WORKS Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agen(~y. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, a~,nd their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 20. A Grading P~rmit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 21. An Encroachment Permit Shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencer~ent of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 22. All improver~ent plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24~ x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance Of a Grading Permit 23. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and 'approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and property. R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scoff Electric~Staff report 416pa00.cioc 12 24. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 25. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 26. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. 27. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works 28. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 29. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Depa~ment of Public Works for review and approval. 30. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works, 31. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee, If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 32. 'Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works, The following design criteria shall be observed: a, Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. The driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A, c, The street light shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. d. All street and driveway centeriine intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. R:~D P~2000~0-0416 Scott Electro, Staff report 416pa00.doc 13 f. All concentrated drainage directed-towards the public street shall be through undersidewalk drains. 33. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 34. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Reso ut OhS '!mplementing Chapter 15.06. 35. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the forrnatioh of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of {he City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance ~f a Certificate of Occupancy 36. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Pubhc Works 37. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 38. The existingimprovements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged ¢ be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public WorkS. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 38 All design c6mponents shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California B,~ilding, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 39. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights ~nd other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine 'directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 40. Obtain all b~ilding plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 41. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. R:~D P~2000~00-0416 S¢ott Elec~ic~taff re~ort 416pa00.doc 14 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. Provide house-electrical meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site- disabled accessibility. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. R:~D P~2000~00-0416 Scott Elect~¢Staff report 416pa00.d~¢ 15 53. 54. 55. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction ~ of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer sh~all provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flowof 3350 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protectio~n measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above ,has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill- A) , The Fire Pre~,ention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streetS. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in' the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4'~2, and Appendix Ill-B) 56. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150~ feet from a Water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around th~l exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire v flow shall bei~provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 57. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 58. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed.' Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 59. Prior to buildlng final all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department :vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902~) 60. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four i24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 61. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Old. 99-14) R:\D P~000\00-0416 Scot{ Electric;Staff report 416pa00.doc 16 62. 63. 64. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. PLans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures, pdor to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency) 65. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 66. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 67. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 68. 69. 70. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. R:~D P~2000~00-0416 Scott Electric~Staff rel~ort 416pa00.doc 17 71. Prior to the i~suance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildin, housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an'automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrahgement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department ,access doors and Fire department access roads. (CFC Article 81) 72. Prior to the i~suance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsib]e for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the Codnty Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 73. Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA - 13, 24, 72 and 231-C. 74. Prior to build'lng permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each on 8 '~ X 11 inch paper must be submitted. An electronic version may be acceptable, contact fire prevention fqr acceptable file formats and approval. 75. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and,~l~ update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permitt These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval-'~' per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 76. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Matedal Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 78. Prior to issuance of building permits or installation of street lights, whichever comes first, the developer shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy fees related io the transfer of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program. OTHER AGENCIES 79. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated October 24, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 80. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 24, 2000, a copy of which is attached, il ~ 81. The applicadt shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Flood Control's transmittal dated December 1, 2000, a copy of which is attached. R:\D P~000~00-0416 Scott,Electdc~Staff report 415pa00.doc 18 82. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center's transmittal dated October 30, 2000, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed RSD t:~2000~0-0416 Scott Elec~c~Staff report 416pa00.doc 19 October 24, 2000 Rick Rush, Case Planner City of Temeeula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589=9033 OT £ 8 000 /_ WA £ER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO. 5 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28471 APN 909-330-027 PI.,ANN~G APPLICATION NO. PA00-0416 Dear Mr. Rush: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water Distria (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements (including all in-tract facilities) between RCWD and the pmpert~ o~er. If ftre protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. m""~'~""~?'~"'~'"'~Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an c..~,c~.., co.,. Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager O0~S B :~20~%F012-T6~FCF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGFLNCY I DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL' October 24, 2000 City of Temecula Planning Deparunem P.O. Box 9033 ' Temecula, CA 92589 ;i RE: Plot Plan No. PA00-0416 Dear Rick Rush: ; The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0416 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and Water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the follo~¥ing items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Managemem Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicatipg that the project has been cleared for: · Under~ound, storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2. · Waste Reduction Management 3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/Lea}. Sincereb', S SM:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review f6r final Department of Environmental Health clearance. Cc: Doug Thompson~ Hn?,~dous Materials Local Entmcement Agency ° P.O. B~x 1280. ~. CA 9';..~2-1280 ' {909) 955-8982 · FAX {909) 781-9653 * 4080 Lemon S~eet 9th Floor. Rh~nside. CA 92.~ Lamd Use and Water Eaginee~lng · ~O. [~x 1206. Rivenside. CA 92502-1206 ' 909 955-8980 ' FAX 909) 955-8903 · 4080 kernon S~eel. 2nd Floor R,versrde CA 92:' RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Te~_ ecula Planning uepanment Post Offic~ Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 AUer~on: (~m~. Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDF~ CA 9 909/955-1200 909/785-9965 FAX The Disthct d .o~s. not nownaliy recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated c~_'es._Th.e.Distnct, aJso .~o~_s. not plan check_.ci~ lan,~ use cases, or provide State Division of' Real Estate letters or .ore..er noo~.-=-= .m. raja. ns mr SUCh _c~..e% u. is~.-~, com_.men, ta/recommenda~ons for such cases are non. ally limited to hems m s .ppcmc i.nt ...e~.. to..~. Disthct inc~uo,ng ulst]ict Master Dmina;e Plan facilities, other recjional flood co~nl~......~and.~ ._?4~a_ ,~e_,__m~?_e~,wni. ch c~.fld bp. consi.cl-er~:l.., a.!og'.=al .compone..n[.or ext.ension of a master plan system an= .uj ~s~n=/~ma urmnagu man Tees {=ewopmem mmga=on roes}. In aclcl~on, imorm~on of a general nature is prewoeo. _T~__e Di .s~i_'ct_...ha~__?~r~M--_m~a~___t~_.p_,m__~__~project in. cle.~fl and the f~lowi,ng .ch ,.e~. ed commen~ do not in any way ~=~_~...u .m~..~ ~.~.,y._..u~. ~..~_~.p_m.~vaj or _.a?orsemer~ o~ me propose= pmje= mm respect to hood bazar, public v/ This p~.ject would not be impacted by Dis~lct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional mtorest proposed. .mqnpmject ~ D!..stfict_Ma......s~er Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on u~F...~ me C.~y. ~-acLu=~ must be constructed to Disthct standards, and District plan check and mu =e red~r~d for DJSt~Ot acceptance. Plan ches~, inspoc~on and administrative fees will be This .l~oje~t. pm. pos~s., channats, ..~orm .dm.i.'ns 36 in .ct~es or larger in diameter, or other fa~itJes that could be M..~. ~_u.~mm~_ge..~mn. ~np.u~mnc~ woum cormp~ accepting ownership .m, pu.cn tac3~mes on.wnaen request ?_me__[~/_.. ~_a~_..~m~must I~. consa~_.cted, to .Di.s~'ict ..s~inda~l~., ~ D'.~.'ct .p~an check and inspoc~on wtil =e mqmm= nx umm= acmpmnco. ~an cnecx, inspacaon ann a~inisUmive roes will be required. · , § mr wl~c~ ~mnage ~ees ~ave bean adopte~; ap~lca~le tees ~ou om ¥ 'e~$ m~ or money on~r _only m ~ F~.o~d. Control District p~.us~..c~. ~.. build~di.~; perm~ wt~chever comas nm. Fees to be pad should be at ~~-~"1~-~J~l ~ENERAL INFORMATION _This pmjeot_may .mGuim.a N_.gdonai Pollutant ..Discharge .Bi.'mination System (NPDES) pan.it from the State Water ~l~ .~ UULUm..~U Um~ mU pmlec~ nas uean granmu a perm~ or is r, now~ to =e exem~ . - ~m~ .~.mpl~a~mt~ a._F_?~__.~, _~. ,en~-y~ I~. ~ .me. nt Ag.anc~ (.FEIMA,) amp ,ped fl ..o~:1 plain,.then ~e C~Y ~oulcl .m~lm.mm~., mm ~ Tm'mer..mqu[m .mat me applj..cam omaln a .Cpnditianst Letter of Map Revi$io~ (CLOMR) ~gmomg, mcomauo, or oma' nnai approvm m me project, ano a LeUer of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to r,,r,,~,ULUdl ~7-- Ifa. .nature_ ~_of_ .mappad ~ ptei.n, i~!mL.~., ct.ed ~y thi~. projecg_ _t~.. City should require the applicant to ~m.o..~CO~e~.~!nm~ __/~e~mem_ _ from me r.,aummm uepanment of Finn and Game an~, Clean Water Act indi ...... .from the..U.S...Affray Corps of Engineers, or written co .n'..e..s. pandence from these agencies r~ ~ ~=~?.~d' ~ exemp~ _m~...m~e. _r.~. remente. ^ Cm.n Waer ~ Sec~on ~0~ W.er Oua~r~ Com~ca~o. po~Ym~, redu~ ~om me local Callfornm Keglonal Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date, ;1,Z~ ° ~ '~,,OOO ~ALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION ~YSTEM October 30, 2000 TO: Rick Rush City of Temecula Planning Department RE: Cultural Resource Review Case: PA 0OO416 ' By Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been r~viewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural rasource(a}. A Phase I study ia recommended. ~ Based upon existin~ data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase .I study ia recommended. ~ A Phase I cultural r~source study {MF # ) identified one or more cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources anticipated. Further study is not recommended. V' A Phase I cultural ireaourea study {MF #224) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. There is a Iow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, eerthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist due to its proximity to CA-RIV-237. The submission of'a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4fa), December 1989. _ Phase I Records search and field survey _ Phesell Testing[Eva~ustere~~urce~ignificance;pr~p~semitigsti~nmeasurasf~r"significant"~itas~] -- Phaae III Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] ~ Pha~e IV MonitOr earthmoving activities m COMMENTS: If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:~D P~000~00-0416 Scott Electric~Staff repot[ 416pa00.~oc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 00-0416 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:'~D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electdc'~taff tel)oil 4161~a00.doc 21 CITY OF TEMECULA Project EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION - BP IBusiness Park) ZONING MAP Project EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 R:~D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.~toc GENERAL PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA SITE PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 SITE PLAN R:\D P~.000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff repo~l 416pa00.doc 23 CITY OF TEMECULA EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION NORTH £LEVATION ............... PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E ;i PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 R:~D P~000~00-0416 Scoit Electric\Staff report 416pa00.0oc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 7, 2001 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:~D P~2000\00-0416 Scott Electric\Staff report 416pa00.doc 25 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) Kearny Real Estate - Lot Split Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. REAFFIRM the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted; 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0513 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30044), THE SUBDIVISION OF 31+ NET ACRES INTO TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL LOTS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF DENDY PARKWAY AND THE EXTENSION OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-370-022, -025, -026, AND -027 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Kearny Real Estate Company, John V. Bragg, Jr., Vice-President REPRESENTATIVE: Garcon Construction Consultants, Don Kramer Leppert Engineering Corporation, Norman Kasubuchi PROPOSAL: To subdivide 31 + net acres of industrially zoned property into two (2) lots. Proposed Parcel 1 is the Scotts Manufacturing Facility site, currently under construction. Proposed Parcel 2 is the area originally designated for the expansion of the Scotts facility. LOCATION: Southeast corner of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of Winchester Road EXISTING ZONING: LI Light Industrial SURROUNDING ZONING: North: LI Light Industrial and PI Public Institutional South: LI Light Industrial East: LI Light Industrial West: LI Light Industrial PROPOSED ZONING: Not Applicable R:~D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: BP Business Park Vacant and under construction · SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: 'Vacant and City of Temecula Northwest Sports Park South: Former;Four-Sher industrial building and vacant industrial pad sites East: MilgardlGlass Manufacturer and Supplier West: Vacant :~ PROJECT STATISTICS Parcel 1: 22.441 acres Parcel 2: 8.586 acres Total: 31.027 ~cres Scotts facility: 411,932 square feet FAR: 0.42 BACKGROUND On November 15, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan -Fast Track) for the Scotts Manufacturing Facility. Subsequent to that approval, the property '~)wner, Kearny Real Estate Company, informed staff that Scotts' lease did not include the entire 31+ net acre site. Therefore, Kearny wished to subdivide the property to accommodate separaie ~-~velopment of the unencumbered acreage. Staff recommended that Kearny submit a tentative parcel map application, which was submitted by Kearny on December 20, 2000. A Developm, ent Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on January 18, 2001, and the project was deeme,,d comptete on February 7, 200 . During the processing;of the map, staff determined that, as a result of the lot split, the floor area ratio (FAR) originally hpproved for Scotts would increase beyond the target FAR in the Light Industrial zone, which is 0.40. The Director of Planning, therefore, set the case for public hearing before the Planning Commission in order that they may consider the increase in FAR in accordance with Secticm 17.08.050 of the Development Code. ANALYSIS Staff supports the applicant's claim that the development of the industrial parcel by Scotts qualifies for a 0.02 increase ih the maximum allowable intensity for the Light Industrial zone for the following reasons: , 1. The amour~t of the increase does not exceed the maximum density range stated for the Business P, ark land use designation, which is 0.30 to 1.5 FAR. 2. The City E~gineer has determined that the impacts caused by the increased intensity have already been mitigated by measures implemented in the Conditions of Approval for Planning Application Nos. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track) for the Scotts Manufacturing Facility and 00-0296 (Tentative Parcel Map 29895) covering the site. 3. The Scotts Manufacturing Facility provides outstanding and exceptional employment opportunities for 350 to 500 people, many of whom will be City of Temecula residents. Operation~ are expected to run three shifts seven days per week, and to include a variety of ~ffice, manufacturing and distribution positions. R:\D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's ~anufactudng - Fasttrack\STAFFRP2T.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc The Scotts Manutactudng Facility provides exceptional architectural and landscape design amenities which reflect an attractive image and character for the City. The architect met the challenges of a site needing four-sided articulation, and of a facility needing a large building mass. The architect incorporated features that divide and reduce the scale, offer visual interest, and contrast both the horizontal and vertical planes. The main entry is prominent, with a canopy covering, five concrete columns, and reached by a curvilinear access ddve with accent paving and an attractive, ceremonial entry plaza. The landscape architect has varied the size of the landscaped setbacks to adjacent roadways, as well as the size and shape of planter areas adjacent to the buildings to create visual interest. The concentrated and clustered planter areas provide meaningful spaces where landscaping can be emphasized, enhancing the image for Scotts' garden care products. The parcel map is conditioned to comply with the original Conditions of Approval for the Scotts project. Therefore, the property owner shall install street scene landscaping on Remington Avenue and Dendy Parkway as originally approved. He shall hydroseed Parcel 2. The Scotts landscape plans have been modified to provide perimeter landscaping on their site. The property owner is providing enhanced public facilities that are needed by the City, beyond those required as mitigation impact measures. The applicant agreed to install a traffic signal at the intemection of Diaz Road and Winchester Road, currently operating at Level of Service (LOS) E during morning peak hours and LOS F during the evening peak, according to a focused Transportation Analysis done for the Scetts project. The signal will be operational prior to the occupancy of the Scotts Facility, and the applicant is eligible for DIF credits for design and installation costs. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Scotts Development Plan, Planning Application No. 00-0335, which covered the 31 _+ acre site. Staff has reviewed the Initial Environmental Study and has determined that no further environmental documentation is necessary. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project nor to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that would require major revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff has conditioned this project to comply with the applicable Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the underlying development plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reaffirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The lot split is consistent with the General Plan designation of BP Business Park and the zoning designation of LI Light Industrial. With Planning Commission approval of the increase in floor area ratio, the map has met all requirements of the Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The proposed map has been reviewed by various City departments and outside agencies. The project was reviewed for compliance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, subdivision Ordinance and policies. Appropriate Conditions of Approval have been prepared for the project to ensure that compliance requirements are met, and that the project is consistent with previous approvals covedng the site. Staff, therefore, recommends approval. R:~D P~000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fastt~ck~STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 3 FINDINGS ,, Any tentative map shall be approved if all the following findings are made: The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The project wa~ reviewed for compliance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, subdivision Ordinance and policies. Appropriate Conditions of Approval have been prepared for the project to ensure that compliance requirements are met, and that the project is consiCtent with previous approvals covering the site. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant td the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; According to the General Plan, Figure 5-5 on Page 5-18, the site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative' map; The site lies witi~in a partially developed industrial park and has been previously graded to accommodate industrial development. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wi!dlife or their habitat; The General Plan does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site. It is outside the!habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. There are no known fish or wildlife habitat on the p!oject site, and the project will not affect any fish or wildlife habitat off-site. The site has been rough and precise graded. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause sedous public health Problems; The project siteihas been reviewed by agencies and City departments to ensure that the project is adequately conditioned to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities inlthe subdivision to the extent feasible; The design ofilthe subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acqbired by the public at large for access through or use of properly within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to th?se previously acquired by the public will be provided; No public easements run through the site. R:~D 1:~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT,PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 4 The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). Industrial land divisions are exempted by the provisions of Section 66477 (a) (8) of the Subdivision Map Act for parkland dedication. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7 Exhibits - Blue Page 8 B. C. D. E. f. G. H. Vicinity Map Zoning Map General Plan Map Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044 Scotts Landscape Plan Scotts Elevations Scoffs Main Entry Rendering Scotts Aedal View Rendering R:~D Pt2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:\D P~2000~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0513 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30044), THE SUBDIVISION OF 31_+ NET ACRES INTO TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL LOTS, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF DENDY PARK~NAY AND THE EXTENSION OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-370- 022, -025, -026 AND -027 WHEREAS, Kearny Real Estate Company filed Planning Application No. PA00-0513 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on February 21, 2001, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testi~ either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved the Application subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; The project was reviewed for compliance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, subdivision Ordinance and policies. Appropriate Conditions of Approval have been prepared for the project to ensure that compliance requirements are met, and that the project is consistent with previous approvals covering the site. B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; R:~D P~.000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrac~RES-TM30044.PC.doc 1 According to the General Plan, Figure 5-5 on Page 5-18, the site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; The site plies Within a partially developed industrial park and has been previously graded to accommodate industrial development. D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; The General Pian does not designate the project site as a potentially sensitive habitat site. It is outside the habitat area identified for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and does not contain wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act. There are no known fish or wildlife habitat on the j3roject site, and the project will not affect any fish or wildlife habitat off-site. The site has been rough and precise graded. E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; The project site has been reviewed by agencies and City departments to ensure that the project is adequately conditioned to protect the public health, safety and welfare. F. The design of !he subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the de§ign of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. No public easements mn through the site. H. The subdivisioh is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). Industrial land!divisions are exempted by the provisions of Section 66477 (a) (8) of the Subdivision M~p Act for parkland dedication. Section 3, Environmental Compliance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring program for the Scotts Development Plan, Planning Application No. 00-0335, which covered the 31 + acre site. Staff has reviewed the Initial Environmental Study and has determined that no furtl~er environmental documentation is necessary. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project nor to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff has conditioned this project to comply with the applicable Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the underlying develo~3ment plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reaffirm the Mitigated Negative D~claration previously adopted. R:\D P'~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrac~x~RES-TM30044.PC.doc 2 Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) for the subdivision of a 31+ net acre parcel into two (2) industrial lots, iocatad at the southeast comer of the extension of De'dy Parkway and the extension of Winchester Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 909- 370-022, -025, -026 and -027, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21't day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Ron Guerriero, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTYOF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21~t day of February, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~2000~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fast~ack~RES-TM30044.PC.doc 3 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:/D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA00-0513 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044 Project Description: The subdivision of 31 _+ net acres into two (2) industrial lots Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 909-370-022, -025, -026, and -027 Approval Date: February 21, 2001 Expiration Date: February 21, 2003 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time pedod. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnity, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the lands use approval without further notice to the applicant. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program for the underlying Parcel Map No. 28657, approved as Planning Application No. 97-0327. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Development Plan for Scotts Manufacturing Facility, approved as Planning Application No. 00-0335. R:~D FA2000~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack~COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 1 5. Pdor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either parcel, or prior to the recordation of the final map, whichever comes first, the developer shall complete installation of landscaping ifor Parcel 2 in accordance with approved conceptual landscape plans for Planning Application No. 00-0335 (Development Plan - Fast Track) for the Scotts Manufacturing Facility. a. Any modifications to the approved conceptual landscape plans require submittal of plans for review and approval by the Director of Planning, pdor to installation. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 6. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. ~ A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All onsite cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height of thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be a pa'rt of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. 8. All slopes over ,three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. 9. The developer -~hall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibility of other parties as ~pproved by the Planning Director. 10. The applicant ~hail comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing docu~nented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 11. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and grading contractor pdor to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 12. A Native Amed~,an representative shall be present dudng archaeological testing and grading operations in aCcordance with an existing agreement with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno indians for the underlying Parcel Map No. 28657. Prior to Recordation!of the Final Map 13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy 'of the Final Map; b. A copy ~of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: R:~D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc ~ 2 1) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. 2) This project is within the AIquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. 3) This project is within a 100 year flood hazard zone. 4) Geotechnical reports identified geotechnical hazards on the property. 5) Archaeological reports identified cultural resources on the property. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 14. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: 1) Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). 2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. 3) Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). 4) Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 5) The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the tentative map. 6) Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property, and for shrub planting to screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences: ¸1) Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a Public Right- of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for comer lots. 2) Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. 3) Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by a and b above. R:~D P~.000~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fast~ac~\COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 3 c. PreciseIGrading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 15. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden behind architectural elements of buildings so that they are not visible from the public right-of-way. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. 17. 18. If deemed neCessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide, additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. ; All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly const~cted and in good working order. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the m. aintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a pedod of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Cbmmunity Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate (~f occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping ~nd irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 19. All of the forego'lng conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. ;, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated othenvise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. !i General Requirements 20. 21. 22. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-wa, y. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 23. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 24. The Applicant Shall comply with all underlying Parcel Map 29895 Conditions of Approval, Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement R:',D P~.000~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fastt~adx\COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 300a,4.doc 4 agreements executed and securities posted: 25. 26. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: 27. f. g. h. i. j. Rancho California Water District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern Califomia Gas Company Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: Improve Winchester Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of half-width plus six feet street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Dendy Parkway (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include installation of half-width plus six feet street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). All street iml~rovement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: Street centedine grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. R:~D FA2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttmck\COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 5 400, 401 and 402. Designof street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. Minimum centedine radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landsc_~ping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be, provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be' designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 28. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruptior~ to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 29. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Dendy Parkway, Winchester Road and Remington Av(~nue on the Parcel Map with the exception of three openings on Dendy Parkway i.e. two openings for Parcel 1 and one opening for Parcel 2 as delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map, and three openings on Remington Avenue i.e. two openings for P~rcel I and one opening on Parcel 2 as delineated on the approved Tentative ParCel Map. 30. Comer property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance With Riverside County Standard No. 805. 31. All easements ~nd/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 32. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Pdor to City Council iapproval of the Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionmeht of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 33. Any delinquent:!property taxes shall be paid. 34. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: R:~D F~2.000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fastbac~\COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 6 a. The delineation of the area within the lO0-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones. c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report. d. Archeological resources found on the site. 35. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 36. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 37. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed "Western bypass Corridor" or "Medians in accordance with the General Plan". The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. 38. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. 39. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 40. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works e. Riverside County Health Department R:~D FA2000~00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fastb'acA~COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 7 f. Community Services Distdct g. General Telephone h. Southern Cal~forma Edison Company i. Southern California Gas Company 41. A Grading Plar~ shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencemeht of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to prptect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 42. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Departmen~ of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soilS conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered §tructures and preliminary pavement sections. 43. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The rePort shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 44. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of.Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water ruhoff quantities'expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facili~es intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate odtfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or pdvate property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any Upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 45. The Develope~ must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 46. The Develope~ shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 47. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by thff, Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 48. Parcel Map 30044 shall be approved and recorded. 49. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's R:',D FA2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - FasttracA~COA*TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 8 check or money order, pdor to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 50. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 51. 52. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 53. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Department of Public Works 54. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 55. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 56. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. FiRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 2. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-Ill-A- 1. The applicant shal/provide at time of p/an review a copy of the original conditions of approval showing the originally required fire f/ow, AND a current fire f/ow test meeting those standards. If the applicant is unable to provide the original conditions of approval this project will be required to provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI R:~D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrac~COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044,doc 9 residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted durin I the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire )rotection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B; Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fir~ Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from an~ point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The ,required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The ~pgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix, III-B) Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cut-de-sac shill be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) All locations Where structures are built shall maintain approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall Of the building(s). NO CHANGES TO DRIVEWAYS, CURBS, OR OTHER MEANS OF ACCESS WILL BE ALLOWED THAT EFFECT FIRE LANES OR FIRE DEPARTMEN? ACCESS ROADS. Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface desig@ed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902)~ 9. 10. 11. Fire Departmffnt vehicle access roads shall maintain an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) This developm~ent shall maintain two (2) points of access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved I~y the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) All manual arid electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system ~or emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) An agreement for the maintenance and repair of any and all existing underground Fire Department Water Systems, including all fire sprinkler supplies and all fire hydrants and supplies will be in place as a condition of this division to maintain available water in perpetuity.~; TEMECULA COMMtJNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT R:~D P~2000\00-O335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc ~ 10 57. Pdor to the installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant or his assignee, shall pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial street lights into the TCSD maintenance program. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit 58. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. OTHER AGENCIES 59. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated January 10, 2001, a copy of which is attached. 60. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Califomia Water District's transmittal dated January 4, 2001, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:~D P~000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttmck~COA-TENT PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 11 ~.~ ~oUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEN ' L- I'i ALTt January 10, 2001 City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ATTN: Carole K. Donahoe RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30044; PARCELS 1 AS SHOWN BY PARCEL MAP NO. 29895 ON FILE IN BOOK--PAGE(S)~THROUGH--OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALH*ORNIA. (2 LOTS) Dear Carole K. Donahoe: 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044 and recommends: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one-inch equal's 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, and Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044 is in accordance with thc ~vater system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Parcel Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least TWO WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. Local Enforcement Agenc~ * PO. Box 1280. Riverside, CA 92502-1280 * 1909) 955-8982 * FAX (9091 781-9653 * 4080 Lemon Street. 9th F]OOl., Rivemide. CA 92501 City ofTemecula Plann!ng Dept. Page Two Attn: Carole K. Donahoe Sanuary 10, 2001 o This subdivision is!within the Rancho California Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the Distri8t. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Health Depamnent. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system[ A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Parcel M~ No. 30044 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map. : It will be necessary .for financial arrangements to be completely finalized PRIOR to the final map. It will be neeessar for the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized PRIOR to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely, ~~Mart~ironmental SM:dr (909) 955-8980 Health Specialist January. 4, 2001 Carole Donahoe, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY PARCEL MAP NO. 30044 APN 909-370-001, APN 909-370-022, APN 909-370-025, APN 909-370-026, AND APN 909-370-027 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0513 Dear Ms. Donahoe: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of'Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property oxvner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00~SB:atO07~F012-T3~FCF ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 8 CITY OF TEMECULA Project Site n CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttmck~STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 9 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP" DESIGNATION - LI Light Industrial ~000000~ EXHIBIT C - GENERAL P~N DESIGNATION - BP Business Park ~ 44 CASE NO. - Planning Ap,plication No. 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 300 ) II _~P~..i.G COMMISSIO"iD^TE - Fabr~ 2,, ~00, P,:\FORMS~STAFFRPT,PC FOR PARCEL OR TRACT MAPS.doc 10 CITY OF TEMECULA TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 30044 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 000513 P~qCEL 1 CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) EXHIBIT - D TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30044 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 20001 R:~D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrack\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 11 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - Planning ApPlication No. 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) EXHIBIT - E ~i SCOTTS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 R:~D P~2000\00-0335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fasttrac~\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc , 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SOUTH ELEVATION MAIN F~ CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) EXHIBIT- F SCOTI'S ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 R:~D P~2000\00-0335 Scot, s Manufacturing - Fasttcack\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 13 CITY OF TEMECULA MAIN ENTRY VIEW CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) EXHIBIT - G , SCOTTS MAIN ENTRY RENDERING PLANNING COMMISSlON DATE - February 21, 2001 F~:~D P~2.000\00-O335 Scott's Manufacturing - Fast~ack\STAFFRPT.PC FOR pARCEL MAP 30044.doc 14 CITY OF TEMECULA AERIAL VIEW CASE NO. - Planning Application No. 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) EXHIBIT - H SCOTTS AERIAL VIEW RENDERING PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21,200t R:~D P~2000\00-0335 Scot, s Manufacturing - Fasttmck\STAFFRPT.PC FOR PARCEL MAP 30044.doc 15 ITEM I/7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2001 Planning Application No. 00-0110 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00- 0110 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0110 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL STORAGE FACILITY 0NESTSlDE STORAGE) COMPRISED OF EIGHT BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF 64,073 SQUARE FEET, ON 1.82 acres LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER ROAD WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-056, 909-310-063, & 909-310-065. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: Tres D, LLC, c/o Brad Ducich, 3251 Bradbury Rd., Rossmoor, CA 90720 The design and construction of an industrial storage facility comprised of eight buildings with a total of 64,073 square feet on 1.82 acres. On the north side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Road [next to RCWD (APN 909-310-056, 909-310-063, & 909- 310-065)]. LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) R:~I F52000~00-0110 So. Ca. St~rage~staff report 110pa00.doc 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: PI (Public Institutional) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) Lt (Light Industrial) EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant North: Rancho California Water District Offices South: Industrial Building East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Buildinqs 79,213 square feet (1.82 acres) Size Heiqht 475 square feet 24'0" Manager's Office: Building A: Building B: Building C: Building D: Building E: Building F: Buildinq G: Total Building Area: Total Building Footprints: Hardscape: 2,900 square feet 24'0" 50,390 square feet 33'0" 2,500 square feet 18'8" 1,952 square feet 36'0" 1,952 square feet 36'0" 1,952 square feet 36'0" 1,952 square feet 36'0" 64,073 square feet 0.83 FAR 36,048 square feet 45.5% 2,954 square feet 3.3% Landscape Area: 10,220 square feet 12.9% Paved Area: ' 30,351 square feet 38.3% Parking Required: 386 Self storage units (1:200 unit w/4 space min.) 4 spaces Parking Provided: 8 spaces BACKGROUND ' The applicant began Working with the City last spring when they submitted a formal application to the Planning Department on March 21, 2000. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on Apdl 27, 2000, with follow up reviews completed in June and November. Staff had a number of concerns regarding the bulk and appearance of this project and maintained that changes were necessary in order to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. The project was deemed complete on January 21, 2001. The project site was once intended to be a park site because of the existing earthquake fault that extends through it. With the designation changed to light industrial, the only practical use of the property can be a non-habitable storage facility either open or enclosed. The Building Codes permit structures to be built over fault zones so long as they are not inhabited. The applicant believes that storage needs exist for the many businesses in the area that lack storage space or have begun to outgrow their current facilities. R:~d P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc : 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a Development Plan to design and construct a commercial/industrial storage facility comprised of eight buildings with a total of 64,073 square feet on a 1.82 acres. This facility is designed to accommodate different types of uses in separate or shared buildings. There are four smaller but tall buildings that will likely be leased to one tenant for bulk type storage. Along Winchester Road and the rear of the property are Iow profile buildings that can accommodate multiple small users. The large building in the center of the site is designed have ' two stories of internal storage with drive-in access for equipment storage. ANALYSIS Site Desiqn and Circulation This project is located on a 79,213 square foot lot on the north side of Winchester Road. The site layout has two long narrow buildings along the front (south) and rear (north) of the property with four equal size buildings with 1,952 square feet each along the west side. There is space between each of the four buildings to accommodate parking and landscaping. In the middle of the site is the largest structure covering 25,195 square feet but offering 50,390 square feet of floor area. One point of ingress and egress is provided at the west end of the street frontage and a ddve aisle goos completely around the center building allowing full access to all buildings. As required by code for storage facilities, this site provides the required 20 foot front setback for landscaping. To secure the site, various types of fencing are provided between the buildings and wrought iron gates at the entry. Between the four buildings, a combination block and wrought iron fence will be offset from the property line to avoid the appearance of a long wall along the property line. On the east property line, there will be a wrought iron fence with block pilasters. Along the rear on the east and west sides of the building there will be seven foot block walls. Parkinq Analysis Bases on the City's parking standards for storage use this site must provide four parking spaces. As designed, the applicant is proposing 8 parking stalls - be two at the office and six spaces placed in pairs between the smaller buildings. Architecture & Colors The buildings have been designed to have the appearance of a business facility. The primary building materials are precision and split face block with gray and tan being the primary colors. Along Winchester Road, the storage building will have deep offsets finished in opaque glass, while the projected portions of the building are a combination of split face and precision block. Both ends of the building have metal seam pitched roofs. The four buildings on the west property line will have a similar design, shape and size. Each has a recessed glass entry and block construction. Split face block is used to create some varied patterns at the base of these building on the side and real walls. Precision block makes up the mid portion of the walls, while a four foot band of split face is used around the top of the building. Staff has concerns with the west elevations of these four buildings and has conditioned the applicant to design a more interesting pattern around the upper band of the building. R:~d P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 3 The largest building ih the center of the site will have walls that are up to 33 feet tall. The majority of this building is blocked from view by the surrounding buildings but has been articulated for the visibility of the upper portion. On the west elevation facing Winchester, the building, appears to have varying heights and offsets with the strategic use of the precision and split face block. Three tower elements have been created with the sPlit face block in the center and at both ends of this elevation. For added relief, some windows and block variations have been inserted into the walls. The east side of this building faces the offices of Rancho California Water District and three windows have been installed to provide interest. This building has a long gradual sloping roof finished in a dark green. Landscapinq ~ Almost thirteen percent (12.9%) of the site will be landscaped. The largest percentage of landscaping will be alOng the street frontage. Along Winchester Road, london plane trees will be used and the build, lng will be accented with queen palms and eucalyptus. Between the buildings on the west, side of the property, large pockets of landscaping will create building separation and break up the building mass. On the eastern property line, a landscape buffer with a mix of fern pines and eucalyptus will further enhance the view of the site from the offices. Staff has conditioned the applicant to remove the turf under the trees and install shrubs and ground co~er. A few internal planters have been added to provide a few trees as a backdrop and further accent the large central building. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon staffs review, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons: · The site is 1.82 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The storage facility building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Light Industrial (LI). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Indust~al). A vadety of industrial uses are permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed, meets all minimum standards of, and is consistent with, the General Plan, Development Code an~d the Design Guidelines. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with applicable City policies, standards and guidelines. We b61ieve it is compatible with the types of uses and quality of surrounding development, and will ~epresent an aesthetic addition to the City's industrial area. R:~d P~2000~0-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 4 FINDINGS - DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposal, an industrial storage facility, is consistent with the land use policies of the Light Industrial (LI) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is propedy planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of office/commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Attachments: 1. 2. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 21 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan D. Site Plan E. Elevation F. Elevation G. Elevation H. Elevation I. Elevation J. Landscape Plan K. Rendedng R:~ P~2000~00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 5 AI'I'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- R:~d P~2.000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0110 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL STORAGE FACILITY (WESTSIDE STORAGE) COMPRISED OF EIGHT BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL OF 64,073 SQUARE FEET, ON 1.82 acres LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER ROAD WESTERLY OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-056, 909-310-063, & 909-310-065. WHEREAS, Tres D, LLC, filed Planning Application No. 00-0110, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 00-0110 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 00-0110 on February 21, 2001, at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. 00-0110; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 00- 0110 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposal, an industrial storage facility, is consistent with the land use policies of the Light Industrial (LI) land use designation standards of the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Light Industrial (LI) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is properly planned and zoned, and as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of office/commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with, and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. R:~d P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 7 Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0110 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and it meets the following criteria: : · The site is 1.82 acres, which is less than the 5 acres required. · The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area. · The sit~ has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The'sit~ will be adequately served by public utilities and services. · The st0iage facility building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan designations for the site. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approve~ Planning Application No. 00-0110 for a Development Plan to build an industrial storage facility comprised of eight buildings with a total of 64,073 square feet on 1.82 acres at north side of the Winchester Road westerly of Diaz Road, and known as Assessor Parcel No's. 909-310-056, 909-310-063, & 909-310-065. The Conditions of Approval are contained in Exhibit A. ~ section 5. pASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 21't day of February 2001. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson A'CrEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Se~etary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE City of Temecula ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 01- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21 ~ day of February, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~I P~2000\00-0110 SO. Ca. Storage~taff report 110pa00.doc .EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:~d F'~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Stora0e~staff report 110pa00.doc 9 Project Description: DIF Category: Assessor Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 00-0110 (Development Plan) The design and construction of an industrial storage facility comprised of eight buildings with a total of 64,073 square feet on 1.82 acres, located on the north side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Road. Business Park/Industrial 909-310-056, 909-310-063, & 909-310-065 February 21, 2001 February 21, 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department- Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements '2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City R:~d P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 10 o shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the la. nd use approval without further notice to the applicant. This approval ~hall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year pedod which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The developme, nt of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. AdditiOnally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the double detector check pdor to final agreement with the utility companies. c. The walkway crossing in front of the manager's office shall be removed and landscaped consistent with the opposite side of the driveway. d. The parking stall parking stall adjacent to building "A" serving the manager office is required to be 10 feet wide. Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department dudng plan check for review prior to installation. All parking lot lights and other extedOr lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E-I" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division.:,'~ a. Additional accenting relief shall be added around the upper portions of the four buildings along the west property line. This accenting shall break away from the linier banding around the top of each building. b. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that we?e designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide;for this screening. c. Substitute the black spandrel glass with a lighter shade of glazing, possibly bronze, to comPliment the building. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "J" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping in. stalled for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The R:~ P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110paOO.doc 11 continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Additionally, the following cdteda must be met prior to development of the project: a. Shrubs and ground cover shall be added in place of the turf in the planting area along the east property line. b. All turf areas on the intedor of the facility may be converted to ground covers. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. Material Finish & Color Windows, doors Dark green frames with black spandrel glazing Roofing Metal seam, dark green Extedor walls of perimeter buildings: Wall face Base Towers Columns/pilasters Accent Band Recessed accents Tower accents Capping accent Interior buildings: Wall face Towers Columns/pilasters Accent cap on towers Recessed accents Capping accent Wrought Iron Fencing Precision Face Masonry Block, "Warm Grey" Multi Scored Split Face Masonry Block, "La Paz" (tan) Extedor smooth coat cement plaster, "La Paz" (tan) Split Face Masonry Block, "La Paz" (tan) Split Face Masonry Block, "Warm Grey" Precision Face Masonry Block, "Warm Grey" Split Face Masonry Block w/multi scoring, "La Paz" (tan) Split Face Masonry Block, "La Paz" (tan) Precision Face Masonry Block, "Warm Grey" Split Face Masonry Block, "La Paz" (tan) Split Face Masonry Block, "La Paz" (tan) Split Face Masonry Block, "La Paz" (tan) Precision Face Masonry Block, "Warm Grey" Split Face Masonry Block, "La Paz" (tan) dark green Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department o Planning Division for their files. 11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 12. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E & F", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size copies. R:~ 1:~2000~00-0110 So. Ca, Storage~staff report 110pa00,doc 12 13. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color pdnts of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their flies. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic pdnts. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A ConsistencylCheck fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 15. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community De~velopment Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be ~onsistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Approp~ate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan), il Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. 17. 18. 19. The facility ma'~agement shall provide a letter of disclosure to the prospective tenant for their acknowledgement and s~gnature Th~s letter shall nform tenants of the underly g earthquake fablt running through this facility and the potential damage(s) and possible limited liability to items stored within these structures. A copy of this letter shall be kept on file with the property manager. The contents of this letter shall be approved as to form by the Director of~Planning pdor to its use. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. Thelplants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall b~ properly constructed and in good working order, Performance ~ecurlties, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and!irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Divis!0n for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. Each parking {pace reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectofized 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 are ahd 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. Ai~ign 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: ; R:~ F~2000~00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 170pa00.doc 13 20. "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, Environmental Constraints Sheet fault zone delineation, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 21. Unless otherwise noted, ail conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 22. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 23. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 24. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 25. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 26. The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 27. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. R:~d P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca, Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 14 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendatiOns to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. The Develope~: shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties ,and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Develope[ must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Plannifig Department c. Department of Public Works The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental iConstraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work per[orroed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money orde!, pdor to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtainihg a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 37. The Develope! shall process and record a Parcel Merger. 38. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. FIo .wline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. pawng. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. R:~ P~000\00-0110 So. Ca, ~torage~staff report 110pa00.doc 15 c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. d. All street and ddveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. e. Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 39. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 40. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 41. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water Distdct b. Department of Public Works 43. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 44. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 45. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 46. Provide a geologic report at time of submittal for plan review for the site and project showing compliance with the provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act for the intended occupancy and use. 47. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palornar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 48. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals pdor to commencement of any construction work. R:~I P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 16 49. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector pdor to commencement of any construction or inspections. 50. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 51. Provide sufficient details on the plans to show conformance with California Building Code Section 1127B~=1 for accessible extedor routs of travel between buildings on site. 52. Cleady indicat~ the elements for accessible means of egress from the second story of Building B. ,i 53. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entdes in accordance with California building Code ~Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. 54. Provide approPriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calcUlations submitted for plan review. 55. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 56. Provide house-.electdcal meters at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire a arm systems and extedor lighting. 57. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and odginal signed by an aPpropriate registered professional. 58. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 59. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction; shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Sect, ion G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of 'an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. SaturdaY 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays 60. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 61. Restroom fixtures number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition o[,the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. 62. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site disabled accesSibility. R:~ P\2000\00-Ol10 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 17 FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 63. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 64. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix III- A) 65. The Fire Prevention Burf~au is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access read(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 66. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved reute around the extedor of the facility; on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 67. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 68. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 69. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access reads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 70. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 71. The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) R:~ P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storege~staff report 110pa00.doc 18 72. Pdor to bu~ drag construcbon, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feetl which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 73.. Pdor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans t~ the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans:.are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall i'be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency pdor to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 74. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 75. Pdor to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In stdp centers, businesses shall post the suite address dn the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4) 76. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 77. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the Sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) !.. 78. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) '79. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 80. Pdor to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department fox, approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. :: 81. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be' designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire -~pdnkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) R:~ P~000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 19 82. Pdor to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) OTHER AGENCIES 83. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated Apd110, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 84. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated Apdl 25, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 85. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood ControFs transmittal dated May 16, 2000, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:~ P~2000\00-0110 So, Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 20 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:'~I P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~staff report 110pa00.doc 21 CITY OFTEMECULA VICINITY MAP NO SCALE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~200D~00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~Staff report 110pa00.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B [ ZONING MAP ~LAN~ING .~LICATIO~ NO. 00-0110 {D~¥~lo~m~nt ~lan} ~LJM~INING CO~MI$$1ON DATE - ~brua~t ~, ~001 R:~D P~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~Staff report 110pa00.doc CITY OF TEMECULA I PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 R:~D P~2000~00-0110 So. Ca. StorageLStaff report 110pa00.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXTERIOR ELEVATION'3 WE~T~IDE ~TOP-.AGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT E ~ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:~D F~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~Staff report 110pa00.doc CITY OF TEMECULA 00000 REAR ELEVATION BUILDING A PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 RAD 1:~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage\Staff report 110paOO.doc ClTY OFTEMECULA IBUILDING B- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PLANNING APPLICATION No. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT O ~ PLt~INING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 R:~D ~.000\00-0110 So. Ca. S~mg,~taff report 110pa00.do¢ ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA BUILDING D PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT H PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:~D FR2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~Staff report 110pa00.doc CITY OF TEMECULA 6UILDIN~J E, ~ 4,, G PLANNING APPUCATION NO. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT I i~ PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 ELEVATIONS R:~D 1~2000\00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~Staff repo~ 110pa00.doc CITY OF TEMECULA WI~CI~S'TL~ ROAg PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT J PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 21, 2001 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:~D 1~2000~00-0110 So. Ca. Storage~Staff repoff 110pa00.doc ClT~' OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT K PLANNING COMMISSION' DATE - February 21, 2001 R:~D P~2000~00-0110 So. Ca, Storage~Staff report 110pa00.doc