The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About020602 PC Agendain compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING CONIMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE FEBRUARY 6, 2002 - 6:00 Next in Order: Resolution: No, 2002-002 Guerriero Guerriero, Mathewson, OIhasso, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff 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 ether 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 6, 2002 R:~plancomrn~agend as~2002~2-6-02.doc I 2- Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of January 16, 2002 3 Director's Hearina Update for January - For the month of January 2002 - No Hearinas. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and File COMMISSION BUSINESS 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 Plannincl Application No. 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit); Development Plan~ - Rick Rush, Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0196 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0196, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED MONOPINE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO BAPTIST CHURCH SITE AT 40440 RANCHO SANTIAGO ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-130-017 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT 5 A Representative from Rancho California Water District will brief the Planninc~ Commission on a new water bill that was recently passed. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and File R:~pla ncomm~agendas~2002~-5-02.doc 2 ITEM #2 CALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2002 The City of Temecuia Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, January 16, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Commissioner Guerriero. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Attorney Abbe, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Fire Battalion Chief Ahmad, Fire Captain McBride, Senior Planner Hazen, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 2 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 16, 2002. Minutes. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of November 28, 2001. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of December 5~ 2001. 3 Director's Hearina Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1- 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planninc~ Application No. PA01-0644 (Findinq of Subst~[ntial Conformance) Michael McCov, Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0644 pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act and; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CONIMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0644, A RI--QUEST TO ELIMINATE EXTERIOR SANDBLASTED FINISH FOR A 2t,382 SQUARE FOOT AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 43191 RANCHO WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-040-042 Via color renderings, Project Planner McCoy presented the staff repod (or record), relaying that this project was originally approved by the Planning Commission in June of 2001; highlighted the project's location, and the enhanced building articulation proposed when this application was submitted; noted the applicant's .subsequent request to eliminate the sandblasted finish and replace this particular 'treatment with smooth concrete painted panels due to his concern regarding a potentially negative appearance of the sandblast finish; relayed that staff met with the applicant and his representatives to discuss alternative finishes, advising that the applicant was not in agreement with any of staff's alternative options, and requested to bring the matter before the Planning Commission; relayed that staff was of the opinion that the original approved design more effectively meets the objectives of the City's Industrial Design Guidelines, and that granting approval of the applicant's request for this particular deviation from the original approval may set a precedent for future applicants; and advised that it was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission deny approval of this application, or require an approved acceptable alternative in order to make findings for approval. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy cited examples of alternate buildings in the City that have the combination of smooth concrete panels with a sandblast finish (i.e., the Endar Building); and relayed that the City's Building Official advised the applicant to create a test panel in order to demonstrate the applicant's concern regarding a stucco-type appearance with the colored sandblast finish. For clarification, Senior Planner Hazen relayed the two mel:hods for creating a painted sandblasted finish, via either applying the paint after the sandblasting or mixing the dye with the sandblast treatment, advising that staff did not have experience with the application of mixing the dye with the sandblast treatment, ergo the request for a test panel; and noted that staff had suggested that the applicant leave the natural finish (unpainted) as an alternative treatment. Project Planner McCoy noted that during the original application for approval the applicant had presented a sandblasted concrete sample that appeared to be colored. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner McCoy relayed th:it the difference between a painted finish and a sandblasted finish was the added visu:~l interest which was addressed as part of the Community Design element of the General Plan which indicated a standard for quality architecture at the highest quality and was inclusive of design guidelines and performance standards; and advised that alternate approved projects without sandblasting had provided other enhanced treatments. Senior Planner Hazen relayed staff's desire to raise the bar on design standards in comparison to existing projects in the City that had been approved many years ago. Clarified that staff had worked with the applicant, proposing alternative treatments; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the portion of the building originally proposed to be sandblasted has not yet been constructed. Mr. Graham Eves, owner of the Temecula Radiator and Auto Repair use, the applicant, relayed that when the project was initially designed the architect was not aware that sandblasting colored concrete applied over a vast surface would create a patchy appearance; noted the per discussions with his concrete contractor, it had been relayed that during his 25 years of experience he had never seen this process implemented without resulting in a patchy-type appearance; with respecl: to staff's suggestion to sandblast the building, and to subsequently paint the sandblasted treatment if the applicant was displeased with the results, clarified the applicant's opposition to this recommendation, presenting a test panel which demonstrated the pitted stucco-type appearance; noted the applicant's desire to achieve the results accomplished with other existing buildings in the City (i.e., the Keeton Building, and the Grand Building), and the request for staff to investigate these alternate sites; via photographs, displayed the desired final project the applicant was seeking to achieve; ,cited numerous buildings in the City without texture variation; for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the design of the recessed windows, and the deeper recessed panels above, the windows, the articulation on the front elevation, the existing columns; and presented a colored rendition of the building with the colors proposed, noting the vapjing shades of paint proposed to provide depth to the building. Noting that from a distance the texture of a painted concrete would not be clearly visible, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the panels and the detailed squares would create visual interest. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Eves relayed that a painted sandblasted finish appeared patchy due to the varying dye lots. Senior Planner Hazen specified that the original approved plan varied from what the applicant was presenting at this time, noting the original plans for an overhang (presented as a dashed line in the plans) and column supports. The applicant's contractor noted that this current building e):terior footprint was identical to the original submittal, advising that the first floor storefront system was recessed back, that the panel lines were two feet, that the front corner of the project is brought out in a pie-type shape, that the details on the building itself are recessed three-quarter of an inch; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, clarified that the front windows were setback, confirming that the columns set out in front of the building. In response to the applicant's presentation, Senior Planner Hazen noted additionally that the entry does not appear to be as recessed as the original plans indicated, advising that the Building Inspector would investigate. In response, the applicant's representative relayed that the Building Inspector had been to the site today and that the applicant had approved stamped plans. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public hearing. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve the appli(~ant's request to eliminate the exterior sandblasted finish with the applicant's presented color scheme and the color samples provided. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page $.) Concurring with staffs recommendation regarding raising the bar with respect to architecture in this Business Park, Commissioner Olhasso advised that various existing buildings would not receive an approval if submitted to the City at this time; cited various buildings with enhanced design features; advised that since it was the applicant's desire to eliminate the texture change, that additional landscaping could compensate for the lack of visual interest, and further enhance the project. For Commissioner Olhasso, Senior Planner Hazen noted that the proposed proportion of the window openings with the wall surface appeared to be typical for this particular type and size of building. In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Chairman Chiniaeff echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that landscaping was not the issue before the Planning Commission at this time, while Chairman Chiniaeff encouraged the applicant to add additional substantially-sized trees, advising that the project costs would be reduced with the elimination of the painted sandblasted treatment, ergo the landscaping plan could be enhanced to improve the visual appearance. With respect to findings to support the Planning Commission's action, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that this project plan was in conformance with the surrounding projects in the area. Commissioner Telesio recommended that for future projects, staff investigate as to whether colored sandblasting created a negative visual appearance. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that this treatment was the proposal submitted to staff, advising that it would be staff's hope that the applicant and his representatives would have investigated the proposed treatments prior to submittal; and relayed that staff would further investigate the matter for the Planning Commission's information. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who voted n._9o and Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. Senior Planner Hazen relayed that staff would modify the resolution to accommodate the Planning Commission's action. 5 Plannincl Application No. 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit); Development Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Continue to Januar7 30, 2002 (see memorandum). This item continued to the February 6th Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske updated the Planning Commission regarding the General Plan Update Community Meeting, which was held on Saturday, relaying that there were approximately 30 individuals in attendance. Commissioner Olhasso thanked staff for the follow-up with Code Enforcement regarding the furniture stores adjacent to the freeway, while relaying that there was still outside storage in this area, in particular at the billiard use. Commissioner Telesio queried the status of the recommendation to prohibit parking on Solana Way, Chairman Chiniaeff additionally noting the negative visual impacts on Motorcar Parkway due to the on-street parking. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was his understanding that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission would be addressing this issue, advising that he would further investigate and update the Planning Commission. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Fire Captain McBride introduced the City's new Fire Marshall Battalion Chief, Mr. Abdul Ahmad. Fire Battalion Chief Ahmad provided a brief work history, the Planning Commission welcoming him aboard. Director of Planning Ubnoske requested that the Planning Commissioners e-mail Administrative Secretary Wimberly in order to inform her, which subcommittees they were currently serving on. Regarding the monthly field trips, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that in December staff visited the City of Carlsbad to view E, usiness Park and Industrial development, noting that the next trip was planned for Thursday, January 31 st, at 12:00 P.M., relaying that mixed use and Commercial Village developments in Riverside would be visited, inviting the Planning Commission to attend; and advised that he would be scheduling the year's trip trips and would distribute the schedule to the Commission at the next meeting. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that he would attend the January 31st trip. ADJOURNMENT At 6:42 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, February 6, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:PlanComn~minutes/011602 6 ITEM #3 WE DID NOT HAVE ANY DIRECTOR'S HEARINGS FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2002 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION February 6, 2001 Planning Application No. 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit) 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. 01-0196 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPILICATION NO. 01- 0196, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED MONOPINE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO BAPTIST CHURCH SITE AT 40440 RANCHO SANTIAGO ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-130-017 APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: APPLICATION INFORMATION Barbara Saito / Nextel Communications Barbara Saito / Nextel Communications To design, construct and operate a seventy-five foot high-unmanned monopine wireless telecommunication facility. East of Interstate 15 and west of Ynez Road on the south side of Santiago Road Rancho Highlands Specific Plan # 180 North: Rancho Highlands Specific Plan # 180 South: (VL) Very Low Density Residential East: Rancho Highlands Specific Plan # 180 West: Rancho Highlands Specific Plan # 180 R:\C U P~2001~01-0196 Nextel Communications,Staff Report.doc 1 GENERALPLAN: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS Lot Area: Mono-pine Height: Equipment Shelter: Existing Building Area: FAR: (VL) Very Low Density Residential Rancho Baptist Church North: Hillcrest Academy South: Detached Single Family Residences East: Gospel Light Baptist Church West: Interstate 15 186,436 square feet (4.28 Gross Acres) 75 feet 200 square feet 10,246 square feet .06 BACKGROUND The application was submitted to the Planning Department on April 20, 2001. A Development Review Committee was held on July 12, 2001. As initially proposed, the monopine was located within the fifty-foot side and rear yard setbacks per the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and Ordinance 348. The applicant re-submitted a revised plan on November 29, 2001 showing the monopine relocated to meet the side and rear yard setbacks. The project was deemed complete on December 24, 2001. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility located at the westerly portion of the Rancho Baptist Church site. The intent of this facility is to provide cellular telephone coverage along Interstate 15 and the surrounding neighborhood for Nextel customers. Access to the facility will be from Rancho Santiago Road. The project proposes a 75' high monopine pole with sector antenna panels mounted near the top portion of the antenna. Each panel is 54" long x 6" wide x 3.5" deep each. ANALYSIS Site Desi(in The project is located on Rancho Santiago Road, east of Intemtate 15 and west of Ynez Road, The existing site has two stick built buildings located to the south and west of Rancho Santiago. The color and materials used for these existing structures is tan stucco and a red tile roof. The existing buildings serve as the sanctuary and ministry center for Rancho Baptist Chumh. The site also has three modular classroom facilities located on the site towards Interstate 15. The mono-pine and equipment shelter will be will located to the west of all of the existing structures, closest to Interstate 16. The equipment area will be located on a cement slab, within a 3' to 4' high retaining block wall and a 3'-0" high wrought iron fence to be placed on top of the wall for safety. R:\C U P~001~01-0196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.doc 2 Access to equipment area will be located along the west elevation through a locked wrought iron gate. There is a twenty-two foot grade difference between the portion of the site where the mono- pine and equipment shelter are proposed and Interstate 15. The location of the monopine creates a limited opportunity of visibility from Interstate 15. The tree line on the north property line considerably limits the view corridor for vehicles traveling southbound. Vehicles traveling northbound have a limited view corridor due to the tree line located along the west property line. The north property line also provides a backdrop, which allows the monopine to blend in with the existing trees. The monopine has been located as far' from the existing residences to the southeast of this site as possible while meeting setbacks. It is the opinion of staff that the location of the monopine will achieve it's stealth objective. The equipment shelter has been located as to not be visible from the public right of way. Architecture, Color and Materials The design of the monopole is considered "stealth", indicating that the antennas will be adequately camouflaged from view by the use of multiple branches, which will be located on the pole as to effectively resemble a typical pine tree. The elevations as submitted indicate that the simulated branches will effectively screen the antennas and the antennas will be painted green to blend in with the branches. The monopine as proposed will adequately disguise the antennas, while still allowing the antennas to send and receive signals. The pole itself will be covered with simulated bark so as to provide the appearance of a living tree. The equipment shelter is a one*hour fire rated state approved radio equipment shelter with stucco that will match the existing stick built structures on site. Staff has reviewed and determined that the monopine as submil:ted meets the intent of the general requirements for visual compatibility as defined in the Telecornmunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The monopine as submitted shall be located to blend in with the existing natural and built surroundings and reduces the visual impacts to the extent feasible considering the technological requirements. Landscapinq The west portion of the site is currently landscaped with natural vegetation. The telecommunication facility has been proposed to be installed as to maintain and enhance the existing landscaping on the site. The west portion of the site along Interstate 15 is planted with fully mature Eucalyptus trees that provide screening for the proposed equipment shelter. The north portion of the site is also planted with mature Eucalyptus trees that will serve as a backdrop for the proposed monopine. The applicant has submitted photo simulations that indicate the locations of the existing trees, which indicate that the view from Interstate 15 will be minimal. Staff is requiring the applicant to add a mixture of eucalyptus and pine trees to be located to the west of the monopine. The additional landscaping will allow the monopine to blend in better with the existing vegetation and will add vegetation where there currently is no vegetation. Determination of Hei(~ht The proposed height of the monopine is seventy-five feet as measured from the natural undisturbed ground surface below the center of the base of the tower to the top of the highest antenna. It has been determined by the applicants engineer that seventy-five feet is the minimum height to achieve the technical coverage necessary to send and receive signals from and to mobile radios. Since radio transmissions are transmitted through waves it is necessary for these waves to be able to be transmitted with out interference. Hills, trees, buildings and other objects represent obstructions in the path of the radio waves that can cause interference. The height as proposed will permit the monopine to achieve it's objective of sending and receiving radio signals to mobile units to provide R:\C U P~001~01-0196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.¢loc 3 coverage along Interstate 15. Staff does not believe that the proposed height will create any undesirable aesthetic impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on staff's review, the proposed project is eligible to a CEQA exemption (Class 32- In Fill Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines based on the following reasons: · The site is 4.28 gross acres, which is less than'the 5 acres required. · The proposed project is consistent the General Plan and all of the General Plan policies. The project is consistent with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, Ordinance 348 and the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. · The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. · The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. · The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Very Low Density Residential (VL). The site is located within the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan # 180. A telecommunication facility is permitted in this zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.40 of the Development Code. The project as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with, the General Plan, Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, Ordinance 348 and the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all-applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality, and staff is recommending approwal. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan arid the applicable sections of the Development Code, Ordinance 348, Rancho Higlhlands Specific Plan and the Municipal Code. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit as designed is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of the adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and will not have an adverse effect on surrounding development. R:\C U F~2001~D1-0196 Nextel Communications,Staff Report.doc 4 The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the Development (::ode and required by the Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood. Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the Development Code. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (Area 19). 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 Dew.=lopment 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 alii 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. Development Plan The design of the proposed improvements is not likely 1:o 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 PA01-0196 (Cond~itional Use Permit) - Blue Page 10 Exhibits for PA01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit) - Blue. Page 15 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan E. Elevations R:\C U P~2001~)1-0196 Nextel Communications~Stafl Report.doc 5 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- APPROVING PA01-0196 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT' R:\C U P~2001~1-0196 Nextet Communications~Staff Repo~l.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS!.~ION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPIJCATION NO. 01~ 0196, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED MONOPINE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO BAPTIST CHURCH SITE .~T 40440 RANCHO SANTIAGO ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-130-017 WHEREAS, Barbara Saito, representing Nextel Communication, filed Planning Application No. 01-0196, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 01-0196 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. 01-0196 on February 6,2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opl:,ortunity 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. 01-0196 subject to the conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. 01-0196 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. 01-0196 (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 and the development code. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the Development Code, Ordnance 348, Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and the Municipal Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and th~ proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds the purposed conditional use permit as designed is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of the adjacent uses, buildings and structures, and will not have an adverse effect on surrounding development. R:\C U P~,001~01-0196 Nextel Communications\Staff Report.doc 7 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 rneets the zoning requirements for projects located within the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (Area 19). D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before 1:he Planning Commission er City Council. The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. F. 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. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0196 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects, Class 32). This project is an in-fill development and meets the following criteria: The site is 4.28 gross acres, which is less than the 5 aores required. The proposed project is consistent the General Plan and all of the General Plan policies. The project is consistent with the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, Ordinance 348 and the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The site has been previously developed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The approval of the project will not result in any adverse effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. The site is currently served by all required utilities and public services. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit) a request for a conditional use permit to design, construct, and operate an ur~manned Nextel Communication wireless telecommunication facility located at the Rancho Baptist Church site located at 40440 Rancho Santiago Road and known as Assessors Parcel No. 922-130-017. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 8th day of February 2002. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson R:\C U P~001~1-0196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.doc 8 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of February, 2002, 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~2001~01-O196 Nextel Communications~Staff Repo~.doc 9 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA01-0196 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT R:\C U P~2001~01-0196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.doc 10 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: A Conditional Use Permit to design and construct a seventy-five foot high-unmanned monopine tower to be operated as a Nextel Communications wireless communication facility located at the Rancho Baptist Church site at 40440 Santiago Road. DIF Category: Exempt Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 922-130-017 February 6, 2002 February 6, 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to e.nable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resoumes Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Departme, nt - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resoumes Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/appiicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. R:\C U P~2001~01-0196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.doc 3. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use permit. This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's Development Code. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year 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), and E (Elevations) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any Future co-located antenna panels, in conformance with this application, may be administratively approved by the Planning Director The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to the colors and materials on the existing buildings located at 40440 Rancho Santiago Road. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning r)ivision staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 12. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D and E", (Site Plan and Elevations) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Cornmunity 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 "E". Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temec'ula Fee Schedule. 14. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that show.,; all existing landscaping and any proposed landscaping. 15. A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease the will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the Planning Director. The agreement shall be in accordance with section 17.40.210 of the ordinance and comply with all provisions set forth in this section. R:\C U P~.001~O1-0196 Nextel Communications~Stafl Report.doc 12 BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 16. 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. 17. 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 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. 18. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 19. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional 'with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 20. 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-Fdday 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 FIRE DEPARTMENT 21. 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. 22. Fire Department 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) 23. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and s'Ireets 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) 24. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 25. Provide a 2A: 10BC fire extinguisher inside each building or temp structure on the site. SI3ecial Conditions 26. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of ~Ihe Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. R:\C U P~001~01-O196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.doc 13 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) 27. 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) OTHER AGENCIES 28. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations .,;et forth in the letter from Eastern Information Center dated May 2,2001. 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 Printed Name Applicant Signature R:\C U P~2001~1-0196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.doc 14 ~ALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION ~YaTEM Depaln~.nt of Anthropology Universit~ of Car~on3ia Riv~e, CA 92~21.0418 Phone ({)oe) 787-s745 Fax (9o9) 787.54o9 May 2, 2001 TO: Rick RUsh City of Ternecula Planning Department RE: Cultural Resource Review Case: PA O1-0096 Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California HiStorical Resources Information System have been reviewed 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 s adjacent to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. . Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study is recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF// ) identified one or more cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated, Further study is not recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF//991 [part of larger project]) identified no cultural resources within the project boundaries. 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 d[ver~ed in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds ,and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. The submission of s cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Prese/'varion Planning Bulletin 4fa), December 1989. ~ Phase I Records search and field survey _ Phase II Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for 'significant' sites.] _ Phase III Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combinstion of the two.] _ Phase IV Monitor eerthmoving activities COMMENTS: The project area was examined in a non-systematic manner. It is recommended that the project area be surveyed systematically. If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center EIC~FRMS~TRANSMIT ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\C U P~2001~01o0196 Nextel CommunicatJons~Staff Report.doc 15 CITY OF TEMECULA ',, CASE NOS. - PA01-0196 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- February 6, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:\C U P~2001~01-0196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.doc 16 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (SP-2 Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - Very Low Density Residential (VL) CASE NOS. - PA01-0196 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 6, 2002 R:\C U P~2001\01-0196 Nextel Communications\Staff Report.doc 17 ClTY OFTEMECULA CASE NO. - PA01-0196 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 6, 2002 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SITE PLAN R:\C U P~2001~)1.0196 Nextel Communications~Staff Report.doc 18 CITY OF TEMEC~iA .< u CASE NO, - PA01-0196 EXHIBIT ' E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - February 6, 2002 R:\C U P',2001~1-0196 Nex~el CommunicationsgStaff Report.cloc 19 ITEM #5 A REPRESENTATIVE FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WILL BRIEF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A NEW WATER BILL THAT WAS RECENTLY PASSED ITEM #6 STAFF BRIEFING AND PHOTO PRESI-'NTATION ON RECENT FIELD TRIPS