Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010891 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMPORARY TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER- 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Flag Salute ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS JANUARY 8, 1991 - 7:00 PM Next in Order: ._O_r. dinance: No. 91-01 Resolution: No. 91-01 Pastor Gary Nelson Calvary Chapel Councilmember Birdsall Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks PUBLIC FORUM At the meeting held or1 the second Tuesday of each month, the City Council will devote a period of time (not to exceed 30 minutes) for the purpose of providing the public an opportunity to discuss topics of interest with the Council. The members of the City Council will respond to questions and may give direction to City staff. The Council is prohibited, by the provisions of the Brown Act, from taking any official action on any matter which is not on the agenda. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item nQl; listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. If you desire to address the Council on an item with appears on the agenda, the "Request to Speak" form must be filled out and filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. 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 City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 2/agenda/O 10891 I 01/03/91 CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 2.2 2.3 Approve the minutes of December 11, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of December 18, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of December 19, 1990 as mailed. 3 Resolution ADoroving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. 4 Claim for Damaqes - Harvell vs. County of Riverside/City of Temecula RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Deny the Claim for Damages. 2/agenda010881 01/03/91 5 Second ReadinQ of Ordinance Relatinq to Zone Change for Nicolas and Liefer Roads RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICA TION CONTAINED IN DEVEL OPMENT PERMIT NO. 5663, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R-2. 5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO R-R- 1 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ON 5. 02 ACRES OF PROPER TY L OCA TED ON THE NOR THEA ST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD 6 Second Reading of Waste Management Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING INTEGRA TED WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY, AUTHORIZING THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICES BY THE CITY OR PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE OR PERMIT AND REPEALING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA 7 ,Adoorion of Murrieta Creek Area DrainaQe Plan and Fee Uodate RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN AND FEE UPDATE 2/agenda:) 10891 3 01/03/81 8 Acceotance of Public Imorovements in Tract No. 20882-1 For improvement of streets, drainage, and the installation of sewer and water systems in portions of Margarita Road and Avenida Sonoma, and in Corte San Luis and Corte Carrizo. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 8.2 8.3 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 20882-1; Authorize the reduction of street, sewer, and water letters of credit; Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 9 Additional Right-of-Way Dedication Along Green Tree Road An offer of dedication along the west side of Green Tree Road, north of Pauba Road. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept the additional dedication along Green Tree Road for road, drainage, and utility purposes, but not as part of the City Maintained Road System. 10 Dedication of Merlot Crest Realignment Consideration of new alignment at the intersection of Zinfandel Avenue and Chenin Blanc Street. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Accept the dedication of Merlot Crest realignment for Road, Drainage and Utility purposes, but not as a part of the City Maintained Road System. 11 2/~gend~/O 108~ 1 Tentative Tract MaD No. 21673 A 14 residential lot subdivision with a minimum lot .size of 7,200 square feet on 4.16 acres located on the north side of Rancho Vista Road, east of Margarita Road. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Final Tentative Tract Map No. 21673, Amendment No. 1, subject to the Conditions of Approval. 4 01/03191 12 City-Wide Soeed Survey Program RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the City Council approve the proposed City-wide Speed Survey Program. 13 Flood Light Purchase RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize the City Manager to Request Bids for Flood Lights. 14 Policy Reqardine Preparation of Minutes and Retention of Audio and Video Tapes RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt the attached policy regarding the preparation of all City Council and City Commission minutes. CSD MEETING - (To be held at 8:00 PM) Please see separate agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS 15 Negative Declaration for the Widenine of Ynez Road to Six Lanes from Rancho California Road to Aoricot Street RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration with the mitigation measures, as proposed for the Ynez Road widening. 15.2 Direct the City Clerk to post and file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the Board of the County of Riverside. 211gendl~110g91 6 01/03/91 16 Extension of Television/Radio Antenna Moratorium Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-01, WHICH DECLARES AMORA TORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS 17 Tentative Tract 25603 South side of Margarita Road, approximately 1,500 feet easterly of Moraga Road RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 57 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1500 FEET EASTERLY OF MORAGA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 921-370-005 17.2 Deny Tentative Tract No. 25603 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report. 18 Vestinq Tentative Tract 23143. Extension of Time RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVlNG A FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VES TING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23143, A SUBDIVISION WITH 1,026 RESIDENTIAL LOTS 2/~genda/O 10891 6 01/03/81 19 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 23143, Change of Zone 5535 RECOMMENDATION: Continue to the meeting of January 22, 1991. COUNCIL BUSINESS 20 Communitv Service Funding Reauest Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve recommendations contained in Attachment A of the staff report for the Community Services funding requests. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: January 15, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. 2/~gend~/O108g 1 7 01/031~1 ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD DECEMBER 11, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:03 PM at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Gary Nelson, Calvary Chapel. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Moore. PUBLIC FORUM Ray McLaughlin, 30025 Front Street, requested that the problem on La Serena Way, caused by the Buie Development, be placed on the agenda for discussion. Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, reported that the height of the slope in question is actually less than approved on the specific plan. Mr. McLaughlin stated the point of the slope is six feet higher than it should be, and it does not have a shelf. Gary Thornhill reported that staff would be happy to meet with Mr. McLaughlin. Nate Dibiasi, 30445 Mira Loma Drive, objected to the reelection of Mayor Parks for a second term, stating he felt this position should be rotated. Hinutes\12\11\90 -1- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve the Consent Calendar Items 1 - 5. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Moore, .. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda· City Treasurer's Report for the Months Ending August 31. 30. 1990 and October 31. 1990 2.1 Receive and file. Resolution Approving List of Demands 3.1 1990. September Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-118 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of December 25. 1990 4.1 Approve the cancellation of the City Council meeting scheduled for December 25, 1990. nut es\l 2\11 \90 - 2- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 Release of Monument bond for Tract No. 20848 5.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 20848· 5.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864 Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, reported this is a request by the applicant to subdivide 22 acres into 260 condominium units. He said this project was originally approved by the County, at which time an appeal was filed, which was referred to the City of Temecula. He said the City reviewed it and denied it based on concerns regarding drainage, density, open space and project design issues. He stated after numerous discussions with the applicant, a much superior design and project is before the Council at this time. He stated this project has changed from apartments to condominiums, with a reduction of density. He reported the project was approved by the Planning Commission on a 3/2 vote, and staff recommends the following: Adopt the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864; Adopt Resolution No. 90-119, approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26549; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and Adopt Resolution No. 90-120 approving Plot Plan No. 10864, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. City Attorney Field reported the Council received a letter alleging Commissioner Chiniaeff had a conflict of interest when he voted on this matter before the Planning Commission. As a result, an investigation was launched and Mr. Field reported his findings concluded that no conflict of interest existed. Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, reported on the drainage issues for this property. He explained this project currently drains directly on to the adjoining property owned by the Oder family. Mr. Stewart stated after development of the property, none of the site will drain on the adjacent area. Hinutes\12\11\90 -]- 12/28/90 city Council Minutes December 11, 1990 Councilmember Mu6oz asked if there had been discussions with the applicant regarding water retention facilities on site? Doug Stewart answered the applicant's representative will present the Council with this information. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:40 PM. Larry Markum, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant, stated the applicant has worked with staff and the Oder family, and agreement has been reached on a series of conditions that would alleviate their concerns. He stated these conditions were offered at the Planning Commission Hearing but were not appended to the conditions, however they are still offered. Mr. Markurn stated in regards to a first flush provision, the applicant would propose that down stream catch basins provide for stripping surface trash and sediment. Councilmember Lindemans asked how the question of school children crossing the Oder property would be handled. Mr. Markurn answered that the applicant would provide for a ten foot easement dedication, so if developing a walkway can be worked out by the school district, the land will be available. Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 8:02 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:03 PM. Robert L. Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, #63, stated his concerns regarding flooding. He said the problem with children crossing his property to go to school is a safety issue, explaining there is a dangerous bank and deep flowing creek, when it rains. Mr. Oder stated that he and Larry Markurn agreed upon additional conditions of approval that would satisfy both parties, and requested they be included. He stated he could not understand why the Planning Commission did not include these conditions of approval at their hearing. Mr. Oder asked the City Engineer to address the issue of flood control and the encasement of the 15" Sewer Line. Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, stated the Flood Control District has reviewed this proposal and has accepted the drainage from this project into Empire Creek, and explained the drainage is not a major amount of water. He said the project developer has agreed to put that water into the creek below the existing structure in question. He reported Flood Control is in the process of making the appropriate changes to this structure. Mr. Oder stated he is concerned about erosion control, and although the applicant has agreed to provide erosion control year-round, this condition is not in writing. nutes\17\11\90 -4- 12/28/90 city Council Minutes December 11, 1990 Mayor Parks asked Mr. Oder if he has a list of conditions that are not listed? Mr. Oder answered he does have a list. Robert J. Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, #63, stated he had expected adjustments in the conditions of approval from discussions at the Planning Commission hearing, specifically dealing with agreed points. He stated he was disappointed that they did not appear, and asked that they be added to the conditions. Councilmember Lindemans asked why agreed upon conditions were not included in the conditions of approval. Gary Thornhill stated that no additional conditions were imposed by the Planning Commission at the hearing. Helen Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, #63, said she felt there is presently a large vacancy level in apartments which will cause other social problems and approval of this project would only aggravate this situation. Tamar C. Stein, 2049 Century Park East, #2800, Los Angeles, representing the Oder family stated her first request is that the Council direct staff to add the conditions that have been proposed by the applicant and agreed upon by the Oders. She said they were rejected by the Planning Commission, but the Oder's feel they are the right conditions to solve the problems that are present. Mayor Parks asked Mr. Markum if the applicant agrees with the conditions. Mr. Markurn stated he has a few minor variations regarding the insurance issue. He stated the applicant would provide proof of insurance to the City, and any adjacent property owner could obtain a copy. He said he does not have a problem with the CC&R condition that this would not be mass leased, but asked that the Council condition future condominium projects in the same way. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he feels if a project is approved as condominiums, it should remain as condominiums. He stated he applauds the applicant for initiating first flush measures at the site. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:40 PM. Gary Thornhill stated staff has reviewed the requested conditions of approval and has no problem adding them at this time. He explained some of them are already handled with the normal process, however staff does not object to these being imposed. City Attorney Field said it is not clear that the Oder family and the applicant are discussing the same issues. City Manager Dixon suggested having both parties initial the new conditions. Hi nutes\l;;\11\90 -5- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt negative declaration and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864, subject to the addition of conditions of approval; and adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 TO CONSTRUCT A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.22 ACRES LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 9~-290-011 and; RESOLUTION NO. 90-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26549 TO SUBDIVIDE A 22.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 9~.~.-290-011 Tamar Stein stated she would need to review the conditions before initialing these conditions. Mayor Parks suggested continuing this item until after a recess at which time the parties could meet. City Attorney Field suggested reopening the public hearing so that new testimony could be heard, Mayor Parks reopened the public hearing at 8:50 PM. RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:50 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 PM. 6. (CONT.) Mayor Parks asked Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, if the additional conditions of approval had been reviewed by both parties? Mr. Thornhill asked that the meeting be adjourned to the CSD Meeting to give the parties more time. nutes\12\11\90 -6- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 110 1990 Mayor Parks adjourned to the CSD Meeting at 9:11 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the CSD meeting at 9:20 PM. 6. (CONT.) It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to withdraw the motion. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Lindemans to continue this item to the end of the agenda. unanimously carried. Councilmember The motion was Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 9:21 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 9:22 PM. 7. Parcel Map 25212/Change of Zone No. 5663 Councilmember Lindemans excused himself from discussion and voting due to a conflict of interest. Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, stated the public hearing was continued from the November 27, 1990 meeting, for the purpose of preparing the appropriate resolution for approval of the project, and for staff to make a recommendation relative to the one acre designation. He reported the recommendation is for RR, 1 acre designation. He said in addition, staff is recommending the replacement of Condition No. 37, contained in the staff report. He reported the applicant is in agreement with the additional condition. Steve Doulames, 23769 Five Tribes Trail, Murrieta, stated he is in agreement with all the conditions of approval. Luis Morgan, 240 Liefer Road, stated he and the other property owners were not properly notified. He suggested that if the zone change is approved a condition be placed on the area limiting mobile homes to double-wide units with an age limit on them. City Manager Dixon reported the only way to add such a condition as Mr. Morgan suggests would be by the development of CC&R's for the property. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:30 PM. }4inutes\12\11\90 - 7- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25212 TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.02 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR PARCELS AND TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING FROM R-R-2.5 TO R-R-1 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS AND LIEFER ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-280-012 Councilmember Mu6oz expressed a desire to hear from more property owners in the area. City Manager Dixon suggested developing an interim plan for the area, involving all property owners to come back before the Council in 90 days. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu6oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5663, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R- 2.5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO R-R- 1 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ON 5.02 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCA TED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD. I~inutes\12\11\90 -8- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu6oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans It was moved by Councilmember Lindemarts, seconded by Councilmember Moore to move to Agenda Item No. 11. The motion was unanimously carried. 1 1. Sphere of Influence Study City Manager Dixon reported this matter was considered two weeks ago and staff was directed to meet with other groups who would be affected. He stated he and Consultant Bill Meacham met with groups from the East Side, or the new CSA-149, and also met with representatives from the Wine Country. He said the City has come up with a boundary for an easterly sphere. He stated the line was extended to include the Vail Ranch and Red Hawk Development. He said further Council direction was to meet with the Council- elect from Murrieta. He reported it had been resolved that the boundary between the two cities east of Winchester Road would be in the sphere of Temecula, with a caveat that property owners within that area not designated would still have the right to request inclusion, not only in terms of sphere but annexation. He said a boundary was drawn to the west, which is southerly of the wildlife preserves. Mr. Dixon emphasized that inclusion in the sphere does not automatically mean annexation. Bill Meacham stated the map posted shows ~ revised sphere. He said the areas removed from the original map are the Wine Country and some adjoining properties. He said because of the indian reservation, Vail Lake was also left out of the sphere. He said Vail Ranch and Red Hawk were included. He said the sphere would include the French Valley area, Lake Skinner, the Santa Rosa CSA area and down to the San Diego County border, including much of the commercial area of Highway 79. Michael Huebner, 45850 Via Vaquero Road, representing 800 people in the Santa Rosa CSA area, stated this area requests exclusion from the City of Temecula sphere. He stated this area has its own CSA area which provides services necessary. nutes\12\11\90 -9- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11o 1990 Allen Barnum, 46569 El Vianto Seco Drive, read a statement from the West Side Association Council, opposing being included in the City's Sphere of Influence. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu6oz to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Fred W. Grab, 37795 Ashfield Lane, Winchester, opposed being included in the Sphere of Influence. John Moramarco, P.O. Box 906, asked that Lake Skinner be excluded in the City's Sphere of Influence. Ken Barnes, 39695 Berenda Road, asked that Lake Skinner be excluded in the City's Sphere. Steve Corona, 29926 Corte Tolano, asked that his property now be included in the Sphere of Influence and requested that Lake Skinner not be included. Wendy Woolurn 37850 Ashfield Lane, said she owns property at the gate of Lake Skinner and asked if this is included in the City's Sphere. City Manager Dixon answered at this time it is not included. Councilmember Moore asked if all of Winchester Road is included in the City's sphere or just to centerline? City Manager Dixon stated it will include all of Winchester Road. Mayor Parks asked about the area surrounding Lake Skinner, and asked if the specific plans that have indicated a desire to annex to the City have been excluded. Mr. Meacham stated that five property owners north of Winchester have indicated a desire to annex. City Manager Dixon stated that the two cities, Temecula and Murrieta, have agreed on the area Temecula will file, however if property owners wish to annex into Temecula, they will not be opposed by Murrieta. Councilmember Mu6oz stated that at some point the City needs to submit it's sphere and let further changes be made by LAFCO. Councilmember Birdsall said it does not appear to be advantageous to go beyond the ridgeline on the west side. She stated these residents do not wish to be included in the City, and suggested excluding this area. Minutes\lZ\l 1\90 -10- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 Mayor Parks called a one minute break at 10:20 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 10:21 PM. A straw vote was taken on extending the City's Sphere of Influence on Rancho California Road up to the ridge line. The vote carried as follows: The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None A straw vote was taken to include Lake Skinner in the Sphere of Influence. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 NOES: 2 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Mu6oz, Parks Birdsall, Lindemans None A straw vote was taken on including a corridor on Winchester/Highway 79 with the agreement that the line may vary one side or another along Winchester Road based upon the owners desires. The vote carried as follows: The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Hi nut es\lZ\l 1 \90 - 11 - 1Z/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to direct staff to make adjustments to the boundaries and to file an application for consideration of the Sphere of Influence by LAFCO. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Solid Waste Haulers City Attorney Field reported Items 8, 9 and 10 constitute a three step process to address solid waste. He recommended giving all haulers notice that permits expire in no later than five years. He stated the second action is to transfer authority of collecting a rate schedule from the County to the City. It was moved by Councilmember Mu5oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore tO: 8.1 Authorize the City Attorney to notify solid waste haulers that their permits expire in no later than five years; and 8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-122 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING FEES PURSUANT TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 REGULA TING THE COLLECTION, TRANSFER AND REMOVAL OF SOLID WASTE The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None nutes\ 12\11 \90 - 12- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 10. Integrated Waste Management Ordinance City Attorney Field stated this is an integrated waste management ordinance. He distributed an amended version addressing gardeners who do their own hauling. He said this ordinance would authorize the City to issue franchises and set the franchise fee at eight percent (8%). He reported it would also authorize the City Manager to establish the type of containers to be used, and set the collection as once weekly for residential and twice weekly for food service establishments. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING INTEGRA TED WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY, AUTHORIZING THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICES BY THE CITY OR PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE OR PERMIT, AND REPEALING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz-, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Solid Waste Hauling and Recycling - Request for Proposals City Attorney Field asked that the Council not take formal action at this time but continue the matter to the meeting of January 8, 1991, to allow time for consideration of the attached Request For Proposals. He stated this is a time for comments from the Council and the public. Councilmember Lindemans asked that the financial competency of the bidder be seriously considered. nut es\ 12\11 \90 - 13- 1Z/ZS/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 Councilmember Moore asked what provisions were made for interruption of service, such as a strike. City Attorney Field answered that in time of a strike, the City would have the authority to take over service responsibilities. City Manager Dixon explained that a cash deposit would be required in a sufficient amount, and if the hauler does not produce, these funds would be used to contract with another provider. City Attorney Field stated this does not include recycling, however the RFP will ask for proposals in that area. Alan Ng, 2955 Avenida Del Sol, representing the Temecula Valley High School Earth Club, asked that curb side recycling be enacted as soon as possible. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the system would require one container for recycables and another for other items, or some other kind of system. City Attorney Field answered it will be the same system that is used in areas surrounding Temecula, which uses a 17 gallon container for all recycables and another container for everything else. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, stated the feeling of Riverside County is that a 25% reduction will not be attained without green waste recycling. He stated the present trend is to add a container for green waste. Councilmember Mu~oz asked how used oil would be collected, and suggested it not be done curbside, but rather at a central collection point. Mr. Hreha stated there is a lot of opposition to curbside oil recycling. He stated there is a plan to locate a permanent local facility to collection oil, car batteries, etc. Councilmember Lindemarts asked that information be provided on how many trucks leave Temecula, how many loads are dumped and how much room is available at the current landfill. Mayor Parks stated he has a problem with the RFP in that there is a requirement for a $500 application fee, and the proposals will not be publicly opened or read. He asked that this be made public record. City Manager Dixon stated this will be a public bid. City Manager Dixon stated the bid will be sent to all haulers who have done any hauling within the City of Temecula, or to anyone requesting a copy. He asked the members of the Council to review the proposal and make any recommendations desired, so a final document can be presented on January 8, 1991. nut es\ 12\ 11 \90 - 14- 12/Z8/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to continue this item to the meeting of January 8, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Parks to extend the meeting to 11:45. The motion was unanimously carried. Bill Meacham reported that the San Diego Board of Supervisors has rejected the Blue Canyon Landfill, and they have not approved the EIR on the other two dumps, Aspen Road or Gregory Canyon. He stated it appears that these actions will extend the process another two years. He said that further exploration of the Eagle Mountain alternative, has been accelerated. 12. 13. Rancho California Town Center Traffic Signalization City Manager Dixon reported that the City does not have anything firm on this item and it will be brought back on the agenda as soon as the report is received. He stated no formal action is required on this item. Consideration of Establishing New Position and Classification City Manager Dixon reported this item is to authorize the establishment of an Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services Administration and to adopt an appropriate resolution modifying the personnel classification. He said the salary range has been modified and recruiting would be possible in this range. Edward Doran, 39985 Stamos Court, asked why an Assistant City Manager is necessary, and stated he felt salaries are too high. Councilmember Birdsall stated she is in favor of establishing this position stating the managing of a City is too much for any one person to accomplish. M i nutes\l 2\11 \90 - 15- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 City Manager Dixon explained the Assistant City Manager would handle the day-to-day administration, in terms of personnel, risk management, and general management. He stated this would give him time to bring together developmental services, work with industrial clients and work more closely with the City Council. Mayor Parks called a one minute break at 11:30 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 11.'31 PM. 14. Update Report- Mello-Roos District CFD 88-12 Tim Serlet, City Engineer, stated at the next meeting the agreement with J.F. Davidson for work on CFD 88-12, for the widening of Ynez Road, the additional on-ramps at Winchester and Rancho California Road and the Apricot Overcrossing will be on the next agenda. He said the second property owners meeting is scheduled for December 20, 1990, at 10:00 AM at City Hall and the environmental assessment work on Ynez Road is proceeding and plans should be submitted on January 4, 1990. He said the aerial mapping for all projects has been done, and it is anticipated that the project study reports for Caltrans will be completed by the end of January. Mayor Parks asked when bond sales are anticipated. Mr. Serlet answered the end of January or first part of February. (Cont.) Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864 Doug Stewar~, Deputy City Engineering, stated all parties (the City, the applicant and the adjacent property owners) have agreed to a set of conditions and signatures have been obtained. Mr. Stewart informed the Council that none of the conditions have substantially changed from what has been presented to the Council, including the planning and engineering conditions. He stated it is staff's intent to have these conditions typed and initialed, and recommended the Council adopt them. He explained two exhibits have been added to help clarify some of the conditions, numbered E and F. He stated the wording on the resolution should be changed to read Exhibits A - F. Minutes\1Z\11\90 -16- 12/28/90 city Council Minutes December 11, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendations with the addition of conditions of approval and adding Exhibits E and F as follows: 6.1 6.2 6.3 Adopt a negative declaration and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-119 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 10864 TO CONSTRUCT ,4 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.22 ACRES LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 9'f.~.-290-011 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-120 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26549 TO SUBDIVIDE A 22.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 260 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 9'f.'f.-290-O 11 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu6oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Moore, CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon recommended at the conclusion of the meeting of December 18, 1990, Council consider a date to adjourn to a special meeting at City Hall to review site plan and system furniture for the new City Hall facilities. He asked that the Council consider December 19, 20, or 21 to hold this meeting. Xinutes\12\11\90 - 17- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 11, 1990 Mr. Dixon reported that on Saturday, December 8, 1990, staff interviewed General Plan Consultants. He said specific proposals will be requested and due in January so this consultant can be chosen quickly. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mu~oz requested that staff put together a resolution supporting a local film festival. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 11:45 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk nutes\12\11\90 - 18- 12/28/90 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD DECEMBER 18, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:03 PM at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCA T/ON The invocation was given by Pastor Marty Edwards, Lambs Fellowship. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Mu~oz. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Parks presented a Special Achievement Award to the Temecula Valley High School Football Team for winning the CIF Championship and its outstanding example of citizenship. PUBLIC COMMENTS Grayce Kelly, 40371 Calle Medusa, questioned the timing of improvements to the intersection at Nicolas and Winchester Roads, stating an interim improvement needs to be done immediately. Max Gilliss, the City's Consultant, reported that everything possible is being done to move this improvement along and that it should be in place in under 90 days. nutes\1Z\18\90 - 1 - 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 18, 1990 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Parks stated he would be abstaining from Consent Calendar Item No. 8. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 10. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Minutes 2.1 2.2 Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None Lindemans Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Approve the minutes of November 27, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of December 4, 1990 as mailed. Resolution Approving List of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. tlinutes\12\18\90 -2- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 18, 1990 Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the Four Months Ending October 31, 1990 4.1 Receive and file the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures. 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-125 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO TRANSFER ~26,000 FROM FINANCE DEPARTMENT SALARIES TO CONSUL TING AND $90,000 FROM BUILDING SALARIES TO CONSUL TING FEES. Public Improvements - Parcel Map 23354 5.1 Accept public improvements within Parcel Map 23354. 5.2 Authorize the reduction in Letter of Credit amounts and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Public Im/~rovements - Parcel Map 21592 6.1 Accept public improvements in Parcel Map 21592. 6.2 Authorize the reduction in Letter of Credit amounts and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Final Parcel Map No. 23496 7.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 23496 subject to the conditions of approval. 14 i nut es \ 12\ 18\90 - 3- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 18, 1990 0 10. Final Parcel Map No. 25037 8.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 25037 subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Final Tract Map No. 23583 9,1 Approve Final Tract Map No. 23583 subject to the conditions of approval. Ratification of Professional Engineering Services Contract with J. Fo Davidson Associates. Inc. to Provide Design Services for Community Facilities District 88- 12. 10.1 Approve contract as submitted. Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz None Lindemans Parks PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Extension of Time - Parcel Map No. 23430 Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, reported this is a request by Bedford Properties for a time extension for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23430. He stated the revised map was approved in July, however in approving it, the time was not extended on the original map. Mr. Thornhill said that Item 12 on the agenda is the approval of the Final Map, but in order to do this a time extension must be granted. He recommended adopting Resolution No. 90-126 approving the first extension of time, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:15 PM. Having no requests to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:1 5 PM. ~4 i nutes\l 2\18\90 : 4- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 18, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUIA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23430 REVISED NO. I A NINE (9) PARCEL COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION OF 44.6 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF YNEZ AND WINCHESTER ROADS. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu6oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans COUNCIL BUSINESS 12. Final Parcel Map No. 23430 Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, stated this map is essentially a financing overlays Plot Plan No. 2, which is Palm Plaza. He stated this is a proposal to divide 44 acres into 9 commercial lots. Mr. Stewart recommended approving Final Parcel Map No. 23430 subject to the conditions of approval. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve Final Parcel Map No. 23430 subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu6oz, Parks None Lindemans 14 i nut es\ 12\ 18\90 - 5 - 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 18, 1990 1 3. Appointment of Alternate to WRCOG and Discussion of the Organizations Goals City Manager Dixon stated in the past a Chair was appointed and it would be appropriate to appoint an alternate, and Mayor Parks submitted to the Council a copy of WRCOG's goals. Mayor Parks stated the proposed goals were distributed for the Council's review so that by February, a City position could be reached. He said he would like to get the input of the Councilmembers, and finalize this in late January. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to appoint Councilmember Moore as alternate to WRCOG. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon reported that the RDA suit should be resolved within the new few weeks. He also announced that he has been asked to serve on the Ethics Committee of the League of California Cities. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS City Attorney Field gave an update on CFD 88-12, the Ynez Corridor. He stated that the Environmental Assessment date has been moved forward to January 8, 1991. Along with this the sales tax agreement and one Or more acquisition agreements. He reported the joint acquisition agreement, in which the City agrees with the County that they will fund the improvements and the City will serve as construction and project manager, will be before the Council on January 22, 1991. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mu~oz asked Captain Sayre to give a brief report on the status of funding for the traffic directors. Captain Rick Sayre reported that the revenue carried over from last fiscal year will be sufficient to continue the project through the end of January. He stated Council approved an additional $50,000 in the Public Safety budget for the overcrossing project to carry through July when the lights could nutes\ 12\18\90 -6- 12/28/90 City Council Minutes December 18, 1990 possibly be installed. He said currently letters are being sent to businesses in town asking them to contribute matching funds so the $50,000 can be augmented. Tim Serlet, City Engineer, reported he and David Dixon met with members of CalTrans last week, and arrived at a tentative schedule for completion of lights by July 4, 1991. Councilmember Birdsall asked if this includes the restriping and construction of the median. Mr. Serlet answered this would be done in conjunction with the signalization. Councilmember Mu~oz asked when signalization of Winchester and Ynez will be completed. Mr. Serlet answered construction has begun and it should be completed within 60 - 90 days. Mayor Parks asked Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, to give a report on the General Plan Consultants. Mr. Thornhill stated that he is currently working on the RFP to be sent to the consultants. He said this list has been narrowed down to three firms, and he anticipates getting the RFP out in the next week and a half, with a two week response time. Councilmember Moore announced her appointment to the League of California Cities Housing and Economic Development Committee as the representative for the Inland Empire Division. Mayor Parks requested that staff research SB 2557 and determine if the City is on record in opposition. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 7:40 PM to a Special Meeting on December 19, 1990, at City Hall to discuss space planning and furniture. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Lindemans absent. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk M i nutes\l 2\18\90 - 7- 12/28/90 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD DECEMBER 19, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 4:12 PM in the Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemarts, Moore, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were offered. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Establishment of Budgets and Selection of Vendors for City Hall Improvements City Manager David Dixon introduced the staff report and requested the City Council briefly tour the space in Building C. The City Manager then described the elements of the floor plan for the building. He also explained the plans for Building D, for the immediate future and after the Sheriff's Department moves to the new facility being built in the French Valley area. In response to a question from Councilmember Lindemans, Mr. Dixon stated that the leasehold improvements which are not movable will be amortized over a period of approximately two to three years. City Manager Dixon advised the Council that the decision on systems furniture will be delayed until staff has had an opportunity to make the necessary comparisons, since the vendor's quotes were received too late to prepare an in-depth analysis prior to this meeting. Minutes\ 1 2\19\90 -1 - 12/27/90 City Council Minutes December 19, 1990 Councilmember Lindemans stated he would like to have all of the presentations made at this meeting and also delay decisions regarding telephones, security, computer networking and maintenance. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemens, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to utilize the meeting as a workshop with the understanding that purchasing decisions will not be made until January 8, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems, introduced the presentations as follows: Security bids were submitted by AEI and Price Security. AEI quoted an installation price of $1,150, and a monthly service of $35. per month. The quote submitted by Price Security was $1,720 with a monthly service fee of $40. Mike Lynch, Security Consultant with Price Security Systems, addressed the City Council speaking in favor of having the City continue with Price Security Systems for its building security needs. Mr. Hreha then explained the plans for the computer network system planned for the entire building. He also explained the costs outlined in the maintenance quote included final cleaning and moving expenses. Joe Hreha finally discussed the A/V equipment and the telephone budgets with the Council. He recommended hiring the Phone Man and GTE to complete the installation of the existing CentraNet system in the new building at a total cost of $10,000. Steelcase Presentation, William M. Kuhnert, representing BKM Total Office and Steelcase introduced John Schiedler, who outlined the features of the Steelcase systems furniture. He demonstrated a number of the differences between this furniture and others in the marketplace. Harpers Presentation, Rosemarie Mclune of Systems Source introduced Janet Jansen representing Harpers who demonstrated the features of the Harpers systems furniture. She stressed the flexibility of the furniture design. John Schiedler made final remarks, stating the product used by the City of Temecula would be made in Tustin, California and he described several additional features of the work surfaces of the Steelcase furniture. Minutes\l 2\19\90 -2- 12/27/90 City Council Minutes December 19, 1990 Janet Jansen, clarified a point regarding the Harpers warranty, and demonstrated features of the panel coverings and the barrel locks contained in the Harpers furniture. City Manager Dixon thanked the vendors for their presentations. He stated the staff recommendations will be on the January 8, 1991 City Council agenda for their decision. CITY MANAGER REPORTS No report presented. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS No report presented. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS No reports presented. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at 6:12 PM to a meeting to be held January 8, 1991, at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California at 7:00 PM. RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Minutes\l 2\19\90 -3- 12/27/90 ITEM NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $360,659.92. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 8th day of January, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 124 01/02/91 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 3/Resos 124 01/02/91 LTM f_O IJ t~ 0 L. C 0 ILl '0 u · 0 > > '! (I U W ~ LL W W F- U- W © 0 0 LU W b_ .J d: ~ ~ w 0~ ~ W C~ Q W d '-" 0 ~' I- W l ,=. ,-. ~J o m W Z '¥ ~ ..J Z W bJ ~ 0 i >- U W ["- LIJ I- WO 0 ' '"4' 0 0 0 © 0 ,,-4 0 0 0 ~ Z Z© ~0 ~O ~0 0 0 0 o ~..~ o ~ o ~'~ o ~ o ~ 0 0 0 ,m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f~ ZO · it ,l: Z W W J 13 h! W _rg _m ,~, r~ O_ L 00~ ~3 U C ~-. irl .E .r 7 .~ fJ ' C' C' 0 r~ O 0 C' 0 C, m "~' 0 C, C, X ,-: X d o d ,-, ~- ;~ w ¢ ;; ;; z (0 ~p f~ -P W 4~ 0 ~ I- W I- Z I-- CO ~ W v U ~ L ~ u LL U U 0 T .E 0 .E L) .E O O O U _1 O W © © © 0 0 O, n~ 0 W O~ Z 0 W~ Z,-~ Z W ZO O0~ c,~% 0 0 0 c~ .T C, C' 0 0 0 I-,- I-- U ~ U r' r- Z F- [3 tO CO .- <I' r, I-. ~ Zl'-- 0 ~ ~t; W C~ ~: r~ ~ r3h Z ~-- ~ OZ ~ ~ ,-' ~ :E I J_ ~ ~ ~-'~ -] 0 ~ 0 ,'r r-', ~ -A r.D F- I I ~W CO u LOUl~ 2~ td Q~ ,~ Q. bJ r' Ld Ld Ld .~03 LL r_1 Z '- "~ (J ~- Z '- '-. ~- .-, ,,,4 0 b) W t.) ,..4 t? rj C 0 03 r-.: ;L C' ,3, 0 Z ~-'- f.O'. 0%'--% z -J Z C' 0 ~ ,~-., C 0 C, J ~ -~ fl: li3 "" t'? ,~ t'l' ~ ,-' C' W C' E:: C ,C C, O_ I~,IC'4 ~ f'.~ ~1 {'4 0.1 ~-~ 0 W 04 C~ ,:, ~. i I ~_O'O' 8_0' ~ ,~' ,D ~ b3 iZl If) JJ') O' -~ --~ 0~ -'~ g' '3' C' 0 O3 CO ,3, 0 0 0 0 ,3, 0 C.I ~".l ['-1 -0 -0 -0 :R ;~: :~, ,5 6 o ¢'4Z f_g O_ C F' q ¢_ 4.: (.2 C E L 'o t] C C, 0 0 0 C, h) r.. r,. 0 0 o o c,c,o,5 o ~, 'C',C,O 0 0 0 O O0 0 F- WUJO WWO~ m~zo ~D Z ~. 0'000 0000 Z J OOO0~000~ W ~W 0 Z 0 2> 0 f',l 0 ('4 0 C ,0 C 0 C C, 0 0 C, C' ,D '5 d x d ,6 c; d b') b') C' C'I I'-- b3 r.; r-.; ,-' 0" r..) W x © © © C b3 (.~ E C_ ©, © 0 C' © © 0 d d C; 0 0 000© ©OO0 © 0 0 0 0 0 © © COC' LO 114 ~ >- n QLd LOTh ZF- COl-- tO ~- LL L~ £~ W H © © .Z I- F- Z F- Z © 0~ © 0 LdO © 0 o; © 1.13 O0 .J 'W b.O CO 0 0 W J Z O~ W b_ hi 0~ 0 W 0 p- Z 0 -0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d'd 0 0 ~.-~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Or.., ?, 0© O< :, C;:.> ,'.>'L:' © 0 bJ Z W LW Z 0 0 C~ Z _., bJO' mO Z~ m Ld ~0 0 ~0 © 0 0 0 © © ,3, © © 0 CO W k- I,.d Z W CL 0 0'- © 0 0 bJ ~ © © C t J9 ~t W Z ~] E © ~ L U t ~ 0 r W C.l 1:3 ~0 .::30 (0 W Z 0 O) W r-) ,~ 0 © © O0 ~-.~ t-'} ,,0 C,,O 0 P} C, 0 ('l ,~ ~'4 CO H ,', 0"- · 8 '~'0 0 ~ 1','], 0C4 _-D -~ Z ~: -~* Z 0 C, WO ZO~ O0~ I---8 ('4 0 W L~ hi W S. C '" 5 r6 L ,-~ 0 !11 fJl L 13 IJ ~ C :> > 0 C, C, C, C, t.9 b3 c. c, :!: o o ooo o C, ~ C, C, ,Z, C, C, C, J ,£ d ,--:,S, Xdc~ c: C, 0 O0 C, 0 C, 0 C, ,d ~ .-:r-. i'O b') ~ 0'- Lf'l 0 Lrj f.4 m C, © I~ C, C, C, 0 0 C, C, 0 C, dddd © 0 0 © r-I · t 0 C, 0 C, ,,'C, C- ~ c: 6 .: ,.-; ~*-0 C, 0 C' 0 OC, 0 h~ ~q IlZl ID C., 0 0 C, 'q'~ r..o oo,-.'.,o ~' c, o ,0 u~ m~ .~ :::, ~ -0 b'3 .0 ,8 C'.~ C4 t.':, t.') ~t -0 C O- U r- 4J I~ O] U if., ;( L C. U ~L U E L 0 6.' 8 0 Z> > C' C' C, 'C' C, W 0 LL Z W r--, C) t 0 Lb It. f~ ¢q m ILl 0 ,'r ~ I~ bJ I-- f.~ ~ W Z: 0 r' .%1 O Z E) ,-r, © c :> O hi C LUO 0~. (] 64 ~ ('.4 U.. hi b_ W rJ') cr 0"' ,C, 0'- r"'~ .%. -0 ('i C, OC' ,C. ,-., 0 c; d .S c, c, occ, c,,:, c, cc, ,_, c: c, c, c, c,c,o c, cc, c :. d ,Eddc:,::S ,4 ,3c: ct d c: ,S d dd,S c1 d,£,£ ,:~ .. 0 0 0 I-- I.-- t- i- .E. _c Z~W .JO ~Z ~W~ZZ~ ...~.. OZ.000 ZC, 00000 ~ . ~ · .00CO'DO h IlIll ~0000,C,O 0 0 0 Z ,-F _j r~ ILl ,-4 C4 i.- ~ U CO f-'3 ~ ~ W W [J - co w .... r~ ~.~ ~ Ld j~ H , · ~0 ~ .TZ Z 'Z I.- OW bJ W ~ W 0 £3 r. Sf.~ ~,'r bJ ~ ~- W W uJ Z .J Eft I- Lkl I-- x 0 L.) F- F-F-i- ~-- <Z <~ F:! U U 0 W >- I~ , Ij i ~ C' C, 'C' k- 0 C' C, C' 'C,C, '=. ::,t.9 >- ,8 L.) ~ ~ b3 ,C,0 ~ ~ ~ 'J.' f"~0 J ,C: 0 C'4 I-- C' ['.4~4 ~ --~ ~ L)'-. ~. 6.% 0'3'~ 0--%"- ' ' ['~ 0 ¢'; ('.4 ,', ('-.~ r..0 c.l D f-.4 o4 C'.~ (:~ ('] ,~ z F.I= ,~ ~ O_ 0 J ,=' 0 _1 ,C. LL C, C, C, C, -,-F C, ,C; C, ~ ("4 0 ~- 0 ~: t"4 _1 ~ ('.J (4 Z ~ .'-' ~ 6_,' ~ ~ I1. ~ ~ C, C, "~ D_ 4[ W r.D (4 C.4 ~ >4 O- $- ,~. 0 ~: ~ C, _1 Z '..' ,-, ,-. 6: ,..; W 0~ 0~ W 0 0~ ~ ~ O' ,~ O' ,J, 6'~ ,C, 'C' [~1 ~ ~ ~ ~-1 ~ ~ I i - ~ - ~, '~ -, C, 0 ,C, 0 .C, C, C 0 C. ~ ("4 1"'3 ~ b3 4 l ['i 12.1 Oi C'l £'4 C ~ 0 0 ,O 0 ,Z, c. - C ,O ,D ,0 ,x; 0 :g ,5 ,5 c, ,3 ..: !. J'L. F- £C ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Deputy City Clerk January 8, 1991 Claim for Damages - Harvell vs. County of Riverside/City of Temecula RECOMMENDATION: Deny the Claim for Damages BACKGROUND: This claim was reviewed by the City's Liability Insurance Carrier who recommends the City Council deny the Claim of Cheryl Lynn Harvell. Also please note: Date of Loss - September 16, 1989 was prior to the City's incorporation. LIFBMAN, REINER & M.CNFIL ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9210l November 29, 1990 LOS ANGELES OFFICE ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE CERTIFIED MAIL CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: City Clerk P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 RE: NOTICE OF CLAIM Date of Loss : September 16, 1989 Date of Service of Complaint: October 11, 1990 Our Client : Utility Trailer Sales Co. Caption of Main Action : HARVELL V. CTY. OF RIVERSIDE To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that this is a Notice of Claim which I am filing on behalf of my client, UTILITY TRAILER SALES COMPANY, regarding the above-entitled action. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Complaint which was served on my client, UTILITY TRAILER SALES COMPANY. Regarding the facts of the incident, I would refer you to the enclosed copy of the Complaint. The only information I have at this time is that the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, CHERYL LYNN HARVELL, suffered damages on September 16, 1989 at Front Street, 1600 feet south of Santiago Road in an unincorporated section of a:O6-O22.vma CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: City Clerk November 29, 1990 Page 2 Riverside County as more further described in paragraph III of the Complaint enclosed herewith. My client, UTILITY TRAILER SALES COMPANY, contends that it is not liable for the events and occurrences described in Plaintiff's Complaint. It further contends that the governmental agency to which this claim is presented is liable for said events and occurrences. It is my intent to file and serve a Cross-Complaint against the CITY OF TEMECULA for equitable indemnity, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. Please refer all further notices or inquiries to my office at the above-indicated address. If you require any further information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, LIEBMAN, REINER & McNEIL A Professional Corporation Richard R. Roy cc: DEANS AND HOMER/ATTN: Joe Mora a:06-022.~ JAMES E. SWINGLEY, ESQ. LEGAL OFFICES OF DAVID GREY 1551 Fourth Avenue, suite 70~ San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 232-3000 4 5 Attorney for Plaintiff CHERYL LYNN HARVELL $ [i:, 14 ;990 7 8 9 lO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CHERYL LYNN HARVELL, Plaintiff, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PUEBLO VIEJO SHOPPING PLAZA, PUEBLO VIEJO ASSOCIATES, HUNCO, RSS ASSOCIATES (OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA), RSS ASSOCIATES (OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA) UTILITY TRAILER SALES COMPANY,) . LLH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIN ) YU YUAN, AND DOES I to 100, ) Defendants. 17 inclusive, 20 ) CASE NO.: ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL ) INJURIES AND PROPERTY ) DAMAGES ) ) ) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGES) 21 As and for a First Cause of'Action, Plaintiff alleges: 9~2 I Plaintiff, CHERYL LYNN HARVELL, is a resident of the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of california. 25 II Plaintiff, CHERYL LYNN HARVELL, a competent adult, brings suit in her own behalf against the above-referenced Defendants for the 1 below stated reasons. ' IIi Defendants, a governmental entity and private parties, are sued separately for the person injuries and property damages that the plaintiff suffered on or about September 16, 1989, in an unincorporated section of Riverside County near Temecula, California, on Front Street 1600 feet South of Santiago Road at approximately 10:55 p.m. IV Plaintiff, CHERYL LYNN HARVELL, sets forth damages that properly place her in Superior Court of the State of California, in the Riverside County Judicial District, with proper venue being in the Court at the City of Riverside. v The true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, whether corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues such Defendants by such fictitious names and Plaintiff will ask leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes that all defendants sued as DOES herein are in some manner responsible for the acts herein alleged. vI At all times herein mentioned, Defendants DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, were the agents, servants and employees of the other named defendants, and were acting at all times within the scope and agency of their employment, and with the knowledge and consent of their principal and employer. 2 ! VII 2 On March 15, 1990, t~e Plaintiff presented to COUNTY OF 3 RIVERSIDE, a claim for injuries in the amount of $1,500,000.00, the 4 amount of damages sought in this action. A true and correct copy 5 of said claim is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and 6 incorporated herein by reference. 7 viii 8 On April 29, 1990, the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE rejected 9 Plaintiff's claim in its entirety by operation of law. A true and 10 correct copy of said rejection letter is attached hereto marked as 1] "Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 12 ix 13 Defendants PUEBLO VIEJO SHOPPING PLAZA, PUEBLO VIEJO 14 ASSOCIATES, RSS ASSOCIATES (OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA), RSS ASSOCIATES 15 (OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA), UTILITY TRAILER SALES COMPANY, LIN YU 16 YUAN AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, own the land abutting the 17 County highway known as Front Street approximately 1,600 feet South 18 of Santiago Road in an unincorporated section of Riverside County, 19 near Temecula. Defendant, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, owned Front Street 20 at that location. x Defendant, HUNCO was the developer of that property now known 23 as PUEBLO VIEJO SHOPPING PLAZA, on Front Street approximately 1,600 24 feet south of Santiago Road in an unincorporated section of ~5 Riverside County, near Temecula. Defendant, LLH CONSTRUCTION 26 COMPANY, was the general contractor for PUEBLO VIEJO SHOPPING 27 PLAZA, on Front Street approximately 1,600 feet South of Santiago 28 Road in an unincorporated section of Riverside County near 3 Temecula. ' xI on September 16, 1989, through the wrongful acts or omissions of the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PUEBLO VIEJO SHOPPING PLAZA, PUEBLO VIEJO ASSOCIATES, HUNCO, RSS ASSOCIATES (OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA), RSS ASSOCIATES (OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA), UTILITY TRAILER SALES COMPANY, LLH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIN YU YUAN AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, their agents or employees, allowed to exist a mound of dirt that intruded onto the roadway approximately 27 feet from the East curb line of Front Street and was not visible to the ordinary person at night. This mound was further not marked by warning signs, barriers, merging lines (painted or otherwise), nor was there anything to warn an unsuspecting motorist that the roadway was about to become significantly narrower for northbound traffic on Front Street approximately 1,600 feet South of Santiago Road in an unincorporated section of Riverside County, near Temecula. These failures to provide adequate warning were the result of negligent and unreasonable acts or omissions on the part of the defendants which created a dangerous condition that the defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of a sufficient time prior to the injuries to .have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition. xzi Defendants, and each of them, obstructed the public highway by allowing the mound of dirt to invade the eastbound portion of the roadway, as it existed South of the accident site. Alternatively, the defendants, and each of them, failed to warn that for a distance of approximately o~e-quarter mile, the roadway was 4 1 significantly narrower than the roadway had previously been. After 2 approximately one-quarter mile, the roadway returned to the same 3 width of approximately 53 feet that it was south of the accident 4 site on Front Street. 5 xiii 6 The mound of dirt could not be seen or observed by the 7 ordinary person using the roadway, even at night and using a motor 8 vehicle headlight, and therefore created a dangerous condition. 9 xIv 10 Defendants, and each of them, failed and neglected to warn or 11 advise of the dangerous condition they had created, although the 12 defendants knew, or should have known, that such public roadway was 13 used regularly by many motorists at night and that there was no 14 other similar convenient route available to such motorists. 15 xv 16 Defendants, and each of them, failed and neglected to remove 17 the dirt from the public roadway after they had finished the 18 grading and construction work on PUEBLO VIEJO SHOPPING PLAZA so as 19 to afford a safe and unimpeded path to motorists lawfully traveling 20 on Front Street, although they knew of the hazard and had adequate 2] time to remove it, or make passage for northbound Front Street 22 traffic safe at that point. 23 xvi 24 As a direct and proximate result of the defendants', and each 25 of them, negligence as aforesaid, plaintiff rode her motorcycle 26 into the mound of dirt, and was thrown to the ground, suffering 27 serious injuries, including but not limited to, a fractured right 28 lower leg, a fractured right forearm, a fractured right wrist and 5 ! a fractured right hand. Tl~ese injuries have necessitated multiple 2 surgeries and may necessitat~ further surgeries in the future. The 3 full extent of plaintiff's injuries have not yet been determined as 4 her injuries continue to resolve. It is likely that some of 5 plaintiff's injuries will never completely resolve. When plaintiff 6 determines what further injuries, if any, there are, plaintiff will 7 pray leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to insert such 8 injuries when the same have been ascertained. 9 XVII 10 As a direct and proximate result of said injuries, plaintiff 11 suffered and will continue to suffer pain, suffering and 12 inconvenience and physical disability to her general damage, 13 according to proof at trial. 14 xv~ 15 As a further direct and proximate result of said injuries, 16 plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur financial 17 obligations and expenses, including loss of past and future 18 earnings, medical, hospital, property damage, ambulance, drugs, and 19 other expenses in an amount not presently known and plaintiff will 20 pray leave of this Court to amend this Complaint and incorporate 21 herein the amount of said obligations incurred and to be incurred 22 by her. PUNITIVE DAMAGES The defendants', with the exception of the COUNTY OF ~ RIVERSIDE, acts or omissions, above-described, were willful, wanton 26 and malicious in that these acts were in reckless disregard for the 27 rights and safety of others, such as the plaintiff. These acts of 28 negligence were so heinous so as to amount to a total disregard for 6 ~ the safety of those traversing northbound on Front Street at night, 2 and because of such willfulness and malice, plaintiff seeks 3 punitive damages in amount not shown, pursuant to Code of Civil ~ Procedure Section 425.10. 5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (PROPERTY DAMAGE) 7 As and for a second distinct and separate cause of action, 8 plaintiff alleges: 9 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each ~] and every allegation contained in all of the preceding paragraphs ~2 of the First Cause of Action set forth above. 13 14 As a direct and proximate result of defendants' acts or ~5 omissions as aforesaid, plaintiff suffered the following property ~6 damage: total loss and destruction of her motorcycle, gear and ~? other incidental personal property, including the clothing she was ~8 wearing, all this damage to be ascertained and set forth in an ~9 amount proven at trial. 20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, 2] and each of them, for: 1. General damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2. Special damages in an amount not presently known and 2~ plaintiff will pray leave of this Court to incorporate the same ~5 herein when it has been ascertained; 3. Punitive damages in an amount not shown, pursuant to Code 27 of Civil Procedure Section 425.10: III 4. Property damage in 'an amount not presently known and plaintiff will pray leave of this Court to incorporate herein the same when it has been ascertained; 5. Costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as the Court may deem 4 6. 6 proper. 7 DATED: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1,5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 26 27 LEGAL OFFICES OF DAVID GREY .J4~'ES E. SWINGLEY, ESQ./~./ ~ctorney for Plaintiff[/ CHERYL LYNN HARVELL ~>' TO: CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERgISORS 4080 LEMON STREET, 14TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 9250~ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON AND PROPERTY This claim is being made by THE LEGAL OFFICES OF DAVID GREY, 1551 Fourth Ave., Suite 705, San Diego, CA 92101, (619)232-3000 on behalf of Cheryl Lynn Hatyell, of 4585 Felton 17, San Diego, CA 92116. This claim is for damages to the person and property of Cheryl Lynn Harvell for an incident which occurred on September 16, 1989 on Front Street near Temecula in the County of Riverside. A full description of the site of the incident is contained on the attached police report. This incident occurred at about 8:45 in the evening when Cheryl Lynn Harvel was traveling north bound on Front Street. Front Street does not have street lighting. Where this incident occurred Front Street north bound goes from a lane which is approximately 40 feet wide, to a width of approximately 13 feet wide. There is no notice, flashing lights, or warning of any kind to warn motorists of this condition. Due to the darkness, lack of familiarity with the and lack of warning, Cheryl Lynn Harvel did not know that the lane would narrow. She therefore drove onto the dirt embankment where the lane narrowed. In so doing, she lost control of her vehicle and fell to the ground. As a result Cheryl Lynn Harvel has suffered serious injuries. Injuries for which she is still undergoing treatment. Her medical bills currently exceed the sum of $160,000.00. She has undergone two surgeries to her right hand, and at least one more is anticipated. Additionally, Ms. Harvell has lost and continues to lose wages that are solely attributable to this incident. She is now on disability. Ms. Harvel also claims damages to her motorcycle, including loss of use, cost of repairs or the the total destruction of the motorcycle. Ms. Ha~,el asserts that the County of Riverside was negligent and is liable because they failed to provide street lighting in the area of the accident and because they failed to provide adequate warning of the hazard and because they maintained a dangerous condition on the roads. This dangerous condition existed because there was no. adequate signing, channeling, or other warning devices that would indicate that the road narrowed significantly. The design of the road itself was not proper at this location. These items directly caused Ms. Harvell's injuries. The amount claimed at this time is $1,500,000.00 (One million five hundred thousand dollars). ~torney for Cheryl H~rve~V JAMES E. SWINGLEY, ESQ. LEGAL OFFICES OF DAVID GREY 1551 Fourth Avenue, suite 70~ San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 232-3000 Attorney for Plaintiff CHERYL LYNN HARVELL S EP 14:1990 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 9 CHERYL LYNN HARVELL,) CASE NO.: 10 ) Plaintiff, ) STATEMENT OF DAMAGES 1! ) v. ) 12 ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PUEBLO ) 13 VIEJO SHOPPING PLAZA, PUEBLO ) VIEJO ASSOCIATES, HUNCO, RSS ) 14 ASSOCIATES (OF FONTANA, ) CALIFORNIA), RSS ASSOCIATES ) 15 (OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA) ) UTILITY TRAILER SALES COMPANY,) 16 LLH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIN ) YU YUAN, AND DOES I to 100, ) 17 inclusive, ) ) 18 Defendants. ) ) The plaintiff herein submit damages against the defendants as 2O follows: 1. General damages in the amount of $1,500,000.00. 2. Special damages are unknown for certain at this time, but the medical specials alone are believed to be approximately $100,000.00. Discovery is continuing. 26 DATED: ~-~- '?(?. LEGAL OFFICES OF DAVID GREY 27 28 JA~S E. 'S~iNGLEY, ESQ. J' '..' ~{f~orney for Plaintiff :/ / CHERYL LYNN HARVELL (' ~. _RK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS t/llh FI,OOR, COUNT~ AOMII~IIST~ATIV~ C~NI~R 4080 LE~ SI~ET ~VE~. ~ 92~-3~5 F~: (7~4} 275.~07~ NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM BY OPERATION OF LAW GERALD a MALONEy NANCY J ~ME~ BONITA L. NADLER ~CO~S MANAG[ I~ ~L~A J. SCHAEFFEE To Claimant: CHERYL L HARVELL C/O LEGAL OFFICES OF DAVID GREY ATrN JAMES E SWiNGLEY ESQ 1551 FOURTH AVE STE 705 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 D/L September 16, 1989 Claim No.: 118-90 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the claim which you have presented on March 15, 1989, to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, was rejected by operation of law on April 29, 1990. WARNING Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immedLately. Gerald A. Maloney, Clerk of said Board Deborah Fernandes, Deputy I declare that my business address is 14th Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, that I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the County of Riverside, am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the cause; that on the date hereof I se~ed the foregoing notice by depositing a copy thereof in the ma~ at Riverside, California, in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid, addressed to the person(s) named therein as claimant and at the address shown in said notice. I declare under penalty qf perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Riverside, CalHornia on AI~I 30. 1990. No. 1 Deborah Fernandes, Deputy lAMES E. SWINGLEY, ESQ. LEGAL OFFICES OF DAVID GREY 17 Fourth Avenue, Suite ?05 S&_ Diego, CA 92101 (619) 232-3000 S EP 1_ 1990 Attorney for Plaintiff CHERYL LYNN HARVELL V. Fromm 8 CHERYL LYNN HARVELL, Plaintiff, V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PUEBLO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CAS .o.: 073Z5 STATEMENT OF DAMAGES VIEJO SHOPPING PLAZA, PUEBLO VIEJO ASSOCIATES, HUNCO, RSS ASSOCIATES (OF FONTANA, CALIFORNIA), RSS ASSOCIATES (OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA) UTILITY TRAILER SALES COMPANY,) LLH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIN ) YU YUAN, AND DOES I to 100, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 2O 2! The plaintiff herein submit damages against the defendants as follows: 1. 2. General damages in the amount of $1,500,000.00. Special damages are unknown for certain at this time, but the medical specials alone are believed to be approximately $100,000.00. Discovery is continuing. 26 DATED: LEGAL OFFICES OF DAVID GREY 27 28 A~f~orney for Plaintiff v ." CHERYL LYNN HARVELL I' ITEM NO. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 90-26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5663, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R-2.5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO R-R-1 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ON 5.02 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 5663 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, thi~ 11th day of December, 1, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Ords 90-26 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-26 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 11th day of December , 1990 and that thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of January, 1991 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 3/Ords 90-26 ITEM NO. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 90-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY, AUTHORIZING THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICES BY THE CITY OR PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE OR PERMIT, AND REPEALING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Riverside County Ordinance No. 657 as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by City Ordinance No..90-04, is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. Chapter 6.10 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "CHAPTER 6.10 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT Divisions: Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division Division 1 Definitions 2 Integrated Waste Management 3 Fees, Franchises, and Licenses 4 Containers 5 Collection Unlawful and Prohibited Acts 7 Special Collections 8 Collection Equipment 9 Self-Haulers 10 Unauthorized Collection of Recyclable Materials 11 Unlawful Dumping 13 Clean-up Responsibility 1 Division 14 Violations Sections: Division 1 - Definitions 6.10.010 Definitions Generally. 6.10.015 Act. 6.10.020 Bulky Wastes. 6.10.025 Authorized Recycling Contractors. 6.10.030 City. 6.10.035 City Manager. 6.10.040 Collection. 6.10.045 Collector. 6.10.050 Commercial Bins. 6.10.055 Commercial Premises. 6.10.060 Container. 6.10.065 Contractor. 6.10.070 Designated Recycling Collection. 6.10.075 Detachable Bin. 6.10.080 Franchise. 6.10.085 Franchise Fee. 6.10.090 Garbage. 6.10.095 Gross Revenues. 6.10.100 Hazardous Refuse. 6.10.105 Place or Premises. 6.10.110 Recyclable Waste Material. 6.10.115 Recycling. 6.10.120 Refuse. 6.10.125 Residential. 6.10.130 Rubbish. 6.10.135 Single Family Residential. 6.10.140 Solid Waste or Waste Matter. 6.10.145 Standard Residential Refuse. 6.10.010 Definitions Generally. For the purposes of this Chapter the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Division. Words and phrases not ascribed a meaning by this Division shall have the meaning ascribed by Division 30, Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Public Resources 2 Code, Sections 40105-40200. 6.10.015 Act. 'Act' shall mean the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as it may be amended form time to time. 6.10.020 Bulky Waste. 'Bulky Waste' shall mean and include, but not by way of limitation, discarded white goods (i.e., major household appliances), furniture, tires, carpets, mattresses and similar large items which cannot be placed in a covered container. 6.10.025 Authorized Recycling Contractor. 'Authorized recycling contractor,' as used in this Chapter means a person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other entity authorized under and by virtue of a contract with the City to collect recyclable waste material in the City. 6.10.030 City. 'City' means the City of Temecula. 6.10.035 City Manager. 'City Manager' means the City Manager of the City or the City Manager's duly authorized representative. 6.10.040 Collection. 'Collection' means the act of collecting solid waste, recyclables or compostables at the place of generation by an approved collector. 6.10.045 Collector. 'Collector' means, depending upon the context in which used, either the City, another local agency or a Contractor. 6.10.050 Commercial Bins. 'Commercial bins' means bins provided by a Collector, usually three (3) cubic yards or greater capacity designed for the deposit of refuse, charged at commercial rates. 6.10.055 Commercial Premises. 'Commercial Premises' means all premises in the City, other than residential premises, where'refuse is generated or accumulated. 6.10.060 Container. 'Container' means any bin, vessel, can, or receptacle used for collecting solid wastes for removal, whether owned by the Collector, property owner or tenant. 6.10.065 Contractor. 'Contractor' means a person, persons, local agency, firm, or corporation franchised, authorized or permitted by the City to provide refuse, recycling, or compostable collection services within the City. 6.10.070 Designated Recycling Collection Location. 'Designated recycling collection location,' as used in this Chapter, means the place designated in the contract between the City and an authorized recycling contractor from which the authorized recycling contractor has contracted to collect recyclable waste material. This location will customarily be the curb side of a residential neighborhood or the service alley of an commercial enterprise. 6.10.075 Detachable Bin. 'Detachable bin' means a metal container designed for mechanical emptying and provided by the City or Contractor for the accumulation and storage of refuse. 6.10.080 Franchise. 'Franchise' shall mean the right and privilege: (1) to collect, (2) to transport to landfill or other licensed disposal facilities as determined by City, and/or (3) to recycle from collected Solid Waste and Recyclables all Solid Waste kept, generated and/or accumulated within the City from the Franchise Area. Any Franchise is subject to all of the provisions of Title 6, Chapter 10, the Franchise Agreement, and to any rights held by any other solid waste enterprise holding rights pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 49520. 6.10.085 Franchise Fee. 'Franchise Fee' means the fee or assessment imposed by the City on Contractor solely because of its status as Contractor. term "franchise fee" does not include: The (I) Any tax, fee or assessment of general applicability (including any such tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both businesses and Contractor or their services but not including a tax, fee, or assessment which is unduly discriminatory against Contractor or its customers); or (2) Requirements, reimbursements, charges or fees incident to the awarding, administering, enforcing, transfer or renewal of a Franchise, including payments of bonds, consultants, administrative expenses, fees described at Section 6.10.300(a) of this Chapter, attorney's fees, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages. 6.10.090 Garbage. 'Garbage' means the putrescible animal, fish, fowl, food, fruit, bakery goods, or vegetable matter resulting from the preparation, storage, processing, handling, decay, distribution, manufacturing, or consumption of such substance, except suet, tallow, bones, or meat trimmings that are not rejected by the 4 owner or producer as worthless or useless. 6.10.095 Gross Revenues. 'Gross Revenues' shall mean any and all revenue or compensation in any form derived directly or indirectly by the Contractor, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parents and any person or entity in which the Contractor has a financial interest, from the collection of refuse pursuant to a franchise, including, but not limited to, monthly customer fees for collection of refuse and recyclables, special pickup fees, bin and drop box rental and collection fees, fees for redelivery of bins and drop boxes, and revenue from the sale of recyclables, without subtracting Franchise Fees or any other cost of doing business. Provided, however, that the amount of gross revenues may be reduced by the amount of any bad debts incurred by the Contractor or refunds returned to customers, provided that the revenue with respect thereto has been included in the computation of gross revenues. 6.10.100 Hazardous Refuse. 'Hazardous refuse' means any compound, mixture, substance, or article which, if improperly used, handled, transplanted, processed, or stored, may constitute a hazard to health or may cause damage to property and contaminate the water table by reason of being explosive, flammable, poisonous, corrosive, radioactive, or otherwise harmful to the environment, including wastes or refuse defined as hazardous under state or federal law. 6.10.105 Place or Premises. 'Place' or 'premises' means every dwelling house; dwelling unit; apartment house or multiple dwelling building; trailer or mobile home park; store; restaurant; rooming house; hotel; motel; office building; department store; manufacturing, processing, or assembling shop or plant; and every other place or premises where any person resides, or any business is carried on or conducted within the City or any other site upon which garbage, waste, or refuse is produced or accumulates. 6.10.110 Recyclable Waste Material. 'Recyclable waste material,' as used in this Chapter, means discarded materials such as, but not limited to, newspapers, glass, plastic and metal cans, and compostables which are separated from other garbage or refuse for the purpose of recycling. 6.10.115 Recycling. 'Recycling,' as used in this Chapter, means the process of collecting and turning used products into new products by reprocessing or remanufacturing them. 6.10.120 Refuse. 'Refuse' includes both garbage and rubbish and means 5 putrescible and nonputrescible solid waste or debris, except sewage, whether combustible or noncombustible, and includes garbage and rubbish defined in this section. 6.10.125 Residential. 'Residential' includes single family residences, multifamily residences, including apartments and condominiums, but does not include hotels or motels. 6.10.130 Rubbish. 'Rubbish' means nonputrescible unwanted or discarded material or debris, either combustible or noncombustible including but not limited to paper, cardboard, grass, tree, or shrub trimmings, straw, clothing, wood, or wood products, crockery, glass, rubber, metal, plastic, construction, or demolition material, recyclables, compostables, bulky wastes, and other municipal solid waste. 6.10.135 Single Family Residential. 'Single Family residential' includes single family residences and any other residences that do not require bin services. 6.10.140 Solid Waste or Waste Matter. 'Solid Waste' or 'Waste matter' means 'rubbish' as defined in this section. 6.10.145 Standard Residential Refuse Container. 'Standard residential refuse container' means a container of a size, design, and weight prescribed by the City Council by Resolution, for single family residential solid waste collection, designed and manufactured for the accumulation and storage of residential refuse. The top diameter of the container shall in no case be smaller than the diameter of the receptacle at the bottom. Sections: 6.10.200 6.10.205 6.10.210 6.10.215 6.10.220 Division 2 - Integrated Waste Management Provision of Service. Manner, Time, and Frequency of Collection. Categories. Collection Arrangements Required. Prohibitions. 6.10.200 Provision of Service. The City shall provide for or furnish integrated waste management services relating to collection, transfer, and disposal of refuse, recyclables, and compostables within and throughout the City. Such services may be furnished by any one or combination of the following: (a) City officers and employees; Co) Contractors franchised or licensed by the City; or (c) Agreement with another local agency. 6.10.205 Manner. Time. and Frequency of Collection. The City Council may establish by resolution, the manner in which integrated waste management services are provided within the City, specifying the hours, days, and frequency of collection. 6.10.210 Categories. The City Council may determine waste management collection categories, i.e., residential, single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, special, special event, household hazardous waste and other, and may make or impose collection requirements which vary for such categories. 6.10.215. Collection Arrangements Required. The owner, occupant, or other person responsible for the day to day operation of every property in the City of Temecula shall make arrangements with the City, another local agency approved by the City, or a contractor franchised or licensed by the City for the collection of refuse, recyclable materials, and compostable materials as set forth in this Chapter. 6.10.220 Prohibitions. No person shall engage in the collection of solid waste without valid authorization from the City of Temecula. Division 3 - Fees. Franchises, and Licenses Sections: 6.10.300 6.10.305 6.10.310 6.10.315 6.10.320 6.10.325 Fees, Franchises, and Licenses. Residential Refuse Collection Franchise. Commercial Refuse Collection Franchise. Hazardous Waste Collection Franchise. Licenses. Liability For Fees. 7 6.10.300 Fees. Franchises, and Licenses. (a) Pursuant to Division 30, Part 3, Chapter 8 of the Public Resources Code Sections 41900 et seq., the City may levy fees upon contractors and premises for refuse collection, transfer and disposal, and the collection and transfer of recyclables and compostables. Such fees may include charges for the use of dumps or landfills, and may include costs of preparing and implementing source reduction and recycling elements and integrated waste management plans. The City may determine to collect all or pan of such charges on the tax roll, or by such other means as the Council may elect, whether or not delinquent. (b) City Council may by Resolution, waive permit fees for recyclers and collectors of compostables. 6.10.305 Residential Refuse Collection Franchise. (a) The City Council may award one or more franchises for refuse collection from all or a portion of residential properties in the City. Any such franchise shall be granted by the City Council by Resolution, upon a determination that the public convenience and necessity are served by the award of a franchise. (b) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. At a minimum, the franchise shall provide as follows: (1) single family and multifamily). Residential collection rates by categories (e.g., (2) A franchise fee to be paid to the City for a residential franchise of not less than eight percent (8%) of gross revenues. (3) The Franchisee shall be required to cooperate with City in solid waste generation studies, waste ~tream audits, and to implement measures to achieve the City's solid waste and recycling goals mandated by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 8 6.10.310 Commercial Refuse Collection Franchise. (a) The City Council may award one or more franchises for refuse collection from commercial (including industrial, governmental, institutional, and all other nonresidential) properties. Such franchises shall be granted by the City Council by Resolution, upon a determination that the public convenience and necessity are served by the award of the franchise. (b) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. At a minimum, the franchise shall provide as follows: (1) Commercial collection rates set according to different classes of commercial rates, based on volume, frequency of collection, and waste stream composition. (2) A franchise fee for commercial franchises of not less than eight percent (8%) of gross revenue. (3) Franchisees shall be required to cooperate with City in solid waste generation studies, waste stream audits, and implementing measures to achieve the City's source reduction, recycling, and waste stream diversion goals. 6.10.315 Hazardous Waste Collection Franchise. (a) The City Council may award additional franchises for hazardous waste collection from commercial (including industrial, governmental, institutional, and all other nonresidential) properties. Such franchises shall be granted by the City Council by Resolution, upon a determination that the public convenience and necessity are served by the award of the franchise. (b) The franchise shall be granted on such terms and conditions as the City Council shall establish in its sole discretion. 6.10.320 Licenses. No person shall construct or operate a solid waste management facility including but not limited to a materials recovery facility, landfill, cornposting facility, or buy-back recycling center without a license issued by the City, upon satisfying all City requirements for land use and other approvals. Fees for such licenses shall be set by the City Council by Resolution. 9 6.10.325 Liability For Fees. (a) Every person required to arrange for refuse collection or the collection of recyclable or compostables shall be liable for the service access fees and charges for such collection, whether or not collection services are utilized. (b) The owner, occupant, or other person responsible for day-to-day operation of the premises shall make arrangements for collection to meet the requirements of this Chapter. If service fees and charges (and any applicable interest or penalties) are not paid as required the owner and occupant each shall be jointly and severally liable for their payment. The City may collect the fees and charges (plus any interest or penalties) on the property tax roll for the property. Division 4 - Containers Sections: 6.10.400 6.10.405 6.10.410 Containers: Location. Use Of Containers. Unlawful Acts. 6.10.400 Containers: Location. It is the duty of every person designated under Section 6.10.215 in possession, charge, or control of any place within the City, in or from which refuse accumulates or is produced, to keep in a suitable place readily accessible to the collector, containers capable of holding without spilling all refuse which would ordinarily accumulate on the premises between the time of two successive collections. 6.10.405 Use Of Containers. (a) Every person designated under Section 6.10.215 who is in charge of residential or commercial premises shall deposit or cause to be deposited all refuse in standard containers or bins as approved by the City Manager and the collector. (b) No person shall maintain or place for collection any container not in conformance with the standard container or bin designated by the City. (c) No container shall be placed adjacent to a street or public right- of-way for collection service more than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the normal collection time. 10 (d) Containers shall be removed from the street or fight-of-way location within twelve (12) hours after collection. (e) Dead animals and bulky waste shall not be set out for collection. Bulky waste shall be collected only during annual cleanups or by contractual arrangement between the resident or business and the Contractor. (f) Tree trimmings and brush shall be cut into four (4) foot lengths and tied bundles of not larger than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter for ease in pickup. (g) All residential solid waste must be placed out at the curb pickup site by 6:00 A.M. on the designated pickup day. 6.10.410 Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for any person to place refuse in, or to otherwise use the refuse containers of another person, without the permission of such other person. Division 5 - Collection Sections: 6.10.500 6.10.505 Frequency Of Removal. Containers - Located For Collection. 6.10.500 Frequency of Removal. (a) Persons in charge of the day to day operation of properties other than commercial food preparation establishments, shall make arrangements to have removed, not less frequently than once a week, from the property upon which the residence or residences are located, all refuse on the premises. (b) Every person in charge of commercial food preparation establishments, shall cause all refuse to be removed from the property not less frequently than twice a week. (c) The City Manager may specify the frequency of collection of refuse created, produced, or brought upon the premises of commercial or multifamily residential premises, and the size and number of bins required. 11 (d) Collection shall be made only between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. of any day, Monday through Saturday. Commercial pickup may begin at 5:00 A.M. Earlier pickup time may be authorized only upon prior written approval of the City Manager which shall include requirements for the Contractor to notify the affected customers prior to implementing the change. (e) In order to prevent problems of traffic, noise, wear and tear on the highway, or other problems having the potential to adversely affect health, safety, or the environment, which may develop in any specific area as a result of solid waste collection, the City Manager may regulate the routes, intervals, delivery points, and times for collection by all Contractors operating within the City. 6.10.505 Containers - Located For Collection. During the hours for collection, residential containers shall be placed at the curb or right of way for collection and shall be accessible for mechanized pick-up. Commercial bins shall be accessible to the collector. Division 6 - Unlawful And Prohibited Acts Sections: 6.10.600 6.10.605 6.10.610 6.10.615 6.10.620 6.10.625 6.10.630 6.10.635 Use Of Containers. Removal Of Refuse. Noncompactible Refuse. Institutional, Commercial, or Industrial Refuse. Refuse Burning. Franchise: Applicability. Unauthorized Removal. Public Nuisance. 6.10.600 Use Of Containers. The keeping of refuse in containers or bins other than those prescribed by this Chapter, or the keeping upon premises of refuse which is offensive, obnoxious, or unsanitary is unlawful, constitutes a public nuisance and may be abated in the manner now or hereafter provided by law for the abatement of nuisances. 6.10.605 Removal Of Refuse. No person, other than the person in charge of any premises, or the person authorized by law to remove any container or bin from the location where the container was placed by the person in charge for storage or collection, shall remove any refuse from any container or bin, or move the container 12 or bin from the location in which it was placed for storage or collection, without prior written approval of the person in charge of such premises. 6.10.610 Bulky Waste. No person shall place bulky waste adjacent to a street or public right-of-way for collection or removal purposes without prior approval and arrangements with the collector. 6.10.615 Institutional. Commercial. or Industrial Refuse. It is unlawful for any person to place or deposit institutional, commercial, industrial, special, or hazardous waste in any container placed upon the public street by public authority, and meant primarily for the disposal of refuse by pedestrians using the sidewalk. 6.10.620 Refuse Burning. No person shall bum any refuse within the City, except in an approved incinerator or transformation facility or other device for which a permit has been issued by the Building Official, and which complies with all applicable permit and other regulations of air pollution control authorities, and provided any such act of burning in all respects complies with all other laws, rules, and regulations. 6.10.625 Franchise: Applicability. At such times as one or more franchises for collection covering all or part of the City is in force, it shall be unlawful for any person other than the franchisee or its agents and employees, to collect any refuse for hire from premises covered by the franchise. This section shall not, however, be deemed to apply to the following persons, so long as they comply with Section 6.10.900: (a) Recycling; (b) Any persons engaged in the nursery or gardening business and collecting and disposing of shrubbery, grass, tree cuttings, tree trimmings, or othr agricultural debris; (c) An person removing shrubbe~, grass, tree cuttinghs, tree trimmings, or other agricultural debris from any property owned or occupied by the person; or, (d) Hazardous or special wastes. 6.10.630 Unauthorized Removal. It is unlawful for any person, other than a person holding a contract or franchise for the collection of rubbish, to take, remove, or appropriate for his/her own use any refuse which has been placed in any street or 13 alley for collection or removal, whether the refuse is so placed in regular containers or not. 6.10.635 Public Nuisance. It is unlawful, and a public nuisance, for any person to occupy, inhabit, or maintain any property within the City for which appropriate arrangements have not been made and kept in full force and effect for regular refuse removal services. Division 7 - Special Collections Section: 6.10.700 Special Collections. 6.10.700 Special Collections. The City Council may authorize, and subscribers to a refuse collection service may order, special collections of such things as discarded furniture, white goods, Christmas trees, and other items too large to fit in standard containers, semiannual cleanups, and household hazardous wastes, subject to City Council approval, and the payment of rates established by the City Council, by Resolution. Division 8 - Collection Equipment Sections: 6.10.800 6.10. 805 6.10.810 6.10.815 6.10.820 6.10.825 6.10.830 Contractor Equipment. Trucks: Standards. Trucks: Maintenance. Trucks: Identification. Trucks: Cleaning. Containers-Condition. Trucks: Noise. 6.10.800 Contractor Equipment. Each Contractor shall provide sufficient collection equipment in accordance with the terms of the contract with the City authorizing such Contractor to provide collection, transfer, and disposal services. 6.10,805 Trucks: Standards. Any truck used for the collection or transportation of waste matter shall be leakproof and equipped with a close-fitting cover which shall be affixed in a manner that will prevent spilling, dropping, or blowing of any refuse upon the public right-of-way during collection or transportation. 6.10.810 Trucks: Maintenance. All trucks used for collection or transportation of refuse shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, neatly and uniformly painted, and shall carry a shovel, broom, and fire extinguisher. 6.10.815 Trucks: Identification. The owner of each truck used for collection or transportation of refuse shall have the owner's name, telephone number, and truck number printed on each side of all trucks in letters not less than three inches high. 6.10.820 Trucks: Cleaning. Allgarbage-conveying trucks, tanks, containers, and other garbage receptacles shall be washed, cleaned, and disinfected both on the inside and outside at least weekly, or more frequently if necessary to protect public health. The outside of all such trucks shall be kept free from refuse at all times. 6.10.825 Containers-Condition. The collector shall maintain in good repair and, as necessary, replace containers and bins furnished to customers. 6.10.830 Trucks: Noise. The noise level for the collection vehicles during the stationary compaction process shall not exceed seventy-five (75) decibels at a distance of twenty-five (25) feet from the collection vehicle and at an elevation of five (5) feet from the horizontal base place of such vehicles. Division 9 - Self-Haulers Sections: 6.10.900 6.10.905 6.10.910 Authorized Dump Sites. Spills. Misdemeanor. 15 6.10.900 Authorized Dump Sites. Each person collecting and disposing of solid waste refuse shall deposit such solid waste only at disposal or dumping sites, recycling or composting facilities as approved by the City Manager, and shall not deposit, leave, dump, drop, place or otherwise dispose of such refuse or other waste upon any street, alley, waterway, or other unauthorized or unimproved lot or any other place within the City. Such persons shall report the type, quantity, volume, and weight of refuse removed, to the City Manager, at such times as the Manager may specify. 6.10.905 Spills. In transporting refuse any self-hauler shall take any and all necessary steps to guarantee that refuse is not scattered. Self-haulers shall clean up refuse spilled or dumped during removal or transport within the City. 6.10.910 Misdemeanor. Violation of this Division shall be a misdemeanor. Division 10 - Unauthorized Collection of Recyclable Materials Sections: 6.10.1010 6.10.1015 6.10.1020 6.10.1025 6.10.1030 Ownership of Recyclable Waste Material. Unauthorized Collection Prohibited. Right of Individual to Dispose of Recyclable Material. Enforcement - Authority. Civil Action By Authorized Recycling Contractor. 6.10.1010 Ownership of Recyclable Waste Material. Upon placement of recyclable waste material at a designated recycling collection location for collection by an authorized recycling contractor, the recyclable waste material shall become the property of the authorized recycling contractor. 6.10.1015 Unauthorized Collection Prohibited. During the twenty-four (24) hour period commencing at 6:00 p.m. on any day preceding a day designated for collection of recyclable waste material, no person, other than an authorized recycling contractor, shall remove recyclable waste material which has been placed at a designated recycling collection location. Any and each such collection in violation 16 hereof from one or more designated recycling collection locations during said twenty- four (24) hour period shall constitute a misdemeanor and a separate and distinct offense punishable in accordance with Section 1.01.220 et seq. of this Code. 6.10.1020 Right of Individual to Dispose of Recyclable Waste Material. Nothing in this Chapter shall limit the right of an individual person, organization, or other entity to donate, sell, or otherwise dispose of recyclable waste material, provided that any such disposal is in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 6.10.1025 Enforcement - Authority. The City Manager or his Designee shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this Division. This authority shall be in addition to the authority granted to police officers pursuant to the Municipal Code. 6.10.1030 Civil Action By Authorized Recycling Contractor. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to limit the right of an authorized recycling contractor to bring a civil action against any person who violates Section 6.12.020 of this Code, nor shall a conviction for such violation exempt any person from a civil action brought by an authorized recycling contractor." Division 11 - Unlawful Dumping Sections: 6.10.1110 6.10.1115 Unlawful Dumping. Enforcement. 6.10.1110 Unlawful Dumping. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, deposit, or dump solid waste of any ldnd whatsoever upon any property, within the City, or to cause, suffer, or permit such solid waste to be placed, deposited, or dumped upon any property, in the City, without first having obtained a conditional use permit pursuant to the zoning laws of the City, as now or hereinafter amended, or pursuant to any other zoning law that may be hereinafter adopted in the place and stead of said zoning laws of the City. 6.10.1115 Enforcement. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 836.5, the Director of Planning and any City Code Enforcement Officer are hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this Division and as well as those of California Penal Code Sections 374, 374a, 374.2, 374.3,374.4, 374d, 374.7, and 375; California Government Code Section 68055 et Seq.; and California Vehicle Code Sections 23111 and 23112." 17 Division 13 - Clean-up Responsibility Sections: 6.10.1310 Responsibility. 6.10.1310 Responsibility. Until picked up by a collector, each person shall be responsible for the cleanup of any and all refuse which that person has generated, dumped, spilled, or otherwise lost or littered, notwithstanding human or animal interference with bins or containers (whether or not standard containers were used), wind or other natural forces, and whether during storage, collection, removal, or transfer. The City or contractor shall be responsible for any refuse spilled during its storage, collection, removal, or transfer. Division 14 - Violations Section 6.10.1410 Violation. 6.10.1410 Violation. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, violations of this Chapter are punishable as set out in Sections 1.01.200 through 1.01.260 of the Municipal Code." SECTION 3. PRIOR ENACTMENTS. This Ordinance is intended to replace, upon the effective date hereof, Riverside County Ordinance No. 657 as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by City Ordinance No. 90-04. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and'if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. 18 SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted and published as required by Law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) $S. I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-27 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 1 lth day of December, 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 8th day of January, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney 19 ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFI CE~% CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Engineering Department January 8, 1991 Adoption of Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan and Fee Update PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution 91- adopting the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, including Amendment No. 1, and the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", as currently administered by the County of Riverside. ,. DISCUSSION: Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, adopted by the City upon incorporation in December 1989, pertains to the payment and use of area drainage fees for the construction of flood control drainage facilities. Ordinance 460 requires that the City must adopt by resolution an Area Drainage Plan in order to collect these fees. Attached to this report is the Riverside County adopted Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan which encompasses five (5) drainage sub-watersheds, including the Temecula Valley. Staff is recommending that the Council adopt the attached resolution making the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan (ADP) as an official document of the City, which would allow the City to legally collect the fees denoted in the plan. Encompassed within the resolution is an update .to the fees recently adopted by the County Board of Supervisors along with an amendment to the ADP. The fees will increase from $932.00 per acre to $1,970.00 per acre for the Temecula Valley sub- watershed. The fee increase was mandated due to facility changes in the plan and inflation. Pursuant to County Resolution 90-059, the Flood Control District must update the ADP at least every two years. Currently, the Riverside County Flood Control District can only impose these fees over the unincorporated areas of the watershed until the City adopts the new fee schedule. By adopting the amended ADP, the City will provide uniformity of payment of fees over the watershed and allow the Area Drainage Plan to be fully implemented as proposed by the Flood Control District. STAFFRPT\ENG-006 1 Attached to this report is a copy of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, an excerpt Ordinance 460 authorizing collection of drainage fees, County Resolution 90- 059 adopting the amended Murrieta Area Drainage Plan including the updated fees, and a copy of the Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans. DMS: ks STAFFRPT\ENG-006 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN AND FEE UPDATE. WHEREAS, the City of Temecula desires to participate with the County of Riverside in implementing area-wide flood control projects which directly benefit the City of Temecula; and WHEREAS. the County of Riverside with Resolution 90-059 entitled "Amending the Murrieta Area Drainage Plan" adopted an updated area drainage plan, including increased drainage fees; and WHEREAS. by Ordinance 90-14 the City of Temecula determined that land use fees would be adopted henceforth by resolution of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Murrieta Area Drainage Plan" including latest amendments is hereby adopted for use in the City of Temecula. SECTION 2. The "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans" including latest amendments is hereby adopted for use in the City of Temecula. SECTION 3. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 1991. ATTEST: RONALD J PARKS MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK. DEPUTY CITY CLERK [SEAL] STAFFRPT\ENG-006 KENNETH L. EDWARDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA g2502 1995 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX IO33 TELEPHONE (714} 275-12OO FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 Mr. Dave Dixon City Manager City of Temecula Post Office Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Mr. Doug Stewart Dear Mr. Dixon: Re: Murrieta Creek ADP Update It is our understanding that the City of Temecula has adopted the County's Ordinance .No. 460 regulating the division of land. Section 10.25 of the County's Ordinance pertains to drainage Gees. A copy of this section has been enclosed. Since your adoption of Ordinance 460, the District has updated the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan. The new Area Drainage Plan fee for the Temecula sub-basin is $1,970/ac. This updated fee can only be imposed over the unincorporated areas within the plan boundaries until the City Council adopts the new fee schedule. To provide uniformity, the City of Temecula should move to adopt the updated Area Drainage. Plan fee schedule as soon as possible. If the City has not adopted the Master Drainage Plan this should be done first. Sample adopting resolutions and the various environmental documents are enclosed for your use. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Clyde Johnson at 714/275-1205. Very truly yours, Chief of Planning Division Enclosures CJ:mcy cj11022a ORDINANCE NO. 460 (As Amended Thru Ordinance No. 460.84) REGULATING THE DIVISION OF LAND OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Price: $12.00 $14.00 (if ~ailed) For information regarding zoning in unincorporated areas of Riverside County, call or write: THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT County Aclministrmttve Center 4080 Lemon Street, Ninth Floor Riverside, California 92501 Phone: (714) 787-6181 That portion of Sections 1 through 18, 22 through 24, Township 5, South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, lying North of the South bank of the Whitewater River~ and, Sections 1 through 12, 16 through 18, and 20, and that mortton of Sections 13 through 15, 19, 21, 22, 2A and 28 throu§h 3G ~yir,~ i,orth of the South Bank of the Whitewater Rtver~ all in Township S South, Range ? East, San Bernardino Base and ~ridian~ and, Sections 4 through 9, 16 through lB, 20, and 2! and that portion of Section 19 lying North of the South bank of the Whitewater River and that portion of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 28 and the Northeast one-quarter of Section 29 lying North of the North right-of-way of Interstate 10; all in Township S South, Range ~ East, San Bernardino Base and I~eridian. SECTION 10.25. DRAINAGE FEES..- This section is adopted pursuant to Section 66483 et seq. of the Government Code which provides for the payment of fees for theconstruction of drainage facilities as a condition to the division of land. C® Whenever land that is proposed to be divided lies within the boundaries o+ an Area Drainage Plan, a drainage fee in the amount required by the plan for the area, as adopted or thereafter amended, shall be required as a condition of approval of the division of land in that drainage area. Each Area Drainage Plan shall be adopted by resolution of the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66483 et seq.; shall cover a particular drainage area; shall contain an estimate of the total cost of constructing the drainage facilities required by the plan, and shall include a map of the area that shows the boundaries of the drainage area and the location of the required facilities serving the drainage area. As a part of the adoption of a plan, the Board shall find and determine that the subdivision and development of land within the plan area will require construction of the facilities described in the plan. The Board shall further find and determine that the drainage fees are fairly apportioned within the local drainage area, on the basis of benefits conferred on property proposed for subdivision or on the need for local drainage facilities created by the proposed subdivision and development of other properties vrithtn the adopted dratnag~ area, and may provide for varying fees$ provided, however, the fee as to any property proposed for subdivision within a drainage area shall not exceed the pro rata share of the amount of the total actual or estimated costs of all facilities within the area which would be assessable on such property if the costs were apportioned uniformly on a per acre basis. De Drainage fees shall be paid at the tim6 ot the filing of the ~inal mad or parcel map, or as a condition of the waiver of the filing of a parcel map; provided, however, at the option of the land divider the fee may he paid, in pro rata amounts, at the time of 'the issuance oS grading permits For the approved parcels or at the time of issuance of building permits if no grading permits are issued for the parcels. The amount of the drainage fee required to be paid shall be the amount that is in effect for the particular Area Drainage Plan at the time of actual payment of the fee. If the land divider elects to have payment made at the time of issuance of a grading or building permit, the recorded final map or parcel map or certificate or compliance evidencing the waiver of the filing of a parcel map shall specifically state that payment of a drainage fee is required to' be paid prior to issuance of a grading ~>ermit or building permit for the parcels that have been created by the land division. In addition, a separate instrument shall be recorded by the land divider in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, at the time of the filing of the final map or parcel map or certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map, which gives notices that.a drainage fee is required to be paid by any person that owns such parcels prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Ee If the drainage fee is paid at the time of the filing of the final map or parcel map or certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map, it shall be paid to the Road Commissioner. If the drainage fee is .- paid at the time of issuance of a grading or building permit, it shall be paid to the Building Director. All fees that are collected shall thereafter be deposited into a Local Drainage Facilities Fund maintained under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County mood Control and Water Conservation District. A separate fund shall be established by the District for each adopted local drainage area. Money in such funds shall be expended for construction or reimbursement for construction, including a acquisition of right of way necessary for construction, of the drainage facilities serving the drainage area for which the fees are collected, or to reimburse the District for the cost of engineering and administrative services to design and construct and acquire any necessary right of way for the facilities. F. In the discretion of the Board, considerations such as dedications of right-of-way, actual construction, or design work by a civil engineer may be accepted in lieu of the payment of drainage fees, upon a determination that the alternative is acceptable and is equal to or greater in value than the required fee. G. Money may be advanced by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to design or construct drainage facilities or to acquire necessary right-of-way within an adopted drainage area; therefore, money so advanced may be reimbursed to the District from the fund for the local drainage area in which the facilities are located. 78 When required for the implementation of an adopted area plan, an agreement may be entered into between a developer and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District whereby the developer may advance money for the construction of facilities, or design or construct facilities within a local drainage area; provi~e~ that the sole securitj' to the developer for repayment of money or other consideration advanced shall be money subsequently accruing to the Local Drainage Facilities Fund for the drainage area in which the facilities are located. Reimbursement shall be for the amount agreed upon in advance only and shall not include interes: or other charges. The agreement shall expire fifteen years after the date it was entered into, and any subsequent money paid into the fund shall accrue to the fund without obligation to developers whose agreenents have expired. The drainage plan area, the required facilities and the drainage fee in an adopted plan may be amended by the Board at any time upon a determination that it is necessary to do so in order to correctly reflect the drainage area, the required facilities or estimated cost of the facilities. Area Drainage Plans shall be administered, and drainage fees shall be calculated in accordance with the 'Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans" adopted by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. The drainage fees for adooted Area Drainage Plans (ADP) shall be as follows: {1) Day Creek ADP $2,277.00 per acre. (2) Sunnymead ADP $4,001.00 per acre. (3) Southwest Riverside ADP $3,520.00 per acre. (4) Moreno ADP $2,253.00 per acre. (5} Lakeview-Nuevo ADP per acre. (6) Reche Canyon AOP $5,361.00 per acre. (7) Hemet Regional ADP $3,g02.00 per acre. (8) San 3actnto Regional AOP $3,691.00 per acre. (g) Perrts Valley ADP $5,083.00 per acre. {10} t4urrieta Creek AQP (a) Wildomar Sub- Watershed $2,606.00 per acre ?g {b) l~urrieta Valley Sub-Watershed $2,096.00 per acre. (c) Temecula Valley Sub-Watershed $ 932.00 per acre. (d) Santa Gertrudis Valley Sub-Watershed $ 638.00 per acre. (e} Warm Springs Valley Sub-Watershed $ 297.00 Der acre. (11) (12) West Elsinore Area AOP San Oacinto River AOP $4,015.00 per acre. $2,215.00 per acre. SECTION 10.30. MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION FEES. Re This section is adopted pursuant to Section 66484 of the Government Code which provides for the payment of fees to defray the actual or estimated costs for the construction of bridges and major thoroughfares as a condition of aoproval of a final map or as a condition of issuing a building permit. B. -Whenever land that is proposed to be divided or for which a building permit.. is sought, lies within the boundaries of an Area of Benefit, as hereinafter defined and established, a fee in the amount specified by the resolution establishing the Area of Benefit as adopted or thereafter a~ended, shall he required as a condition of approval and recordation of any final subdivision or parcel ~ap or of the issuance of a building permit. property shall be assessed a fee under this section for both a final map and a building permit. C. Definitions. "Construction" means design, acquisition of right-of-way, administration of construction contracts and actual construction. "Major thoroughfare" shall mean those roads designated as an expressway, arterial highway, major highway and secondary highway as defined by Section 2.3 of this ordinance and reflected in the Circulation portion of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Comprehensive General Plan and whose primary putDose is to carry through traffic provide a network connecting to or which is Dart of the state highway syste~. "Bridge" shall include the construction of or addition to a bridge identified in the Circulation portion of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Comprehensive General Plan or is part of a major thoroughfare and spans a waterway, railway, freeway or canyon. 8O $UBMITrAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: Planning Department SUBMITrALDATE: January SUBJECT: Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan Amendment No. 1 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. 90-059 adopting Amendment No. 1 to the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan. 2. Adopt Ordinance No. 460.94. JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to Resolution No. 86-29 adopting the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan (ADP), the Flood Control Dis- trict was directed to prepare an update of the plan at least every two years· The recommended fee increase for each subwatershed is due to two factors, facility changes and inflation. The new fee is based on a recosting of the plan using "Engineering News Record's" construction cost data spanning the period from the date the plan was adopted in March 1986 to September 1989, which indicates a 9.5% increase in construction costs. Right of way cost increases are based upon the recommendation of the County's Real Property Management Division, which indicates right of way costs have increased by as much as 200%. Also contributing to the fee increase is the cost of mitigation measures not anticipated when the plan was adopted. ROGEr. STREETER Planning Director KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer CO,;: bjp Prey. Agn. tel. Depts. Comments Dist. 1st & 3rd AGENDANO. 1 2 $ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE RESOLUTION NO. 90-059 AMENDING THE MURRIETA AREA DRAINAGE PLAN 4 5 6 7 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 86-29, adopted by this Board on May 6, 1986, implementing the Murrieta Area .Drainage Plan, di- rects the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to review the plan at l~ast every two years and to pre- pare an update of the plan that reflects changed conditions and any required changes in faqllity cost estimates and drainage fees; and 8 9 10 WHEREAS, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has recommended the adoption of an amend- ment to the plan increasing the amount of the drainage fee in order to reflect facility changes and offset added costs due to inflation; now, therefore, 11 12 BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, State of California, in regular session assembled on January 23, 1990, that: 15 14 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and the Negative Declaration for Environment'al Assessment No. 34687 is adopted. 15 16 17 18 2. The revised estimated cost of the facilities and the recommended revised drainage fee are correct, necessary and fair- ly apportioned within the drainage area, both on the basis of benefits conferred on properties that are proposed for subdivi- sion and on the need for drainage facilities that is created by the proposed subdivision and development of all properties within the drainage area. 19 20 21 22 24 3. Amendment No. 1 to the Murrieta Area Drainage Plan, dated January 23, 1990, and on file in the office of the Clerk of this Board, is adopted, and the drainage fee for the five sub- watersheds within the drainage area is fixed in the amount of $q~62 per acre (Wildomar Valley); $3503 per acre (Murrieta Val- ley): $1970 per acre (Temecula Valley); $1023 per acre (Santa Gertrudis Valley); and $530 per acre (Warm Springs Valley). MDP2B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ELW: re 711it 24 12/20/S9 25 ORnlNANCE NO. 460.94 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSID~ AM~.NDING ORDINANCE NO. 460 RET.ATING TO SUBDIVISIONS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside Ordains as Follows: Section 1. Section J(10) of Section 10.25 of Ordinance No. 460 is amended to read as follows: (10) Murrieta Creek ADP (a) Wildomar Sub-Watershed (b) Murrieta Valley Sub-Watershed (c) Temecula Valley Sub-Watershed (d) (e) Santa Gertrudis Valley Sub-Watershed Warm Springs Valley Sub-Watershed $4,462.00 per acre $3,503.00 per acre Kection 9. after the date of adoption. ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy $1,970.00 per acre $1,023.00 per acre 530.00 per acre This ordinance shall take effect 60 days BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA By Chairman -1- REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE MURRIETA AREA DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE January 1990 Pursuant to Ordinance 460 and Resolution No. 86-29 adopting the Murrieta Area Drainage Plan, the District recommends that the District Board of Supervisors and the County Board of Supervisors hold a joint session public hearing to consider revisions to the Wildomar Master Drainage Plan and the Murrieta Area Drainage Plan (MDP/ADP). The Murrieta Creek ADP was adopted by the Board in May 1986. At that time, the Wildomar MDP/ADP was incorporated as a subarea of the large Murrieta MDP/ADP. Since its adoption, we have experienced an inflationary trend in construction costs along with a tremendous increase in property values. Therefore, the District believes that it is necessary to adjust the fee in the plan to reflect these changes. Also, the District has identified flooding problems upstream of Wildomar Laterals C, C-1 and E which should be addressed. The proposed solution is to extend these lines to a point upstream where the flows can be easily collected. Lateral C would be extended to the existing crossing under the 1-15 freeway. Lateral C-1 and E would be extended to the Laguna Rancho Line. No facility changes are proposed within the Murrieta MDP. As a result of environmental and local citizen's concerns, the District staff is presently investigating alternative designs for Murrieta Creek Channel. The Board of Supervisors has appointed an advisory committee to assist in this study. This study is in its initial stages and the District is not now prepared to make a recommendation to the Board as to what the ultimate design of Murrieta Creek Channel should be. We, therefore, feel that the new drainage fee should be based on a recosting of the original plan. Mitigation measures such as acquiring right of way for habitats and the use of "Armorflex" lining has been costed into the new fee. The new drainage fees, based on construction inflation factors from "Engineering News Record" and property values as recommended by the County Real Property Management Division, are as follows: a. Wildomar Valley Subwatershed $4462/acre b. Murrieta Valley Subwatershed $3503/acre c. Temecula Valley Subwatershed $1970/acre d. Santa Gertrudis Valley Subwatershed $1023/acre e. Warm Springs Valley Subwatershed $530/acre Following the completion of the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board find the proposed facility changes to the Wildomar MDP and the fee increase for the Murrieta ADP to be correct and necessary based on the evidence presented at the hearing, adopt the proposed resolution amending the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, and adopt the ordinance amendment increasing the Murrieta Creek ADP fee. MDP2A AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 90-059 Adopted January 23, 1990 Updating Requirement - This amendment is prepared in accordance with Riverside County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 86-29 "Adopting Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan", which states in part: "that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is directed to prepare an update of this plan at least every two years to reflect changed conditions, inflationary or deflationary trends, revised general or specific plans, and approved development and drainage plans which will require changes in facility configuration cost estimates and drainage fees." Facility Changes - W Lines C, C-1 and E have been extended in order to ensure collection of storm flows. No changes in the configuration of Murrieta Channel are proposed with this update. However, extensive mitigative measures such as using Armorflex lining and the acquisition of additional rights of way for habitat have been costed into this update. New Facilities - Only a portion of Santa Gertrudis Channel has been constructed since the plan was originally adopted. Recommendations - It is the opinion of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District that the above mentioned changes will require a revision to the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan,-adopted May 6, 1986. It is the District's recommendation that the Board revise the drainage fees for the five sub-watersheds to reflect not only the facility changes but also the inflationary trends in construction and right of way costs. The increase in construction cost is based upon The "Engineering News-Record" construction cost data. Right of way cost increases are based upon the recommendations of the County's Real Property Management Division. TT:seb ADP5A AMENDMENT I MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN REVISED DRAINAGE FEES The current drainage fees for the five sub-watersheds are: Sub-Watershed Fee Wildomar Valley Murrieta Valley Temecul a Val 1 ey Santa Gertrudis Valley Warm Springs Valley $4462/acre $3503/acre $1970/acre $1023/acre $$30/acre *M.C. - Murrieta Creek Channel *S.G. - Santa Gertrudis Channel *W.S. - Warm Springs Channel Percentage Applied Toward Local Facilities 56.97% 42.58% 4.02% 3.92% 3.23% Major Facilities *M.C. *S.G. *W.S. 43.03% 0 0 57.42% 0 0 95.98% 0 0 43.29% 52.79% 0 77.00% 0 19.77% ADP5B JU~I T~B.E I MUR~:IETA CR£[X AREA DRAINAG£ PLAN COST Facility Santa Wildc~ar Murrieta Temecula Certrudls Warm Springs Area Drainage Valley ValXey Valley Valley Valley Plan Tota! Cost Total Cost Tota! Cost Tota! Cost Tota! Cost Total Cost M,W Murrieta Creek Ch. 5mn%m Gertrudt$ Cb. Warm Springs Oh. Line A Line C Line C-1 Line P Line D-1 Line £ Line £-1 Line £-2 Line Line Line £-5 Line F Line Line Line Line G Line H Line J Line K Line L Line L-i Line M Line Line N Line P Hw~ 79 Crossing R3 Crossing Wildc~ar Chsnnel Lateral A Lateral B Lateral Lateral C Lateral C-1 Line P Lateral £ Lateral Wild~m~ C~. Debris Basin Lateral A P~bris Basin $5,515,000 $22,69q,OO0 1,913,ooO 297,OO0 2,395,OO0 ~38,000 ~ ,OOO 235,000 TT,OO0 3,a5~ ,000 1 ,a"3,0OO 91,000 591 ,OOO 1,260,000 399,000 1,39~ ,OOO 591,000 6q5, OOO 58,000 158, OO0 79,000 ~88,OO0 #?8,OO0 2,O93,000 669,000 266 ,OOO 2,330,000 2#2,000 18,000 455,000 $8,60",OO0 $8,695,OO0 $8,099,OO0 7,132,000 2,O80,OO0 I#7,OOO 12'/,000 86,000 6~5 ,OO0 3aO,000 $53,610,000 7,132,0oo 2,08o,OO0 1 q? 000 127 ooo 86 000 1,913 000 297 0oo 2,395 000 253 000 ~38 000 9q 000 235 000 77 OOO 3,q51 000 1 ,q~3,000 91,000 591,000 1,260,000 399 000 1,39q 000 591 000 6~5 000" 58 000 158 OO0 79 000 q88 000 ~78 000 3~40,000 6~5,000 2,O93,OO0 669,000 #8~, 000 266,000 2,330,000 2q2 ,OOO 18,OO0 496,000 23,000 226,OO0 ~55, OOO $12,817,000 $39,S~2,000 ~8,g6q,ooO, $16,475,OO0 $10,519,OO0 $88,297,000 Costs ~hown ~bove include Con~ructio. (w/31% ~&~r~, ~ti~cies md ~istrmtion) ~d Rl~t of Way ~sts. ~ let~r ~I ~h l~e ~si~tl~ (M ~ W) refers ~ ~ wpr~imte ~er ~ain~e PI~ (~leta ~ WIl~) ~re ~ ~el~ary ~si~ ~s ~ ~ f~. RDP5C ~T:meb NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO UPDATE THE MURRIETA AREA DRAINAGE PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing at which all interested persons will be heard, will be held before the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, California on the 14th Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, on January 23, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. to consider adoption of Amendment No. i to the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan. Pursuant to Resolution No. 86-29 which adopted the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has reviewed the plan and is recommending adoption of Amendment No. i which revises the plan boundary and certain facilities as well as increases the drainage fee as follows: a. Wildomar Valley Subwatershed $4462/acre b. Murrieta Valley Subwatershed $3503/acre c. Temecula Valley Subwatershed $1970/acre d. Santa Gertrudis Valley Subwatershed $1023/acre e. Warm Springs Valley Subwatershed $530/acre The Planning Director has tentatively found that the.. proposed project will have no significant environmental effect and has tentatively completed a Negative Declaration under Environmental Assessment No. 34687. The Board of Supervisors will consider whether or not to adopt the Negative Declaration along with the proposed project at this hearing. Written comments may be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the hearing date, or persons may present oral comments in support or opposition at the time of hearing. If you challenge any portion of these projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of Supervisors at, or prior to, the public hearing. The environmental findings and the draft ordinance amendment, including data concerning the proposed fee increase, may be viewed at the Public Information Center of the County Planning Department, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the following locations: Roger S. Streeter - Planning Director Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street - 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92210 Those seeking further information concerning this proposal should contact Clyde Johnson at 714/787-2886. MDP2D RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA MURRIETA AREA DRAINAGE CREEK PLAN ADOPTED: MAR. 1986 AMENOE:D: daN. 1990 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN Adopted May 6, 1986 By the Riverside County Board of Supervisors Prepared and Adopted Pursuant to Government Code Section 66483, et seq. and Section 10.25, Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 J i i i ! GENERAL STATEMENT The Murrieta Creek watershed addressed by this plan is the 220 square mile drainage area that contributes flow to Murrieta Creek. The area is generally bounded by the Domenigoni Valley, Sage Road, the Pauba Valley, and the Santa Rosa Mountains. Lake Skinner is located almost in the middle of the drainage area. Approximately one third of the watershed lies within the First Supervisorial District, with the balance being contained within the Third Supervisorial District. This Area Drainage Plan for controlling flood and drainage problems in the Murrieta Creek Area, prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, concludes that certain flood and drainage facilities are critically needed for an orderly and economical development of the area. The plan proposes the construction of the facilities shown on the maps contained herein as a solution to the flooding and drainage problems in the watershed. The documents entitled, "Master Drainage Plan for the Murrieta Creek Area", dated March 1986, and "Master Drainage Plan for the Wildomar Area", dated August 1980, as approved by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Board of Supervisors, including all maps and exhibits attached thereto, are adopted in their entirety as part of this Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan. MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN The Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan consists of the improvement of Murrieta- Creek, as well as the construction of numerous side drains. Additionally, the improvement of Tucalota Creek at Route 3 in the Sage area, and the improvement of Warm Springs Creek at Highway 79 in the Domenigoni Valley are proposed. The facilities proposed by the plan range in size from a 225' wide, 14' deep Murrieta Creek Channel designed to control more than 38,000 cfs, to a 36" re- inforced concrete pipe designed to convey 50 els. Only facilities 36" or larger in diameter, as shown on the enclosed maps, are included as part of this Area Drainage Plan. Drains smaller than 36" are to be considered as a part of land development activities and will be required as deemed necessary. The Murrieta Creek improvement is proposed over the 11 plus miles of natural watercourse and interim channel improvements, beginning at about McVicar Road in the Wildomar area and extending southerly, past the town of Temecula, to the Santa Margarita River. While side drains are proposed at needed locations along the entire length of the creek, the greatest preponderance of smaller facilities are found in the Wildomar area and in and around the townsite of Murrieta. Additionally, two sub-watershed areas that are large flow contribu- tors to the lower portion of Murrieta Creek do so through two proposed major side channels, Warm Springs Channel and Santa Gertrudis Channel. The drainage problems and the proposed solutions to those problems vary widely within the watershed. Therefore, in an effort to fairly apportion the drainage fee, the overall drainage area has been divided into five sub- watersheds. Each of the five sub-watersheds has a fee associated with it that is more representative of its flow contribution and benefits realized. The -1 - 'he required drainage fee, as a condition of approval for the filing of a final subdivision map or parcel map for each sub-watershed, and the time and methods of payment are as follows: 1. Drainage Fee The current drainage fees for the five sub-watersheds are: Sub-Watershed Fee PercentaRe Applied Toward Local Major Facilities Facilities *M.C. *S.G. *W.S. Wildomar Valley $2,606/acre 67.766% 32.234% 0 0 Murrieta Valley $2,096/acre 58.734% 41.266% 0 Temecula Valley $932/acre 7.188% 92.812% 0 0 Santa Gertrudis Valley $638/acre -5.669% 37.709% 56.622% 0 Warm Springs Valley $279/acre *M.C. = Murrieta Creek Channel *S.G. = Santa Gertrudis Channel *W.S. = Warm Springs Channel 2. Time of Payment, Notice to Owners and Fee Calculations The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has adopted "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", a document which sets forth numerous-administrative policies for implementing this and other area drainage plans within the County. Section IX of that document sets forth administrative provisions established by the Board to permit alternative times of payment of the drainage fee, defines the required notices to owners, and sets forth the computation methods of calculating the drainage fee for each lot. Provisions adopted in that document and its amendments are hereby made a part of this Area Drainage Plan. FINDINGS The Board of Supervisors finds and determines that: The subdivision and development of land within the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan requires the construction of the facilities described in the Plan. -3- The required drainage fee is fairly apportioned within the described sub- watersheds, both on the basis of benefits conferred on properties that are proposed for subdivision and on the need for drainage facilities that is created by the proposed subdivision and development of all properties within the drainage area. -4- Facility M,W Murrieta Creek Channel M Santa Gertrudis Channel M Warm Springs Channel M Line A M Line C · Line C-1 Line D M Line D-1 M Line E M Line E-1 M Line M Line M Line M Line M Line F M Line F-1 M Line M Line F-3 M Line G M Line H M Line d M Line K M Line L M Line L-1 M Line M M Line M-1 M Line N M Line P M Hwy 79 Crossing M R3 Crossing W Wildomar Channel W Lateral A W Lateral B W Lateral B-1 W Lateral C W Lateral C-1 W Line D W Lateral E W Lateral W WiTdomar Channel Debris Basin Lateral A Debris Basin TOTAL TAI].E X ~JRRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN COST SU~qAR¥ Santa Wildomar Murrieta Tm~e~ula Gertrudis Valley Valley Valley Valley Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost $2,q13,000 $9,759,000 $3,938,000 1,863,000 599, 433,000 234,000 936,000 79,000 16,000 303,000 21,000 NOTE: $3,878,000 5,823,000 118,000 112,000 75,000 1,683,000 258,0o0 1,9qq ,000 18q 000 qO0 000 215 000 59 2,695 1,020 83 000 5qO 000 371 000 1,2T0 q71 000 593 000 5O lqq 000 77 000 q25 000 q21 000 583,000 Warm Springs Area Drainage Valley Plan Total Cost Total Cost $3,5q2,000 $23,530,000 5 ,$23,000 1,685,000 1,685,000 ..I 18,000 112,000 75,0oo 1,683,000 258,000 1,9qq ,000 18q ,000 qO0,000 86,000 215,0OO 59,000 2,695,000 I ,020,000 83,000 5qO,000 901,0o0 371,000 1,270,000- q71,000 593,000 50, OOO 14q ,000 77,000 q25,0OO q21,000 318,000 318,000 583,000 1,863,0OO 599,000 q33,000 234,000 936, 79,000 16,000 303,0OO 202,000 202,000 387,000 387,000 $7,q86,000 $23,6q9,000 $q,2#3.000 $10,28q.000 $5,5q5,000 $51,207,000 Costs sho~n above include Construction (wY"]1% engineering, contingencies and admintstratton) and Right o£ Way costs. The letter preceding each line designation (M or W) refers ~o the appropriate Master Drainage Plan (Hurrieta or Wildomar) ~here the preliminary design plans can be found. -R - AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 90-059 Adopted January 23, 1990 Updating Requirement - This amendment is prepared in accordance with Riverside County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 86-29 "Adopting Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan", which states in part: "that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is directed to prepare an update of this plan at least every two years to reflect changed conditions, inflationary or deflationary trends, revised general or specific plans, and approved development and drainage plans which will require changes in facility configuration cost estimates and drainage fees." Facility Changes - W Lines C, C-1 and E have been extended in order to ensure collection of storm flows. No changes in the configuration of Murrieta Channel are proposed with this update. ~wever, extensive mitigative measures such as using Armorflex _ining and the acquisition of additional rights of way for habitat have been costed into this update. New Facilities - Only a portion of Santa Gertrudis Channel has been constructed since the plan was originally adopted. Recommendations - It is the opinion of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District that the above mentioned changes will require a revision to the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, adopted May 6, 1986. It is the District's recommendation that the Board revise the drainage fees for the five sub-watersheds to'reflect not only the facility changes but also the inflationary trends in construction and right of way costs. The increase in construction cost is based upon The "Engineering News-Record" construction cost data. Right of way cost increases are based upon the recommendations of the County's Real Property Management Division. TT:seb ADP5A AMENDMENT ! MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN REVISED DRAINAGE FEES The current drainage fees for the five sub-watersheds are: Sub-Watershed Fee Wildomar Valley Murrieta Valley Temecula Valley Santa Gertrudis Valley Warm Springs Valley $4462/acre $3503/acre $1970/acre $1023/acre $530/acre (M,C, m Murrieta Creek Channel *S.G. - Santa Gertrudis Channel *W.S. - Warm Springs Channel ADP5B Percentage Applied Toward Local Facilities 56.97% 42.58% 4.02% 3.92% 3.23% Major Facilities *M.C. *S.G. *W.S, 43.03% 0 0 57.42% 0 0 95.98% 0 0 43.29% 52.79% 0 77.00% 0 19.77% AMENDMENT MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN Facility M,W Murrieta Creek Ch. M Santa Gertrudis tM Warm Springs M Line A M Line C M Line C-1 iM Line D M Line D-1 M Line E M Line E-1 M Line iM Line E-3 M Line E-q M Line E-5 M Line F iiLine F-I Line Line F-3 M Line G M Line H Line K M z inc L ne L-1 m~ne M ~ Line M-1 M Line N M Line P 'ii Hwy 79 Crossing R3 Crossing Wildomar Channel W Lateral A W Lateral B eLateral B-1 Lateral C W LateraI W Line D iWWLateral E Lateral E-1 W Wildomar Ch. Debris Basin W Lateral A Debris Basin COST SU,~ARY ~l~TAL NOTE: iADPSC ~:seb Santa Wildomar Murrieta Tenecula Gertrudis Warm Springs Area Drainage Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Plan Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost $5,515,000 $22,69U ,000 1,913,000 297,000 2,395,000 253,000 438,000 9q, 000 235,000 77,000 3,451 ,O00 1,443,000 91,000 591,000 1,260,000 399,000 1,394,000 591,000 6q5, OOO 58,000 158,000 T9,000 q88,000 478,000 2,093,000 669,000 48q, 000 266,000 2,330,000 242,000 18,000 495,000 23,000 226,000 455,000 $8,60q,000 $8,698,000 $8,099,000 7,132,000 2,080,000 147,000 127,000 6q5,000 340,000 $53,610,000 7,132,000 2,0B3,000 147,000 127,000 86 000 1,913 000 297 000 2,395 000 253 000 q38 0O0 9q 000 235 ~0 3,qSl 000 1 ,qq3,000 91,000 591,000 1,260,000 399,000 1,39q, 000 .. 591 ,ooo 6q5,000 58,000 15B,000 79,000 qB~,0oO 478, OOO 3qO,000 6q5,000 2,093,000 669,000 48q ,000 266,000 2,330,000 2q2,000 18,000 ~96,000 23,000 226,000 ~55,000 $12,817,000 $39,522,000 $8,96q,000 $16,q75,000 $10,519,000 $88,297,000 Costs shown above include Construction (w/31% engineering, contingencies and administration) and Right of Way costs. The letter preceding each line designation (M or W) refers to the appropriate Master Drainage Plan (Murrieta or Wildomar) where the preliminary design plans can be found. RIV£RS, I DE COUNTY RULES AN~D REGULATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATI ON AREA DRAINAGE OF PLANS ADOPTED JUNE 10,1980 BY RI~SOLUTION NO. 80-244 RESOLUTION 81- 148 82 - 84- ~:'0 INDEX General Guidelines I. II. III. IV. Maintenance Minor Plan Revisions Design and Contract Administration a. Design Responsibility (1) Major Facilities (2) Local Facilities b. Construction Responsibility (1) Public Works Project if Reimbursement or Tract to Tract Transfer of Excess Earned Credit Anticipated (2) Developer Project if Reimbursement Not Anticipated c. Construction Staking Responsibility (1) District Administered Contracts (2) Developer Administered Contracts d. Construction Inspection Responsibility (1) District Administered Contracts (2) Developer Administered Contracts e. Conveyance of Rights of Way (1) District Administered Contracts (2) Developer Administered Contracts (3) When No Construction is Required Project Credit 2 a. Construction Cost Credit, District Administered Contracts' (1) Credit Equals ActUal Cost (2) No Credit for Developer Convenience Appurtenances (3) No Credit for Interim Inlets or Unplanned Facilities b. Construction Cost Credit, Developer Administered Contracts (1) Credit Equals Estimated Cost in the Published Area Drainage Plan PAGE 1 2-16 2 2 2-5 2 3 3 4 4 5-9 5 -i- 'NDEX Contd. c. Rights of Way Credit for Required Facilities Constructed Substantially Within a Stream, Watercourse or Floodplain; or Constructed to Salvage Developer's Flood Prone Property (1) District Appraisal (2) Valuation Date (3) Underground Easements (4) Time of Establishing Right of Way Credit d. Rights of Way Valuation for Offstream Facilities e. Developer Responsibility for Offsite Rights of Way f. District Condemnation of Offsite Rights of Way g. Total Project Credit; District Administered Contracts h. Total Project Credit; Developer Administered Contracts i. Expiration of Project Credits j. Transfer Excess Earned Credit - Tract to Tract Within Area Drainage Plan Means of Paying Drainage Fees a. Standard Acreage Fees when no Construction Required b. District Administered Contracts - Tracts and Specific Plans c. Developer Administered Contracts - Tracts and Specific Plans d. Assessment District Obligation VI. Credit Statement VII. PAGE 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9-10 9 9 9 10 10 -ii- Developers Credit Balance 10-12 a. Definition 10 b. Transfers, Tract to Tract c. Transfers, Unit to Unit 11 d. Fees Paid on Early Units will not be Reserved 11 for Required Facilities on Later Units e. Interest Income Accrues to the Fund 11 f. Accounting by District 11 g. Reimbursement of Credit Balances 11 (1) Date of Establishing a Credit Balance (2) Earliest Reimbursement Date (3) Specific Plan Restrictions (4) Other Reimbursement Restrictions INDEX Contd. PAGE VIII. Application of Drainage Fees a. Tracts Overlapping a Drainage Boundary b. Disputes Over Location of Drainage Boundary IX. Drainage Fee Determinations a. Adopted Drainage Fees b. Time of Payment c. Notice to Owners d. Computation of Lot Drainage Fees e. Adjustments to Deferred Lot Drainage Fees f. Mitigation Fees on Other Discretionary Land Uses 12 12 12 12-16 12 12 13 14 15 16 -iii- GENERAL These Rules and Regulations are adopted by the Board of Supervi- sors for the purpose of providing policy guidelines to be used in the administration of adopted area drainage plans, and to define the design and construction responsibilities of drainage facili- ties to be financed or constructed by developers pursuant to Sec- tion 10.25 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460. Variations in the application of these guidelines may occur as the result of specific language used in the Board Resolution adopting the individual Area Drainage Plans or by the specific condition of development adopted by the County in approving ten- tative maps within the Drainage Plans. As area drainage plans are adopted or amended the Resolution of Adoption will be incor- porated as part of this policy statement. If advance construction of Area Drainage Plan facilities is pro- posed by a developer within an approved Specific Plan, the Specific Plan shall be treated, in the context of these Rules and Regulations as if it were a "Tract" and all other rules set forth herein shall be applied accordingly except as otherwise provided in this document. Drainage fees collected by the County, within County areas, shall not be used by the District to construct any portion of required facilities within City areas unless the City affected has by or- dinance established a comparable fee schedule that is simul- taneously adjusted whenever the Board determines, after appropri- ate public hearings to which the City has been notified and in- vited to comment, that the fee is to be adjusted. Situations not covered by these guidelines will be handled by further directives from the Board when required. - 1 - II. III. GUIDELINES MAINTENANCE All Area Drainage Plan facilities (except inlets within public maintained roads) will be permanently maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conserva- tion District (District) upon satisfactory completion of the project and acceptance by the District unless alter- native maintenance agreements are provided. Inlets to Area Drainage Plan facilities within public maintained roads will be maintained by the Riverside County Road Department or the City within which they are located. MINOR PLAN REVISIONS The alignment, type of construction, design discharge, or design standard may be altered by the Chief Engineer of the District from that shown in the published Area Drainage Plan provided the original purpose is achieved with the altered design. DESIGN AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION The primary responsibility for design and construction of all Area Drainage Plan facilities lies with the District so the maximum control and accountability for costs ac- cruing to the Area Drainage Plan funds can be maintained. The following criteria will be applied by the Chief En- gineer to assist in his evaluation of engineering and administration responsibility for construction contracts: a. Design Responsibility Major Facilities - All channels, retention ba- sins and storm drains with diameters of more than 60 inches will be designed by the District (or through private engineering contracts ad- ministered by the District), unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Chief Engineer. (2) Local Facilities - Local facilities and lateral storm drains with diameters of 60 inches or less will normally be designed by the developer's engineer using District standards providing the Chief Engineer has authorized the developer (in writing) to proceed in this manner. Final plans must be presented on 22" x 36" cronaflex sheets and be approved by the Chief Engineer. - 2 - b. Construction Responsibility Public Works Project if Reimbursement or Tract to Tract Transfer of Excess Earned Credit An- ticipated - The District will cause all facili- ties to be constructed through contracts ad- ministered by the District whenever reimburse- ment for facility costs beyond the developer's total acreage fees is anticipated, or whenever tract to tract transfer of excess earned credit is anticipated. A project agreement shall be executed between the developer and the District setting forth all terms and conditions of the project, including contract timing, project credit, amount of con- struction deposit, right of way transfers, reim- bursement, and other provisions. An agreement will be initiated by the District upon receiving a written request from the developer setting forth a realistic construction schedule (recor- dation, tract grading, home construction, utili- ty installation and street improvements) after construction drawings are sufficiently completed. (2) Developer Project if Reimbursement Not Antici- pated - A developer may construct or cause to be constructed the required Area Drainage Plan facilities in partial or full satisfaction of his drainage fees, provided, however, no reim- bursement shall be made to the developer even if the facility cost exceeds the amount of developer's total drainage fee. Developer con- structed facilities can be used as a credit against drainage fees for future units recorded on the same property as provided in subsections b, c, and i of Section IV. Construction Staking Responsibility (1) District Administered Contracts - All contracts administered by the District shall have basic construction staking surveys provided by the District. (2) Developer Administered Contracts - All contracts administered by the developer shall have basic construction staking surveys provided by the developer. - 3 - d. Construction Inspection Responsibility ee (1) District Administered Contracts - Construction inspection for all Area Drainage Plan facilities to be constructed under District administered contracts shall be done by the District at cost, out of construction funds deposited by the developer as provided in the project agreement. A duplicate inspection fee shall not be required by the County. (2) Developer Administered Contracts - Construction inspection for Area Drainage Plan facilities to be constructed under developer administered con- tracts shall be done by the County using inspec- tion fees collected under provisions of County Ordinance No. 460. The Road Commissioner will notify the District in writing before the proj- ect is accepted; the bonds held by the County for these facilities shall not be released until the Chief Engineer has approved the release in writing. When it is mutually advantageous to the County and the District, the District may provide the construction inspection. Inspection fees col- lected by the Road Commissioner for this purpose will then be transferred to the appropriate Area Drainage Plan fund and District inspection costs will be charged to that fund. Conveyance of Rights of Way District Administered Contracts - Conditions for transfer of rights of way for all facilities constructed by the District will be established in the project agreement between the developer and the District. Rights of way for facilities within the boundaries of the tract will be of- fered for dedication to the County at the time' of recordation of the final map and thereafter be conveyed by the County to the District. Credit for said rights of way shall be es- tablished as defined in Section IV. Rights of way for facilities outside the boundaries of the tract will be conveyed directly to the District free and clear of conflicting encumbrances and encroachments and be guaranteed by a policy of title insurance. The boundary will be monu- mented by the developer's engineer to the satis- faction of the District. - 4 - IV. (2) Developer Administered Contracts - Rights of way for developer constructed facilities shall be offered for dedication to the County at the time of recordation of the final map requiring these facilities; upon completion of the facilities the County shall accept the offer of dedication and convey the rights of way to the District. (3) When No Construction Required - When no facili- ties are required to be constructed but dedica- tion of rights of way is nonetheless required, the offer of dedication shall be made to the County at time of recordation of the final map; upon request of the District the County shall accept the offer and convey the rights of way to the District. PROJECT CREDIT Construction Cost Credit, District Administered Contracts (1) Credit Equals Actual Cost - The construction cost credit given to a developer for construc- tion of Area Drainage Plan facilities, con- structed under contracts administered by the District, shall be the actual cost of the facilities including those allowable design costs, construction surveys, contract ad- ministration and inspection costs accrued for that segment of the project. (2) No Credit for Developer Convenience Appurtenan- ces - The cost of appurtenant facilities in- cluded in the contract for localized drainage, or developer's convenience will not be included in the construction cost credit. (3) No Credit for Interim Inlets or Unplanned Facilities - The cost of special requirements including, but not limited to, interim collec- tion dikes, interim outlet structures, bridges not shown in the published plan or facilities which are not considered integral to the ulti- mate area plan project but are included only to fit the specific type or time of development, will not be included in the construction cost credit. - 5 - be Construction Cost Credit, Developer Administered Contracts (1) Credit Equals Estimated Cost in the Published Area Drainage Plan - The construction cost credit, given to a developer for construction of Area Drainage Plan facilities constructed under contracts administered by the developer, shall be determined by the Chief Engineer using the estimated construction costs (including contin- gencies and engineering) published in the Area Drainage Plan for the segment of the project being constructed. Rights of Way Credit for Required Facilities Con- structed Substantially Within a Stream, Watercourse or Flood Plain; or Constructed to Salvage Developer's Flood Prone Property (1) District Appraisal - Rights of way credit will be determined by the District. A property valuation will be made using the assessed value of the property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. A distinction will be made in this appraisal between bench lands not subject to flooding and lands in the flood plain. Lands within the flood plain will be assigned 1/4 the unit values of the bench lands. The area within the flood plain shall be deter- mined by the Chief Engineer using such maps, photographs, calculations, field observations or other means as may be readily available to him. The resulting calculation formula to determine indicated fee value is: (1/4 P x A1) + (P x A2) = Assessed Value Areas A1 and A2 are the acreage of the flood· plain and bench lands, respectively; and P, the indicated unit value for fee title on bench lands not subject to flooding. Flowage easements, or flooding easements will be valued at 50% of the indicated values computed above. Severance damages and special benefits will not be considered in the evaluation. The resulting rights of way credit is not in- tended to reflect precisely the highest and best use or current market value, but is intended to bring order and equity to the right of way crediting process, which can be readily deter- mined and administered without undue delays to - 6 - de ee the developer. considered. Valuation appeals will not be (2) Valuation Date - The appraisal valuation date will be established as the date of recordation of the final map that requires the dedication with the condition of property being defined as the raw land condition without consideration of the intended recordation of the subject tract. (3) Underground Easements - No value will be placed upon underground storm drain easements. (4) Time of Establishing Right of Way Credit - Credit for rights of way conveyed for area plan facilities will be established by the District upon written request of the developer prior to tract recordation. Rights of Way Valuation for Offstream Facilities - Rights of way for retention basins, diversion chan- nels or other facilities located offstream, i.e., properties not subject to flood hazard, but required primarily to achieve system economics in the Area Drainage Plan, will be valued by the District in a formal appraisal of highest and best use. Recordation of the final map shall be deferred until the appraisal is complete. Upon completion of the appraisal, the Chief Engineer shall recommend and the Board shall determine a final valuation of the rights of way granted for the project based upon the Dis- trict's appraisal and any other relevant information presented by the Chief Engineer or the developer. Developer Responsibility for Offsite Rights of Way - When the conditions of approval of a tentative map require offsite improvements, the developer shall acquire offsite rights of way by negotiation with the affected property owners. The rights of way credit allowed developer will be established as provided in subsection c or d of Section IV above, and will not be based upon actual payment by the developer for the land. District Condemnation of Offsite Rights of Way - Use of the District's powers of condemnation will be con- sidered only on public projects where clear public need and necessity can be established. When condem- nation proceedings are required, such proceedings will be initiated only after the appropriate public hearings and approval by the Board. - 7 - go Property owners of lands within the Area Drainage Plan which must be acquired by the District for the construction of required facilities, may elect, at the sole discretion of the landowner, to be compen- sated in cash or with an equivalent drainage fee credit statement prepared by the District which waives future Area Drainage Plan fees in the amount equal to the right of way offer, on the parcels of lands designated by the landowner which lie within the Area Drainage Plan. The letter(s) of drainage fee credit shall be signed by both the Chief Engineer and the affected landowner, and be duly recorded by the District in the Office of the County Recorder at the time of issuance. Total Project Credit; District Administered Contracts - The total project credit shall be the sum of con- struction cost credit and rights of way credit. Total Project Credit; Developer Administered Contracts - The total project credit shall be the sum of construction cost credit and rights of way credit; however, the total project credit shall not exceed the drainage fees on the tract for which the facilities are being constructed or the amount of the estimated construction cost of the required facility as determined by the published Area Drainage Plan. Expiration of Project Credits - The right to a credit, used to pay or reduce fees for units of a tract or Specific Plan, expires 15 years after the date the credit was earned. In order to use earned credits, the developer shall file, upon the form supplied by the District, a verified request that the unused credit be applied to the new development, which request shall include the consent of the owners of the original earned credit. Transfer Excess Earned Credit - Tract to Tract Within Area Drainage Plan - In order to transfer excess earned credit from tract to tract within a specific Area Drainage Plan, a public works contract adminis- tered by the District (i.e., developer administered contracts will not qualify) must first be completed to establish the amount of the excess earned credit. When excess earned credit is to be transferred from tract to tract, evidence indicating that an agreement has been reached between developers shall be submit- ted to the District and shall include tract number transferring excess earned credit, tract number receiving excess earned credit, amount of excess earned credit being transferred, certification that contents of agreement is correct and notarized signa- tures of both developers. No successive transfer of - 8 - excess earned credit will be allowed. No transfer of excess earned credit from a tract in one Area Drainage Plan to a tract in another Area Drainage Plan will be allowed. MEANS OF PAYING DRAINAGE FEES ae Standard Acreage Fees when no Construction Required - owners of developments which do not require the con- struction of Area Drainage Plan facilities pay the applicable drainage fees to the Road Commissioner at time of recording the final map except as provided in Section IX herein. be District Administered Contracts - Tracts and Specific Plans - Credit may be granted for the actual cost of Area Drainage Plan facilities funded by developers using a District administered contract, provided however that: (1) A construction agreement must be executed with the District prior to beginning of construction. (2) The construction agreement will require an ad- vance deposit of cash or an approved letter of credit from an acceptable financial institution in the amount of 110% of the District's esti- mated cost of construction including the esti- mated costs of survey staking, inspection and contract administration. The agreement would also establish provisions to return any excess deposit (or the release of the financial respon- sibility established in the letter of credit) for any funds remaining within 90 days of com- pletion of the project. (3) Credit for the cost of constructed Area Drainage Plan facilities may be transferred or used to offset Area Drainage Plan fees required to be paid on any other development in the Area Drainage Plan. Developer Administered Contracts - Tracts and Specific Plans - Credit may be granted for Area Drainage Plan facilities constructed by developers using a developer administered contract, provided however that: (1) Credit is limited to the Area Drainage Plan cost estimate for the facilities being constructed as determined by the Chief Engineer. (2) Credit for the cost of facilities may be used only to offset developer's fees required at time of recordation for other development units of respective tract or specific plan. - 9 - VI. VII. (3) Faithful performance, and materials and labor bonds must be posted in the amount and type re- quired for all other tract improvements prior to recording a final tract map. If the construc- tion is being done as part of a specific plan, an agreement may be required with the District prior to proceeding with construction, setting forth the terms and conditions of inspection, maintenance, right of way transfer, posting and release of bonds and all other related matters. Assessment District Obligation - Property included in am Assessment District which has been obligated to pay off bonded indebtedness to finance the construc- tion of Area Drainage Plan facilities shall be relieved from paying Area Drainage Plan fees at time of development up to an amount equal to the pro rata amount of the original assessment assigned to that property, providing however if the fee in effect when the assessment was applied was more than the assess- ment, then the incremental balance due (inflated at rates similar to the change which has occurred to the whole fee) shall be required to be paid as a condi- tion of the development. Excess credit may not be earned by obligations in- curred on a parcel of land within the Assessment Dis- trict, unless that assessment is paid in full prior to the sale of bonds. CREDIT STATEMENT The District will prepare a statement authorizing the County to credit drainage fees for the published Area Drainage Plan value of facilities constructed, or bonded for construction, prior to recording the final map. Said statement will be prepared for tracts where construction of any segment of Area Drainage Plan facilities or dedi- cation of rights of way is required or transfer of excess earned credit has been proposed and approved. A similar statement will be provided by the District to both the developer and County for the status of excess credit earned by advance construction of Area Drainage Plan facilities within approved Specific Plans. This statement will be prepared after the project is completed and accepted by the District, or at such time as a con- tractual commitment (with acceptable provisions for bond- ing, construction deposit, or letter of credit) has been made between the developer and the District. DEVELOPER'S CREDIT BALANCE Definition - A developer's credit balance in the Area Drainage Plan fund is equal to the amount his total project credits exceed his drainage fees. - 10 - Cm de es ge Transfers, Tract to Tract - A credit balance obtained on one tract, through construction of Area Drainage Plan facilities, may not be used to waive drainage fees required for another tract except as provided in Sections IV, i and j herein. Transfers, Unit to Unit - Credit balances obtained on one unit of a tract may be used by the developer in payment of drainage fees required to record subse- quent units of the same tract. Fees Paid on Early Units will not be Reserved for Required Facilities on a Later Unit - Fees collected from a developer on an early unit of a tract will not be held in an Area Drainage Plan fund for specific construction of area plan facilities required in a subsequent unit of the developer's tract. Interest Income Accrues to the Fund - Monies in an Area Drainage Plan fund may be invested by the Dis- trict in approved interest drawing accounts. The revenue from such investments shall accrue to the Area Drainage Plan fund and does not accrue to any developer's account. Accounting by District - The District will keep, and make available, an accurate accounting of all developer credit balances in Area Drainage Plan funds. Reimbursement of Credit Balances - Uncommitted monies in an Area Drainage Plan fund may be disbursed by the Auditor upon recommendation of the Chief Engineer and approval by the County Board of Supervisors, to developers holding a construction credit balance sub- ject to rules defined herein, and on a first es- tablished, first returned basis. In order to provide continuity in completing Area Drainage Plan facilities the County Board of Supervi- sors may define CRITICAL SEGMENTS of an Area Drainage Plan required to be funded out of existing or future uncommitted revenues prior to the authorization for reimbursement of any developer's credit balance. Any such disbursement of uncommitted monies shall be made only after the construction of CRITICAL SEGMENTS of a plan, as defined by the Board, has been funded and committed. Such disbursements are also subject to the following reimbursement guidelines: (1) Date of Establishing a Credit Balance - The date of establishing a credit balance shall be the date of the NOTICE OF COMPLETION of the project for facilities constructed by the District. VIII. IX. (2) Earliest Reimbursement Date, Tracts - Reimburse- ment of a credit balance shall not be considered by the Board until all units of the tentative tract have been recorded, or the time for recor- dation of all units of the tentative tract has expired. (3) Specific Plan Restrictions - Reimbursement of a credit balance earned by construction of facili- ties within a specific plan of development shall be considered by the Board only on a case by case basis, using the reimbursement rules for tracts as a general guide, and making its deci- sion after receiving input at a public hearing scheduled for this matter. (4) Other Reimbursement Restrictions - Additional reimbursement restrictions may be established in a project agreement. APPLICATION OF DRAINAGE FEES Tracts Overlapping a Drainage Boundary - If a tract is partially within and partially outside of an Area Drainage Plan, drainage fees shall be applied only to that portion of the tract within the drainage bound- ary of the adopted Area Drainage Plan. be Disputes Over Location of Drainage Boundary - The Chief Engineer shall determine the location of the published Area Drainage Plan boundary if the location of the boundary is in dispute. In determining the location of the boundary, the Chief Engineer shall fix the location of the natural drainage boundary that existed on the date of adoption of the Area Drainage Plan, or the location of such other boundary as may have been intended by the Board when adopting the Area Drainage Plan. DRAINAGE FEE DETERMINATIONS a. AdoDted Drainage Fees Each Area Drainage Plan adopted by the Board es- tablishes the drainage fee per acre currently in ef- fect for all new land division~ within that plan. b. Time of Payment Drainage fees shall be paid as follows: (1) Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commis- sioner as a part of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be paid as a condition of - 12 - the waiver prior to recording a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map; or (2) At the option of the land divider, upon filing a required affidavit requesting deferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grading permit or buildimg permit for each approved parcel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided however, this option to defer the fees may not be exercised for any par- cel where grading or structures have been ini- tiated on the parcel within the prior 3 year period, or permits for either activity have been issued on that parcel which remain active. c. Notice to Owners When the land divider elects at time of recordation to have payment of the drainage fees made at the time of issuance of grading or building permits on indi- vidual lots, the following notifications shall be made: The recorded final map or parcel map or certifi- cate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the filing of a parcel map shall specifically state that a drainage fee is required to be paid by the owner of parcels created by the land divi- sion prior to issuance of the first grading per- mit or building permit for each created parcel; and (2) A separate instrument shall be recorded by the land divider in the Office of the County Record- er of Riverside County which gives notice that the drainage fees have been deferred to the grading or building permit stage. The instru- ment shall be recorded at the time of filing for record of the final map or parcel map, or the certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map. The instrument shall give notice that a substantial drainage fee is re- quired to be paid to the Riverside County Build- ing Director by the owners of the created par- cels prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit for each parcel for which a drainage fee is required; and (3) Upon payment of any deferred land division drainage fee, the Building Director shall record a Notice in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County that the land division drainage fees have been paid, stating the amount and date of payment. d. Computation of Lot Drainage Fees A lot drainage fee shall be established for each lot at time of approval for recordation or waiver of recordation of the subdivision final map or parcel map. The fee shall be computed as follows: For subdivisions into small lots (1 acre net or less), the lot drainage fee will be determined by multiplying the gross acreage being divided into small lots, times the drainage fee per acre in effect at time of recordation, divided by the total number of small lots. (2) For subdivisions into large lots (lots greater than i acre net), the drainage fee for each lot will be the fee established for one acre regard- less of the lot size, except that: On land zoned for commercial, industrial, or manufacturing use as defined by Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348, the lot drainage fee shall always be computed as if it were a small lot land division; the amount due for each lot shall be established by multiplying the gross lot area times the drainage fee per acre in ef- fect at time of recordation. (3) Drainage fees for lots within a nonstatutory condominium subdivision shall be calculated as if the development were a small lot subdivision, multiplying the gross acreage being developed times the drainage fee per acre at time of recordation, divided by the number of individual lots (not counting the common areas as a lot); the drainage fee for common use areas shall be allocated proportionately to the individual lots and no fee shall be separately collected for the lots designated for common use. (4) Drainage fees for units of a statutory con- dominium shall be calculated as provided herein for nonstatutory condominiums, treating units of the development as if they were lots, and al- locating drainage fees for the lot of common area proportionately to the units; no fee shall be separately collected for the common area lot. (5) Credits granted to a developer for construction of Area Drainage Plan facilities required in order to record a land division shall be used to reduce the lot drainage fees established herein - 14 - for subsequent units of the development as as- signed by the developer who established the credit. No allowance for inflation or deprecia- tion of the value of the constructed facility shall be made. Written verification of the as- signment from the original developer to the owner requesting the credit will be required prior to the use of this credit to waive the subsequent fee. (6) Payment of drainage fees on a large lot which is subsequently divided into smaller lots shall be treated as a credit against the new drainage fees. No allowance for interest earned will be granted. The credit shall be used to reduce the lot drainage fee on all lots within the new land division, as assigned by the developer who es- tablished the credit, upon presentation of a written verification of the assignment from the original developer. On lots created prior to February 16, 1988, for which the fee was also paid prior to that date, the current owner shall be given the option to elect to receive a pro- portional credit of the prior Area Drainage Plan fee paid by the parent lot owner. (7) Drainage fees shall not be required to be paid as a condition to the division of any parcel of land for which a drainage fee has previously been paid as a small lot (1 acre net or less) land division. Public agency owners shall be exempt from the payment of deferred lot drainage fees es- tablished herein. (9) Deferred lot drainage fees shall not be required to be collected at time of issuance of a'~subse- quent building permit for a lot, when the build- ing permit requested does not create additional impervious surface area. If the permit to be granted is for any grading, or if it is for a building permit which creates any additional impervious surface area, the drainage fee shall be required to be paid in full before the permit is issued. e. Adjustments to Deferred Lot Drainage Fees The amount of the drainage fee within an adopted Area Drainage Plan may be amended at any time by the Board of Supervisors upon a determination that it is neces- sary to do so in order to correctly reflect the esti- mated cost of facilities required in the plan. - 15 - When a developer elects to defer the payment of the lot drainage fees to the grading or building permit stage, the fee to be 9aid for each lot shall be the amount established at time of recordation as set forth herein, increased or decreased proportionately to reflect adogted changes in the drainage fee since the date of recordation of the subdivision final map or 9arcel ma9 which created the 9arcel. fe Mitigation Fees on Other Discretionary Land Uses - Whenever a discretionary land use permit is issued within an Area Drainage Plan, and a determination has been made that the approved land use will increase runoff which may require earlier construction of downstream Area Drainage Plan facilities, a mitiga- tion fee may be required to be paid for deposit into the Area Drainage Plan fund, or facilities may be required to help mitigate the impacts. When a mitigation is required, and a fee is considered to be an appropriate means to provide the mitigation, the amount of the fee and time of its collection shall be recommended by the Chief Engineer in his report to the permitting agency, using as his guide, the fee structures set forth herein for land divisions having comparable anticipated impervious surface areas. Upon its collection, the fee shall be placed in the Area Drainage Plan fund for use in the construction of future Area Drainage Plan Facilities. ADPRULE2.MASTER ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department ~ January 8. 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 20882-1 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: Albert Crisp That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No, 20882-1. AUTHORIZE the reduction of street. sewer. and water letters of credit, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. On October 20, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Costain Homes 620 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 for the improvement of streets, drainage, and the installation of sewer and water systems in portions of Margarita Road and Avenida Sonoma, and in Corte San Luis and Corte Carrizo. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Seaboard Surety Company as follows: Bond No. 141610-87 in the amount of $466,000.00 to cover street improvements. Bond No. 141609-87 in the amount of $65.000.00 to cover sewer improvements. STAFFRPT\TR20882.-1 1 ^C:ks Attachment: Bond No. 141614-87 in the amount of $78,000.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 141608-87 in the amount of $9,200.00 to cover setting of lot stakes and subdivision monuments. Bond Nos. 141610-87, 141609-87, and 141614-87 in the amounts of $233,000.00, $32,500.00, and $39,000.00, respectively, to cover materials and labor. The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans and tract map: Required setting of lot stakes and subdivision monuments. 2. Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The County of Riverside released the Bond for $9,200.00 for setting of lot stakes and subdivision monuments on November 16, 1989. The inspection and verification process relating to the streets and drainage, and sewer and water systems has been completed by the County of Riverside and the City Staff with the concurrence of the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Rancho California Water District. Staff therefore recommends that it is appropriate to reduce/release these bonds as follows: Streets: $419,400.00 Sewer: $ 58,500.00 Water: $ 70,200.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance letters of credit amounts are to be retained for one I1) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $46,600.00 Sewer: $ 6,500.00 Water: $ 7,800.00 Vicinity Map STAFFRPT\TR20882.-1 2 To San Diego Location Map ITEM NO. 9 .¢ '~: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~ ~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department ~ January 8, 1991 Additional Right-of-Way Dedication Along Green Tree Road PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the additional dedication along Green Tree Road for road, drainage, and utility purposes, but not as part of the City Maintained Road System. DISCUSSION: The additional dedication along the west side of Green Tree Road, north of Pauba Road is being provided to more readily accommodate ingress and egress to Linfield School, a non-profit corporation. The applicant for this roadway dedication, Linfield School, is requesting that the City accept dedication of the additional three feet of roadway width. The City, in accordance with Government Code 7050, may accept the dedication of any property for any public purpose. Upon recordation by the County Recorder's office, the offer is irrevocable. The City does not become liable for maintaining a street until and unless the Council adopts a resolution accepting the street or highway into the City system lStreets and Highways Code Section 1806). This can be done once the improvements have been completed and accepted by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined. STAFFRPT\ENG-010 1 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council ACCEPT the additional dedication on Green Tree Road for road, drainage, and utility purposes, but not as part of the City Maintained Road System. GH:ks cc: Eric Myers Attachments: Offer of Dedication of Easement Exhibit A Vicinity Map STAFFRPT\ENG-010 2 TwN. RG. SEC. CERTIFICATE of ACCEPTANCE of EASEMENT (Government Code Section 27281) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the Interest real property granted by the easement dated from to the CITY OF TEMECULA, is herehy a(repted for the purpose of vesting title in tho City of lemecula on behalf of the pub!' far public road and utility uses ~ part of thc £i~y NMntMnod R~ld ~yste~ by the undersigned on behalf of the city Council pursuant to the authority cmffahted in County Ordinance No, 669. 6rantet. consents to recordation thereof hy it,; duty authorized officer Dated: City of [emecula By: Douglas M. Stewart RCE 37254 Exp. 6/30/90 Deputy City Engineer C~ty of Temecula ROAD NAME Green Tree Road THIS INSTRUMENT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF [EMECULA AND ENTITLED TO BE RECORDED WITHOUT FEE. (GOV. CODE 6103) PROJECT NAME FOR RECORDER'S USE ENG\G4 W.O.# RETURN TO CITY OF TEMECULA OFF ICE. EASEMENT The Linfield School, A Non-profit Corporation grant(s) to the City of lemecula an easement for public road and drainage purposes, including public utility and public services purposes, over, upon, across, and within the real property in the City of te~cula, State of California, described as follows: SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND MADE A PART HEREOF Dated: Presadent: J. Vincent Morris Secretary: STATE OF CALIFORNIA Iss. COUNTY OF /- I ,"< ~I (,( t_ On ...L ( ~'~ ?."- 4'~r ~ "~ ~'~ ,before me, the undersigned. a Notary Public in and for ~ . . said State, personally al,f,,'nred , ,'~ c /6 ~' ,' ~ ~ ,%,~_ "3 and t. ',/,' r~,'.:Z,.. ,,, c . personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactolv r, ~(l~,n,'ol to be the persons who executed the within instrument as -President and _ _ . Secretary, on behalf of ¢? ~ Z~_ _ August 23, ].990 EXHIBIT "A" DEDICATION DESCRIPTION A 3.00 foot wide dedication to the City of Temecula for road and related purposes over and across a portion of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 13428, as shown by map on file in Parcel Map Book 83, at pages 99 - 100 inclusive, records of Riverside County, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of Pauba Road and the centerline of Green Tree Road as shown by said Parcel MaD ].3428; thence N28°O6'22"W along the centerline of Green Tree Road, a distance of 67.48'; Thence S6[°53'38"W, a distance of 30.00' to a point on the southwesterly right of way line of Green Tree Road, said point also being the True Point of Beginning; Thence S17"24'41"W, a distance of 4.20'' Thence N28u06'22"W and parallel with the centerline of Green Tree Road, a distance of 273.74'' Thence N6'/"O5'28"E along the northern line of said Parcel 3, a distance of 3.01' to a point on the southwesterly right of way of Green Tree Road; Thence S28'~06'22"W a]ona the southwesterly right of way line Green 'Free Road, a distance of 270.52' to the True Point of Beginning. Expires 12/31/93 PAR 3 PM N 67 °O5'28'1E co e~ 3'ADDITIONAL RO.W. EXHIBIT "A" 30' 40' '40/ SCALE '1": 40' pREPARED BY: SOIL TECH, INC. 41607 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE N. TEMECULA, CA 92390 (714) 676-2745 ED CIVIL NO. 23464 EXR 12-5!-93 TRUE POINT BEGINNING ENGINEER OF ~ PAUB_A ROAD--> _ ;r : LA SERENA · CALIFORNIA ¢ILLAGE3 THE VINEYARD WINDSOR ,/<RESf. ttarl Calla~,ay W~nery Vmeksrd$ '" VILLAG ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department January 8. 1991 Dedication of Merlot Crest Realignment PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart R ECOMMEN DAT ION: That the City Council ACCEPT the dedication of Merlot Crest realignment for Road, Drainage and Utility purposes, but not as a part of the City Maintained Road System. DISCUSSION: The new alignment for Merlot Crest at the intersection of Zinfandel Avenue and Chenin Blanc Street is a condition of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142. The applicant for this Tract Map, Costa Development Corporation, has requested that the City accept the dedication of the new alignment. In place of the existing road plan, the applicant is dedicating a strip of land 61.93 feet in width to create a preferred intersection alignment from Tract No. 20879 to Tract No. 23142. The City, in accordance with Government Code 7050, may accept the dedication of any property for any public purpose. Upon recordation by the County Recorder's office, the offer is irrevocable. The City does not become liable for maintaining a street until and unless the Council adopts a resolution accepting the street or highway into the City system (Streets and Highways Code Section 1806). This can be done once the improvements have been completed and accepted by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined. STAFFRPT\ENG-009 1 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council ACCEPT the Dedication of Metlot Crest realignment for Road. Drainage and Utility purposes, but not as a part of the City maintained Road System, CFH:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Offer of Dedication of Easement Exhibit "A" Vesting Tract Map No. 23142 Tract Map No. 20879 Vicinity Map STAFFRPT\ENG-009 2 TWN RG SEC ROAD NAME CERTIFICATE of ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT TEMECULA OFFICE (Government Code Section 272 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in rear property granted by the easement PROJECT HAME THIS INSTRUMENT ISFOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ENTITLED TO BE RECORDED WITHOUT FEE. (COOE 6103) W.O.# FOR RECORDER~S USE RETURN TO CITY OF TEMECULA OFFICE. dated from to the CITY of TEMECULA, is hereby accepted for the purpose of vesting title in the City of Temecula on behalf of the public for publicroad and utility uses ,a~ the um:lersigned on behalf of the City Counci! pursuant to the authority contained in County Ordinance No. 669. Grantee co,seats to recordation thereof by its duty authorized officer Dated: City of Temecu[a by: Tim Ser[ett RCE 287'58 Exp. 9-30-94 City E~ineer City Of Temecula EASEMENT grant(s) to the City of Temecula an easement for public road and drainage purposes, incuIding public utility and public services purposes, over, upon, across, and within the real property in the City of Te~ecula, State of California, described as foltows: SEE EXHIBIT "H" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE blADE A PART HEREOF. MBER, in the year of 1990 , before me, [ic in and for said C~unty and State, personally __ personally known to me (or proved to me evidence) to be the President, and ~n to me (or proved to me on the basis of the Secretary of GiE]A DEVELOPMENT CI]~qlRATIC~ the within instrument and known to me to he within instrument on behalf of said being kno~ to me to be one of the partners nia Limited Partnership, General Partner of e partnership that executed the within to me that such corporation executed the such partnership executed the same. seal. V.C. DEVELOPblENT PARTNERS, L.P. CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Y: THE COSTA GROUP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Y: CO~TA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .A FALIF~NIA CORPORATI~__~_ ~ WILLIAbl J. KOLL-PRESIDENT ROAD DEDICATION EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING ADJUSTED PARCEL A OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 3253 RECORDED DECEMBER 26. 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 464994 , IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID REAL PROPERTY IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID ADJUSTED PARCEL A: THENCE: EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL NORTH 84°02'40" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 61.93 FEET; THENCE: LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID ADJUSTED PARCEL "A" SOUTH 20°17'34" EAST A DISTANCE OF 130.89 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE: SOUTH 54°50'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 17.55 FEET ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LOT B OF TRACT NO. 20879, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 169, PAGES 16 THROUGH 19 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE: WESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, BEING A 210.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT FROM AN INITIAL RADIAL LINE BEARING NORTH 09°15'36" WEST, THROUGH A CENTRALANGLE OF 22°02'06", AN ARC LENGTH OF 80.76 FEET; THENCE: LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID ADJUSTED PARCEL "A", NORTH 14°14'55" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 18.18 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE: CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 20°17'34" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 145.69 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. RICHARD L. CRUZEN, .C. '/~ 22938 AD~ ?£L. ~ L.L.A. NO. $Z55 ALBA ENGINEERING, INC. 9968 HIBERT STREET, SUITE I00 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92131 TELEPHONE NO. (619) 549-3303 - c, CAI..E' r' 4ot DRAWN BY: C~J DATE' Ho. 22935 Ext. 12-31-93 jl /J" LOT ROAD DEDICATION OVER ADJ. PARCEL A OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. :5253 SHEET.q O~ I ILEGAL EXHIBIT ~' ~ C25115 /TR ,~ -. rZ R-R: R-R R-R PROPOSED ZONING 112! II ,oz..,2 R-2 R-R !App. COSTA CONS'PR~CTION, INC. roc4r~o~~c tUse R-R ~ ,R~I ~ i~ RANCHO OALI~IA . II~ERSIDE CO,~INrI'Y PLANNING OEPARTMENT ~o ,c,c~ PROPOSED ZONING I~t. IrSTE -R ] CZ 4480 I I II A-2-10 II R-A-2 I/2 _..- R-R , II ' ~' .'~' II · ,~- . ;:.rs., ~.z~. . ~/ . . ~r..,,.x,,.;~...,.~....-'-~' .... r. 8~., ~.~..~, R- II .. ~-Ix~...~ ~'x. il ....~'--.~x./..zf' ..,~¥¥%, 'XA, ,.X,. ==~?=-, R-A-- I~ ,,;C,_-,-"x},/J I/:,~.x~x,2~ ~ _ ~ . , . App. RANCHO PACIFIC ENGINEERING. uOcat~Onau Use R-R. TO R-I Area RANCHO CALIFORNIA , Sup. Dist. I ST ~, "~..-.~.>'~~_ .o. s,~.~~.? s.,,.~w~,,,,or,B~.,~ ,,,,c,o ,,?. ,,o' "i~ Rd. Bk. I~. 55C Date 5/.%1/85 Drawn By VN ,~, i". 1200' R'/VERS/DE' C06WTY PLANN/NG DEPARTMENT ,o .~C~L~ ITEM NO. 11 CITY ATTORNE~ k~ CITY MANAGER' TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department ~w~ January 8. 1991 Tentative Tract Map No. 21673 PREPARED BY: R ECOMMEN DAT ION: Douglas M. Stewart That the City Council approve Final Tentative Tract Map No. 21673, Amendment No. 1, subject to the Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Tentative Tract Map No. 21673 was originally submitted to Riverside County Planning Department on April 21, 1987. The Tentative Tract Map, Amended No. 1, was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 31, 1987. Tract Map No. 21673 proposes 14 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet on 4.16 acres. The Tentative Tract is located on the north side of Rancho Vista Road, east of Margarita Road. This Tentative Tract is part of Specific Plan No. 199, Development Agreement No. 5, and was processed concurrently with Change of Zone No. 4742; Tentative Tract No. 21672, Amendment No. 1; and Tentative Tract No. 21675, Amendment No. 1. The applicant is Kaiser Development Company. The following fees have been paid for Tentative Tract Map No. 21673: Signal Mitigation Fee Area Drainage Fee Fire Mitigation Fee I Deferred to Building Permits) $ 2,100.00 3,877.12 5,600.00 STAFFRPT\TM21673 1 Requirement of Quimby fees (Park Fees) are not expressly required as conditions of approval for Tract Map No. 21673, however past City Council actions have found that clauses within a development agreement provided latitude to require park fees. With City Council action, a point of clarification advising the applicant of the Development Agreement No. 5 applicability to the project and previous City position may be appropriate. The following securities have been posted for Tract Map No. 21673: Faithful Labor and Performance Materials Street Drainage $ 60,500.00 Water 12,500.00 Sewer 13,500.00 Survey Monuments Taxes and Assessment Erosion Cont.& Landscape Imprvmnts. $ 2,100.00 10,900.00 273,500.00 $ 30,250.00 6,250.00 6,750.00 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not Determined. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Tract Map No. 21673 subject to the Conditions of Approval. GH:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. Development Fee Checklist Location Map Copy of Map Conditions of Approval Fees and Securities Report STAFFRPT\ TM216 7 3 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 21673 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation { Quimby) Public Facility { Traffic Mitigation ) Public Facility { Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility { Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Development Agreement No. 5 Development Agreement No. 5 Development Agreement No. 5 Condition No. 10 (Roads and Surveyor) N/A Condition No. {Planning) Condition No. 13 { Planning ) 14 STAFFRPT\TM21673 3 =IiVE=I iDE coun .u PLAnninG DEPA:Iai1En ~ATE April 10, 1990 TO: Surveyor Road Building & Safety Flood Control Heal th Fire Protection RE: EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT/R~(~Ix MAP NO. 21673 Amd.#1 REGIONAL TEAM NO. One The Riverside County F-~ Planning Director/~]Board of Supervisors has taken the following action on the above referenced tentative map: APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions (no waiver request submitted) DENIED tentative map based on the attached findings. APPROVED tentative map subject to attached conditions and DENIED request for waiver of the final map. ~APPROVED tentative map and APPROVED request for waiver of the final map. XX APPROVED SECON Extension of Time to March 31, 199I subject to ~all previously appro~ed'condiLions. APPROVED .i Extension of Time.to ~ "~I" ~ all previously approved_conditions' and the attached additional conditions. " '. ' 'O t. .... · ~:.. ',.. ( I..VY )' DENIED Extension of Time,'~'<,'.:..~. ,., - ¥;.,q_."]~; ;.- .. -- '~.~:'~-' "'" 11/)'l.'l,'.~1I~? ,,;F."',,~: ~APPROVED withdrawal of'~_~ta~ive map~.,,, APPROVED Minor Change to re~s~¥~'t~ally approved conditions as shown (attached). 't-~' APPROVED Minor Change to revise originally approved map (attached). subject to DENIED request for Minor Change. APPROVED Minor Change to waive the final map. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director / Richard d~/~lacHo~t, Principal Planner RJM:csf SURVEYOR - WHITE ROAD- BLUE HEALTH - PINK BUILDING & SAFETY - GREEN FIRE PROTECTION - GOLDENROD FLOOD - CANARY 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342'8277 SU, V SO S COUNTY /' /-07 9.8 10:00 a.m. being the time set for hearing on t e a option-~o~f a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 30956, and on the application of Kaiser Development for_Te_nt.a_.~ive...T~ra__c~._.~2.1673, Amended No. 1, a Schedule A subdivision in the Rancho California area, the Chairman called the matter for hearing. The matter was presented by Cynthia Crotinger of the Planning Staff. It appearing that no one present wished to speak on the matter, the Chairman declared the hearing closed. On motion of Supervisor Abraham, seconded by Supervisor Younglove and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 30956 is adopted, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and IT WAS FURTHER ORDERED that Tentative Tract 21673, Amended No. 1, i~ approved subject to conditions of approval, as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the following modification: Addition of Condition 21: "The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, an( hold harmless the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agent, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, it advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning TT 21673, which action is brought about within the time period provided for in- California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside." Roll Call resulted as follows: Ayes: Ceniceros, Younglove and Abraham Noes: None Absent: Larson and Dunlap I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of an order made and entered on March 3], 1987 of Supervisors Minutes. RIV;ERSIOE CCt.'t.'TY FL,rJ'.,I;4 iI'4G DEP~,F,'i ,%.El,IT WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Board of Supervisors Dated: March 31, 1987 Gerald A. Maloney, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in and for the County of Riverside, .~"~te of California. By: ~GE~~O Deputy 9.8 xc: Planning, Subdiv, Land Use, Appl., Eng. / ~ORM ~t D (6'831 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1987 (AGENDA ITEMS 24, 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d - REEL 926 - SIDE I - 2121-2422) CHANGE OF ZONE CASE 4742 - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervtsortal District - 283.1+ acres, south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - R-R to R-1 and R-2, etc. TRACT 21672 AMENDED NO. I - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervtsorial District- south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 177 lots - 75± acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision TRACT 21673.AMENDED NO. I - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District- south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 140 lots - 57.8± acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision TRACT 21674 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 155 lots - 44+ acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision TRACT 21675 AMENDED NO. I - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervtsortal District - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 325 lots - 106.3~ acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision The hearings were opened at 2:34 p.m. and closed at 2:52 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 30956, denial of Change of Zone Case 4742 from R-R to R-1 and R-2, and approval of Change of Zone Case 47.42 from R-R to R-l, R-2 and R-5 in accordance with Exhibit 4. The subject applications proposed to change the zone from R-R to R-1 and R-2 and to subdivide 283 acres into 800 lots on properties within Specific Plan 199, which had been adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986.- The specific plan focussed on the design of the housing and the utilization of the existing topography, coupled with creative terrac- ing grading to produce the effect of natural barriers between separate 'enclave" neighborhoods. Staff felt the applicant had attempted to meet this goal through the designs of the subject tract maps, and that the proposed zoning and tract maps were consistent with the approved specific plan and the Comprehensive General Plan. Staff was recommending an R-5 zone for the open space lots. They had originally recon~nended an R-2-5000 zone for a portion of the area requested for R-2 zoning, but after discussions with the applicant felt the density could be adequately controlled with a straight R-2 zone and had therefore amended their recommendation. Two of the tract maps (No. 21673 and No. 21675 ) proposed single family residential lots under the R-1 zoning standards, and two of the tract maps (No. 21672 and No. 21674) proposed single family residential lots under the R-2 zoning standards. Hs. Crottnger reviewed an exhibit showing the circula- tion pattern for all four maps, advising the applicant had provided for north-souL thoroughfares (between Tracts 21672 and 21673, and between Tracts 29 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CO~ISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1987 21674 and 21675); there was no east-west circulation between the four tracts. Any circulation would take place along the major roads (either Rancho Vista or Rancho California Road). The proposed density for the four tract maps was within the low to mid range densities allowed by the specific plan. Ms. Crottnger recon~nended amendments to Conditions 6, 17(d), 17(g)(1), 17(g)(3) and 19(c) for all four tract maps. Csaba Ko, representing the applicant, agreed to the conditions as amended. There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 2:52 p.m. FINDINGS AJID CONCLUSIONS: The applicant has submitted requests to subdivide 283 acres into 800 lots within Specific Plan lgg, Margarita Villages; Specific Plan 199 identifies the density for the subject area to be 3 to 8 dwelling untts per acre; the applicant's combined proposals average 3.2 dwelling units per acre and range from 2.9 to 3.47 dwelling units per acre; the applicant's proposals provide for "tot" lots, open space, and equestrian trails as outlined in the specific plan; the applicant has requested a change of zone from R-R to R-1 and R-2; and the proposed zoning meets the intent of the specific plan. The ffquested zoning (R-1 and R-2) is inconsistent with specific plan standards. The recommended zoning (R-l, R-2 and R-5) is consistent with the specific plan and the applicant's reques6; the tentative tract maps are designed in conformance with the specific plan and Ordinances 348 and 460 standards; and the conditions of approval mitigate any environ- mental concerns. The proposed projects will not have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION: Upon motion by Con~tsstoner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner Purrlance and unanimously carrted, the Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors dental of Change of Zone Case 4742 from R-R to R-1 and R-2 but approval of Change or,Zone Case 4742 .from R-R to R-l, R-2 and R-5 in accordance with Exhtblt 4, and approval of Tract No. 21672 Amended No. 1, 21673 Amended No. I, 21674 Amended No. 1 and 21675 Amended No. I subject to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. 6 - Delete the second sentence (If grading is proposed on slopes of 10 percent or greater, an environmental assessment approval wtll be required from the Planning Department prtor to an acceptance of the plans by the Butldtng Department). 17(d) - If the open space lots and easements are to be maintained by a homeowners association, then a property owner's association with the unqualified rights . . . (balance of condition to be as shown) 17(g)(1) - Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to CSA 143, or burden the homeowners association, for maintenance of common open space and parkways. 30 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1987 17(g)(3) - Add to the end (after the word 'district"): or homeowners association. lg(c) - Amend to require the acoustical study prior to the issuance of building peruits (not prior to the submittal of building plans). ROLL CALL VOTE RESULTED AS FOLLOWS: AYES: HOES: ABSENT: Convisstoners Beadling, Smith, Donahoe, Purviance and Bresson None None RiVE:I iDE count,,. PL,tnnin DEPA:ICIilEnC DATE: June 11, 1987 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21673 E. A. N~BER: 30956 REGIONAL TEAM NO. I March 31, 1987 APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions. DENIED tentative map based on attached findings. APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map. Dear Applicant: The Riverside County Board of referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of X Supervisors has taken the following action on the above The tract map has been found to be consistent with all pertinent elements of the Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. I~he pruj~.-t will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative DeclaraUion has beem_~dopted. A conditionally approved tentat(ve[~Eract map shall expire ~months after the approval at the Board of Supervisor!~Hear-i~g,_~he-datc of which is $ho~rtC.'~..~, unless within that period of time a fina~_~k~s~ll~ .~,.~'.v~_..'~ep approved and~f.~.~ith the County Recorder. Prior to the expiration da~te, Zi~ie-~l,~LIUjv(d~r(~Y/'al~pl~.'}~:.!~_jng .for. an extension of time. Application shalT~bej',.'~.".~.~j?the Planning ~-'.l~C~.l~i.¥~ (3.o) da y,s prior t,o t~he expiration date of the one j~ar and upon further ap i~atien a sc ond and a third ycar, ' Very truly ~yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director JCB:ms FILE- WHITE APPLICANT - CANARY ENGINEER - PINK 295-2,9 (Rev.).0/83) 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 DJ:dJw 2/4/87 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ;1tOM: Planning Depart=ant SUBMITTAL DATE: February 25, 1987 SUBJECT: CHANGE Ok' ZONE 4742, TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 21672 Ami. No. 21673 Amd. No. 1, 21674 A~d. No. 1 and 21675 A~d. No. I. Kaiser Development, First Supervisorial District, Rancho California Area, 283 Total Acres, 800 RECOMMENDED MOTION: Total Lots, Schedule "A", REQUEST: from R-R to and R-5. The Planning Cosmission and Staff racomhal: ADOPTION of the Nesative Declaration for Enviromnental Assessment No. 30956 based on the findings incorporated in the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project riLL not have a significant effect on the environment; and, DENIAL of Change of Zone No. 4742 from R-R to R-1 and R-2; and, APPROVAL of Change of Zone No. 4742 from R-R to R-l, R-2, and R-5 in accordance vith Exhibit 4 subject to the attached conditions, based on ~he findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated January 7, 1987; and, APPROVAL of TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21672, Amd.'No. 1 subject to thet attached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions incor- porated in the Planning Co~tssion minutes dated January 7, 1987; and, APPROVAL of TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21673, Amd. No. 1 subject to the attached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions incor- porated in the Planning Commission minutes dated January 7, 1987; and, APPROVAL of TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21674, Aunt. No. 1 subject to the attached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions incor- porated in the Planning Com~ssion minutes dated January 7, 1987; and, APPROVAL of TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21675, Amd. No. 1 subject to the attached conditions, based on the f~ndings and conclusions incor- porated in the PLanning Co~ssionminutes dated January 7, 1987. Streeter, Plan~nR Director Prey. Agn. ref. Depts. Comments D~t. AGENDA NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1987 (AGENDA ITEMS 24, 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d - REEL 926 - SIDE I - 2121-2422) CHANGE OF ZONE CASE 4742 - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervtsorial District - 283.1± acres, south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - R-R to R-1 and R-2, etc. TRACT 21672 AMENDED NO. i - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 177 lots - 75± acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision TRACT 21673 AMENDED NO. I - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of' Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 140 lots - 57.8, acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision TRACT 21674 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 155 lots - 44~ acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision ~ TRACT 21675 AMENDED NO. I - EA 30956 - Kaiser Development - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 325 lots - 106.3~ acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision The hearings were opened at 2:34 p.m. and closed at 2:52 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 30956, denial of Change of Zone Case 4742 from R-R to R-1 and R-2, and approval of Change of Zone Case 4742 from R-R to R-l, R-2 and R-5 in accordance with Exhibit 4. The subject applications proposed to change the zone from R-R to R-1 and R-2 and to subdivide 283 acres into 800 lots on properties within Specific Plan 199, which had been adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986. The specific plan focussed on the design of the housing and the utilization of the existing topography, coupled with creative terrac- ing grading to produce the effect of natural barriers between separate "enclave" nei9hborhoods. Staff felt the applicant had attempted to meet this goal through the designs of the subject tract maps, and that the proposed zoning and tract maps were consistent with the approved specific plan and the Comprehensive General Plan. Staff was recommending an R-5 zone for the open space lots. They had originally reconmmnded an R-2-5000 zone for a portion of the area requested for R-2 zoning, but after discussions with the applicant felt the density could be adequately controlled with a straight R-2 zone and had therefore amended their recommendation. Two of the tract maps (No. 21673 and No. 21675 ) proposed single family residential lots under the R-1 zoning standards, and two of the tract maps (No. 21672 and No. 21674) proposed single family residential lots under the R-2 zoning standards. Hs. Crotinger reviewed an exhibit showing the circula- tion pattern for all four maps, advising the applicant had provided for north-south thoroughfares (between Tracts 21672 and 21673, and between Tracts 29 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CO~ISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1987 21674 and 21675); there ms no east-west circulation between the four tracts. Any circulation w~uld take place along the major roads (either Rancho Vista or Rancho California P~ad). The proposed density for the four tract maps was within the low to mid range densities allowed by the specific plan. Ms. Crotinger recommended amendments to Conditions 6, 17(d), 17(g)(1), 17(g)(3) and 19(c) for all four tract maps. Csaba Ko, representing the applicant, agreed to the conditions as amended. There was no further testimony, and the hearing'was closed at 2:52 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicant has submitted requests to subdivide 283 acres into 800 lots within Specific Plan 199, Margarita Villagest Specific Plan 199 identifies the density for the subject area to be 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre; the applicant's combined proposals average 3.2 dwelling units per acre and range from 2.9 to 3.47 dwelling units per acret the applicant's proposals provide for 'tot' lots, open space, and equestrian trails as outlined in the specific plant the applicant has requested a change of zone from R-R to R-1 and R-2t and the proposed zoning meets the intent of the specific plan. The. requested zoning (R-1 and R-2) is inconsistent with ~ specific plan standards. The recommended zoning (R-1, R-2 and R-5) is consistent with the specific plan and the applicant's request; the tentative tract maps are designed in conformance with the specific plan and Ordinances 348 and 460 standards; and the conditions of approval mitigate any environ- mental concerns. The proposed projects will not have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION: Upon motion by Coatsstoner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner Purrlance and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors denial of Change of Zone Case 4742 from R-R to R-1 and R-2 but approval of Change of Zone Case 4742 from R-R to R-1, R-2 and R-5 in accordance with Exhtbtt 4, and approval of Tract No. 21672 Amended No. 1, 21673 Amended No. 1, 21674 Amended No. I and 21675 Amended No. I subject to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above flndtngs and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. 6 - Delete the second sentence (If grading is proposed on slopes of 10 percent or greater, an environmental assessment approval will be required from the Planntng Department prior to an acceptance of the plans by the Building Department). 17(d) - If the open space lots and easements are to be maintained by a homeo~mers association, then a property owner's association with the unqualified rights . . . (balance of condition to be as shown) 17(g)(1) - Prior to the recordation of the final map, the 'developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to CSA 143, or burden the homeowners association, for maintenance of common open space and parkways. 3O RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES ,.1ANUARY 7, 1987 17(g)(3) - Add to the end (after the word 'district'): or homeowners association. lg(c) - Amend to require the acoustical study prior to the issuance of building permits (not prior to the submittal of building plans). ROLL CALL VOTE RESULTED ,AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Con~ntsstoners Beadling, Smith, Oonahoe, Purvtance and Bresson NOES: None ABSENT: None 31 Zoning Area: Rancho California Supervisorial District: First E.A. Number: 30956 Regional Team No. 1 CHANGE OF ZONE MO. 4742 TERTATXVE TRACT 21672 Amd. tl TENTATIVE TRACT 21673 Amd. #1 TENTATXVE TRACT 21674 Amd. tl TENTMIVE TRACT 21675 Amd. #1 Planning Commission: 1-7-87 Agenda Item No. 24 a, b, c, d RIVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: g® Comprehensive General Plan Elements: 10. Land Division Data: 11. School District a. Impacted? b. School agreement received? 12.a Agency Recommendations and Tract Data: Tract 21672 Amd. tl (R-2 Tract) 75 acres gross 179 Lots Total 174 Residenital Lots 3.45 du/gross acre 4500± sq. ft. min. lot size Kaiser Development Company R. B. F. Change of zone from R-R to R-1 and R-2, two R-2 subdivisions and two R-1 subdivisions Southerly of Rancho California Road, easterly of Margarita R-R R-R, R-2, R-l, C-1/C-P and Specific Plan 199 Low rolling hills Developed single family homes to the west, high school to the south t LAND USE: Specific Plan Village DENSITY: Medium Low 3 to 8 du/acre OPEN SPACE/CONS: Specific Plan 199 TOTAL ACREAGE: 283 TOTAL LOTS: 786 Residential Lots 800 Lots Total DU PER ACRE: 3.2 du/gross acreage PROPOSED MIN. LOT SIZE: R-1 Tracts = 7200 sq. ft. R-2 Tracts - 4500 sq. ft. 199 Margari ta Yes Yes, Temecula Union and Elsinore Union High School See letters dated: ROAD: HEALTH: FLOOD: FIRE: WATER: LAND USE: 10-20-86 10-17-86 and 9-5-86 10-17-86 and g-23-86 11-12-86 9-03-86 10-23-86 C~A#GE OF ZONE #0. 4742 TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 21672 Amd. tl thru 21675 A~d. #1 Page 2 12.b Agency Recon~endations' and Tract Data: Tract 21673 Amd. ~1 (R-1 Tract) 57.8 acres gross 141 Lots Total 138 Residential Lots 2.g du/acre 7200 sq. ft. min. lot size See letters dated: ROAD: HEALTH: FLOOD: FIRE: WATER: LAND USE: 10-21-86 1-29-87 10-17-86 and 9-24-86 12-.11-86 and g-g-86 9-03-86 10-23-86 12.c Agency Recommendations and Tract Data: Tract 21674 Amd. ~1 {R-2 Tract) 44 acres gross 155 Lots Total 153 Residential Lots 3.47 du/acre 4500± sq. ft. min. lots size See letters dated: ROAD: 10-21-86 HEALTH: 1-28-87 FLOOD: 3-23-87 FIRE: 9-09-86 WATER: 9-03-86 LAND USE: 10-23-86 12.d Agency Recommendations and Tract Data: Tract 21675 Amd. #1 (R-1 Tract) 106.3 gross acres 325 Lots Total 321 Residential Lots 3 du/acre 7200 sq. ft. min. lot size See letters dated: ROAD: HEALTH: FLOOD: FIRE: WATER: LAND USE: 3-31-87 1-28-87 10-17-86 and 9-23-86 9-11-86 and 11-12-86 0-03.-86 10-23-86 13. Letters: 14. Sphere of Influence: Opposing/Supporting: None None as of this writing ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing a change of zone from R-R to R-1 and R-2 and to subdivide 283 acres into 800 lots within Specific Plan lgg, )Argarita Village. Specific Plan 199 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 26, 1986. Margarita Village is a 1275.5 acre project proposing the establishment of 3650 residential dwelling units incorporating a variety of housing types with mixed densities. The focus of the Specific Plan was the design of the-housing contained within and the utilization of the existing topography coupled with creative terracing grading to produce the effect of natural barriers between separate "enclave".neighborhoods. The applicant has strived to meet this focus through the designs of Tracts 21672, 21673, 21674, and 21675. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4742 TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 21672 /tad. thru 21675 Amd. #1 Page 3 TENTATIVE TRACT 21672 Tentative Tract 21672 is an R-2 proposal in Planning Areas 30 and 32 of the Specific Plan. Planning Area 30 is identified as having "family oriented housing" with "medium to low density" at a density range of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Planning Area 32 is identified as medium family residential with a density range of 8 to 14 dwelling units*per acre. Planning Area 32 is encompassed entirely by Lot 179 of the tentative tract. Both Planning Areas are within Phase I of the Specific Plan. Tract 21672 proposed 174 residential lots. Lots 33 and g7 are tot lots. Lots 177 and 178 are open space lots. Lot 178 also includes a 10 feet 'wide horse trail as required under the Specific Plan. Private common open space within each planning area as per the Specific Plan text is devoted to passive open space use. In the family oriented areas, this may include facilities for picnicing, children's play areas, and small lot sports such as volleyball or basketball. Exact design and layout of the open space facilities for Tract 21672 are requested as a part of the conditions of approval. As indicated in item 12a on the cover page, Tract 21672 proposes a minimum residential lot size of 4500± square feet and a dwelling unit density of 3.45 units per acre. The applicant is proposing four different floor plans, with each plan having 4 elevations. The smallest house proposes square feet; and, the largest square feet. The project is in conformance with Ordinance 348 as it relates to development standards for restricted single family development in the R-2 zone. The lots having frontage on Rancho California Road and Margarita Road are conditioned for an acoustical study prior to the issuance of building permits as per condition number 10 of the Specific Plan. Staff recomnends that Lots 33, 97, 177, and 178 be zoned R-5 to reflect their intended use; that lot 179 be zone R-2 to reflect the 143 dwelling units assigned to that planning area as per the Specific Plan; and, that the remaining lots be zoned R-2 to accommodate the proposed tract. TENTATIVE TRACT 21673 Tentative Tract 21673 is an R-1 proposal covering Planning Areas 28 of the Specific Plan. Planning Area 28 encompasses the 11.6 acre school administration center identified as Lot 139 on the tentative tract. Planning Area 28 is identified with the same density range of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre as Planning Area 30~ and it is also within Phase I of the Specific Plan. Tract 21673 proposes 138 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet~ and, t~ open space lots, Lots 140 and 141. Lots 140 is for slope maintenance along Rancho Vista Road; and Lot 141 covers the Municipal Water District easement and incorporates the 10 feet wide horse trail required under C!.IANGEOF ZOIIE#O. 4742 TEMTMZVETRACTBOS. ~1672 Ammmd. fl thru 21575Aml. #1 Page 4 the Specific Plan. There are no parks or tot lots proposed for Tract 21673 but the Specific Plan states that it should be emphasized that Margarita Village is planned as a single integrated community and that community wide recreational facilities (if public) will be available to all residents of Margarita Village and the Rancho California Community as a whole. "Therefore, future individual tract approvals must receive credit for the overall project-wide open space and recreation systems in assessing open space and recreation facility requirements for each future individual tract." Staff recommends that Lots 139, 140, and 141 be zoned R-5; and, the remainder to be zoned R-1 as requested. TENTATIVE TRACT 21674 Tentative Tract 21674 is an R-2 proposal covering Planning Areas 21 and 24 of the Specific Plan. Both of these Planning Areas are identified with the same density range of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre as Planning Area 30; howdyer, they are within Phase II of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan states that phases may overlap based on changing economic and market trends. However, major public facility and infrastructure construction will be completed for each phase according to development requirements. Tract 21674 proposes 153 residential lots. Lots 88 and 155 are open space lots. Lot 88 is proposed for tot lot; and Lot 155 is an open space lot for drainage purposes and the 10 feet wide horse trail as required under the Specific Plan. The horse trail requirement is also proposed to be met via easements along the rear yards of Lots $ through 21 and the side yard of Lot 1. Exact design and layout of the open space facilities are required as part of the conditions of approval. The project proposed a minimum lot size of 4500± square feet and a dwelling unit density of 3.47 units per acre. There are 4 different floor plans, with each plan having 3 elevations. The smallest house proposes 845 square feet; and, the largest 1527 square feet. The project is in conformance with Ordinance 348 as it relates to development in the R-2 zone. The lots having frontage on Rancho California Road and the Kaiser Parkway are conditioned for an acoustical study prior to the issuance of building permits as per condition number 10 of the Specific Plan. Staff recommends that lots 88 and 155 be zoned R-5 to reflect the intended open space use; and, the remainder of the tract to be zoned R-2 as requested. TENTATIVE TRACT 21675 Tract 21675 is an R-1 proposal covering Planning Areas 20, 22, 23, and 25 in Phase II of the Specific Plan; and, Planning Areas 26 and 27 in Phase I. All of the above Planning Areas are identified with the same density range of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre as Planning Area 30. OIANGE OF ZONE NO. 4742 TENTATIVE TRACT I~S. 21672 Amd. #1 thru 21675 Amd. tl Page 5 The project proposes 321 residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet; t~ park lots, lot 57 and 211; and, tv~ open space lots for slope nmintenance along Kaiser Parkway and Street A, Lots 324 and 325. Exact design and layout of the open space facilities are required as part of the conditions of approval. Residential lots adjacent to the Kaiser Parkway are conditioned for an acoustical study prior to the issuance of a building permit as per condition number 10 of the Specific Plan. Staff recommends that lots 57, 211, 324 and 325 be zoned R-5 to reflect their intended use. CONCLUSION: There are 786 residential lots proposed by the four tracts. The Specific Plan Planning Areas identify a dwelling unit count of 763. The Specific Plan text handles the difference through its statement that "final development densfttes shall be determined through the appropriate tract application, up to the maximum density identified for the Planning Area in question as shown on Table 1-2 based upon, but not limited to the following: adequate availability of services; adequate access and circulation~ sensitivity to land forms; innovation in housing types; adequate provision of recreational open space; sensitivity to neighborhood design through appropriate lot and street layouts; compatibility with surrounding off-site development, land uses and densities etc.. The target dwelling unit count for the areas identified as Medium to low density is 1021 homes. The total project count is consistent with that number. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS All environmental concerns have been addressed thoroughly in the Environmental Impact Reports for the Rancho Villages Policy Plan and Hargarita Village as well as in Environmental Assessment 30956 which is attached. All concerns are mitigated through the conditions of approval. FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has submitted requests to subdivide 283 acres into 800 lots within Specific Plan 19g, Margarita Villages. 2. Specific Plan 19g identifies the density for the subject area to be 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. The applicants combined proposals average 3.2 dwelling units per acre and range from 2.9 to 3.47 dwelling units per acre. 4. The applicant proposal. s provide for tot lots, open space and equestrian trails as outlined in the Specific Plan. CHANGE OF ZONE I10. 4742 TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 21672 Amd. #1 thru 21675 Amd. tl Page 6 5. The applicant has requested a change of zone from R-R to R-1 and R-2. 6. The proposed zoning meet the intent of the Specific Plan. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The requested zoning is inconsistent with Specific Plan standards. 2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Specific Plan and the applicants request. 3. The tracts as designed are in conformance with Specific Plan standards, Ordinance 460, and Ordinance 348. 4. The conditions of approval mitigate any environmental concerns. RECOMMENDAT]ONS: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment Number 30956 based upon the findings in the initial study and the conclusion that the proposed projects will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, DENIAL of Change of Zone Case No. 4742 from R-R to R-1 and R-2; but, APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No. 4742 from R-R to R-l, R-2, R-2-5000, and R-5 in accordance with Exhibit 4; and, APPROVAL of Tentative Tracts 21672 Amd. #1, 21673 Amd. #1, 21674 Amd. #1, and 21675 Amd. #1 subject to the attached conditions and based upon the findings and conclusions in the staff report. DAJ:me 12-18-86 VAC R-R i cz 4,742___. . R-R R-R ~ It RIVERSIDE COU!~ PUdgI~ DEPARTI~NT SUBDIVISION CORDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21673 DATE: MARCH AMENDED NO. 1 EXPIRES: MARCH STANDARD CONDITIONS o o The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. e The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Bo If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. o A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. (~ g~ad4sg 4s p~epesed es eaepes e~ ~g% eP §Pea~eP~ as eRv4~e~me~a~ assessmee~ app~eva~ w4~ be ~equ4~ed ~em ~ke P~aee~§ aepaP~unee~ pP4eW ~o an ae~ep~anee e~ ~#e p~aes by ~he Bu4~dqn§ gepaP~men~. One mylar copy of the approved grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for transmittal to the Road Department. (Deleted per Planning Commission 1-7-87). e Be Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 10-21-86, a copy of which is attached. TENTATIVE TRACT I10. 21673 Conditions of Approval Page 2 ge 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. All mad easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when utilities, etc., within the land conveyances shall Surveyor. required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, shall be shown on the final map if they are located division boundary. All offers of dedication and be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 1-29-8[ a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 9-24-86, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 12-11-86, a copy of which is attached. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the. subdivision approval. 16. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7,200 square feet net. b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. TEMTAT%VE TRACT #0. 21673 Conditions of Approval Page 3 17. d. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1 zone. When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easement. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met. County Fire Department County Flood Control Metropolitan Water District County Health Department County Planning Department Rancho California Water District b® Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 4742 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. c. The co,non open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the final map. and shall be managed by a master property owners association or other appropriate authority as identified in the specific plan. If the open space lots and easement are to be maintained by a home owners association then a property owner's association with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of the owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the association. {Amended per Planning Commission 1-7-87). ee Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the following documents for County approval which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that the total project will be developed and maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of the approval. TENTATIVE TRACT MO. 21673 Conditions of Approval Page 4 fe ge he 1) The document to convey title 2) Covenants, codes and restrictions to be recorded The approved documents shall be recorded at the same time that the subdivision map is recorded. Saiddocuments shall contain provisions for ownership or the irrevocable right to use the open space and amenities by the owners of the project. The approved documents shall also contain a provision which provides that the CC & R's may not be terminated, or substantially amended without the consent of the County or its successor-in-interest. Prior to recordation of the final map, clearance shall be obtained from Metropolitan Water District and California Water District relative to the protection of applicable easements affecting the subject property. The developer shail comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions: 1) Prior to recordation of the final map the developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to CSA 143 for maintenance of common open space and parkways or place the maintenance responsiblities within the jurisdiction of the Home Owners Association. (Amended per Planning Commission1-7-87}. 2) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the County Road Department. 3) The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district or home owners association. (Amended per Planning Commission 1-7-87}. 4) The developer, assignees, shall maintenance until district. the developer's successors-in-interest or be responsible for all parkway landscaping such time as maintenance is taken over by the The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 21673 Conditions of Approval Page 5 18. those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet {ECS} shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "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 dated g-24-86, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following. Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation· Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the ~site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering sidewal ks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21673 Conditions of Approval Page 6 de Where street trees cannot be planted interior streets and project parkways due right-of-way, they shall be planted ri ght-of-way. within right-of-way of to insufficient road outside of the road Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. 9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: 1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion sedimentation during and after the grading process. and 2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations 4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing {benching) plan, increase slope ratio (i.e., 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten {10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: TEIITMIVE TRACT NO. 21673 Conditions of Approval Page 7 19. 1) 2) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to. the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. 4) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 100 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. 5. All cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than tv~ {2) horizontal to one (1) vertical. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential pal eontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae In accordance with the written request of the developer to the County of Riverside, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement between the developer and the Elsinore Union High School and Temecula Union School District, no building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any parcels within the subject tract until the developer, or the developer's successors-in-interest provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for between the developer and the School District. In accordance with the written request of the developer to the County of Riverside, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement between the developer and the County of Riverside, no building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside for any parcels within the subject tract until developer's successors-in-interest provided with the terms of said agreement for facilities (Library). >=/~.=/=::- :_. /..':..,.~ ~ . .... . · ~i>~,.',. u. ' .,.v' ~' the developer, or the evidence of compliance the financing of public TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21673 Conditions of Approval Page 8 20. Ce Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. All dwellings to be constructed designed and constructed with fire approved by the County Fire Marshal. within this subdivision shall be retardant {Class A} roofs as Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a fencing plan along Rancho. Vista shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. 'c. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461. d. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460. e. Street lights shall be installed within the subdivision. CJC:djw 12/18/86 LeRoy D. Smoot ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR October 21, 1986 COUNTY AOMINI$?FI&TIV~ C:£NTIrR MAII,.IN~ ADDIIIESSI P.O. BOX T EL. I'i) H ONIr (714) Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Tract Map 21673 - Amend #1 Schedule A - Team 1 Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of. approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvements and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards {Ordinance 461). It is understood that the-tentative map correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as through occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra- tion of-diversion of flow. Protection 'shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. 'The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. Tract Map 21673 - Amend #1 Octobe~ 21, .1986 Page 2 3. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. "A" and "E" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. (44'/66') 5. "B" Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60') e ® g. 10. 11. "C" and "D" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A. (36'/60') Rancho Vista Road (including the MWD easement) shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, (32'/44') Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the land division in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). An access road to the nearest paved road maintained by the County shall be constructed within the public right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B, (32'/60') at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Commissioner. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. No traffic signal mitigation will be required for open space lot #140. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Tract Map 21673 - Amend #1 Octo6er; 21j 1986 Page 3 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Asphaltic emulsion {fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-sacs and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on Rancho Vista Road and so noted on the final map. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif. Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the Road Department. The minimum centerline radii for "A" Street shall be 450' or as approved by the Road Department. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. Street trees shall be planted in conformance with the provisions of Article 13a of Ordinance 460.53 and their location(s) shall be shown on street improvement plans. Tract Map 216~3.- Amend #1 October 21, [986 Page 4 ' 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. When blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road Commissioner. The minimum garage setback shall be'30 feet measured from the face of curb. All centerline intersections shall be at go° or as approved by the Road Department. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 21672 and TR 21675. GH:lh Very truly yours, Gus Hughes Road Div,ision Engineer Cou t3 Riverside County Planning Department January 29, 1987 Sam Martinez, R.S., St. Sanitarian, Environmental Health Services Division Tract Map No. 21673/Amended No. 1 Environmental Health Services Division has reviewed Tract Map No. 21673/ Amended Map No. 1, dated October 14, 1986. Our Current comments will re~_n as stated in our letter dated January 29, 1987. FORM 4, ~/SS ' CUNTY OF RIVERSIDE-DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH January 29, 1987 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 TRACT MAP No. 21673; Being a portion of the Pauba Land and Water Company's subdivision of the Temecula Rancho in the County of Riverside, State of California, as per map recorded in Bk. 11, Pg. 507 maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, CA. (141 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 21673 and recommends that: 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 incIt equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and Joint spec- ifications, 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, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, 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 Tract Map No. 21673 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract 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 County Surve¥or's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. Riverside County Planning Department Tract Hap No. 21673 January 29, 1987 Page 2 This Department has a statement from Eastern Hunicipal Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the district. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the district, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manho}es, 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 water lines 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 certSfiction: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 21673 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract." The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely, Senior Sanitarian SM:bo KENNETH ~-,EDWARD~ GHIE," r.N~I NEE~ I lib MANK~'T ITRE~I' II. O. BOX ! TE.I:IiNONI (71~,) ?17-aoI8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California RIVERlIDI', CALIFORNIA Attention: Regional Team No. DAVID Area: 1'~'/'.'I~'C#/.A VA~E AIY~N~ /~fAP NO. / We have reviewed this case and have the following ccmt'm~ts: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the ~roject is considered free frc~ ~rdinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause scme damage. New ccnstruo- tion should ccmply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of w~11 defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an enviror~ental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile hcme supports." This project is in the . Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is ccnsistent with existing flood hazards. Scme flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated ~' ,~ 4' ~& is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached ccm~ents apply. Very truly yours, ~N_ H. KASHUBA ~or Civil Engineer KE, NNA"I'H L,. ED~NARDB ¢H ifilf liNGINI[E~ !leB MARK[~"r ITRI'&'T P.O. IOX I0S~ TEl-Eli'HONE (714) 7;17-~.OIB RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVEI~IIDE, ¢AI,.IKORNIA ~ZgOl September 24, 1986 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 David James Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Tract 21673 Tentative Tract 21673 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 60 acres in the Rancho California area, on the east side of Margarita Road, approximately 1000 feet south of Long Canyon Wash. The property is 'traversed by well defined natural watercourses that drain storm runoff to the north and south. The tentative map indicates that when the property is developed, a storm drain system and the tract streets will convey storm flows through the property. Following are the District's recommendations: This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek (Temecula Valley) Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", amended July 3, 1984: Drainage fees shall be p~id to the Road Commissioner as part of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map; or be At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees shall be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grad- ing permit or building permit for each approved par- cel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of th9 subdivision final map or parcel map; however, Riverside County Planning Department Re: Tract 21673 -2- September 24, 1986 ® ® ® e ® c® Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner as a part of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map, or before receiving a waiver to record a land division, for each lot within the land division where construction activity as evi- denced by one of the following actions has occurred since May 26, 1981: (a) A grading permit or building permit has been obtained. (b) Grading or structures have been initiated. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. Development of this property should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not diverted from one watershed to another. This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or offsite construction and grading. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be installed. The p~operty's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area and outlet points. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Tract 21673 -3- September 24, 1986 0 A drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or di- verted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the recordation of the final map. e 10. If the tract is built in phases, each phase shall be pro- tected from the 1 in 100 year tributary storm flows. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District for review prior to recordation of the final map. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Ed Lotz of this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates ~DHN H. KASHUBA enior. Civil Engineer EWL~pml RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CAt. IFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY . m ARD FIRE CHIEF PLANNING DEPT. 12-11-86 Attn: Team I Re: TR 21673 - AMENDMENT #1 Planning & Engineering Office 4080 Lemon Street, Suite 11 Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recon~ends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION LOTS 1-138 Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2½") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 500 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 250 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 500 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. FIRE PROTECTION LOT 139 Fire protection requirements will be addressed when the school plans are reviewed. MITIGATION FEES Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of paym=nt, he may v. nt~r into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and ~ngineerlng uCaff. cdt MIC~3%EL ~.. GRAY, Planning Officer Planning Department Building and Safety, Land Use Division Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer sh~]l obtain Planning Department approval for all On-Site and Off-Site Signage ad- vertising the sale of the subdivision persuant to Section 19.6 of Ordi- nance 348. /dub :N. FORM a,, 3/65 ./ September 23, 1986 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Board of Directors: Jon A. Lundin Board President Dallas Gray Sr. Vice President T. C. Rowe Dous Kulberg Tom A. Leevers James A. Darby Richard D. $teffey Officers: Stan T. Mills General Manager Gregg A. Lowry Assistant General Manager Thomas R. McA!iester Assistant to General Manager Barbara J. Reed District Secretary Jeffrey L. Minkler Treasurer Rutan and Tucker Legal Counsel Subject: Reference: Gentlemen: Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Water Availability Tract 21673 (Margarita Village) Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service therefore would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns all water rights to RCWD for management. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Sen rty r-- Engineering Services Representative FO12 · .RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA92390-2674 · 714 676-4101 DATE: August 6, 1986 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor Road Oepartment Health Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game Rancho Calif. Southern Calif. Edison Southern Calif. Gas General Telephone Temecula Union ~.Elsinore Union High Mt. Palomar Temecula Chamber of Commerce Temecula Town Assoc. Metropolitan Assoc. Commissioner Bresson / RiVERSiDE county ;)LAnnin(; DEP RCl;IEnC (CORRECTED) $EP 26 1986 RECEIVED SEP 2 4 1986 PALOMAR OBSERVATORY TRACT 21673/CHANGE OF ZONE 4742 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 30956 - Kaiser qevelooment Comoany - Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates - Rancho California 9istrict - First Supervisorial District - South of Rancho California Road and West of Butterfield Stage Road - R-R Zone - No Waiver - (REQUEST CHANGE OF ZONE R-R to q-2,R-1 and R-3) - Schedule A - 57.8 into 145 lots Acres - (Concurrent Cases Tr 21672,74,75 and CZ 4742 - Mod 119 - A.P. 923-220-022/923-220-024 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case maD. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for September 18, 1986. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing ..... .~ Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to September B, 1986 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact David James at 787-1363 Planner COMMENTS: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DATE: 9/24/86 SIGNATURE ' // . / PLEASE print name and title o:. Robe:t/J~. B:ucato/Aaststa~t Dt:ecto:/?aloma: 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PALOMAR OBSERVATORY 105-2~ This case is within 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory and is therefore within the zone requiring the use of low-pressure sodium vapor lamvs for street lighting, as stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. We request that the design for other types of outdoor lighting that may be employed on this property be made consistent with the spirit of the decision of the Board of Supervisors which is intended to mitigate the adverse effects such facilities have on £he astronomical research at Palomar. Beneficial steps to that end include: 1. Use the minimum amount of light needed for the Cask. 2. Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. 3. Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial applications, the associated business is oven past that time, in which case the lights should be turned off at closing. 4. Use low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other similar avplications. These lights need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m. For further information, call (818) 356-4035. Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director PASADENA. CALIFORNIA 9ll~.S TELEPHONE (~18) 3,~b-4033 TELEX 6?$425 CALTECH PSD LAHP TY?g AND SRIELDINC REQUIREHENTS FElt FIXTURE ~llSS I-~(I~OR ItB~ITION IlIPOI~tNT LAI~ TYPE ZONE A (15 mi.) ZONE B (15-30 mi,) Lo~ Pressure Sodira Other above 4050 Lumens Others 4050 Lumens & Belov Fully Sh{elded Prohibited Alloved Fully Shielded Fully Shielded Allowed CLASS IX-PAR~ING LOTS, SECURITY, ETC. Lo~ Pressure Sodium others .above SO50 Lumens Others 4050 Lumens & Belo~ · .. zm~ A.(X5 ~.) l~11y Shielded' Prohibited Prohibited ZOKE B (15-30 mi.) Fully Shielded Frohibited Allwed CLASS Ill-DECORATIVE (C"I,~s ZZZ Zig;z~r,~3 me~ma o~t~oor Z~g~:~ :m~ for deooraHos effeo~e. ) IAHP TYPE Z~E A ( 1 $ mi,). ZOh~E B (l 5-30 mi, ) ~ Pressure Sodium Others above /,050 Lu=ens Others 4050 Lumina & Below Luminous Tube Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Full Shield Prohibited Allowed Allowed EX~IPLESOFLA~IP.TyPEs OF 4050 particular light is decided by manufacturers specifications): its lmnen output, LU~EHS & BELO~ (The acceptability of a not wattage; check 200 gatt Standard Incandescent and less elS0 Watt Tunasten-Halogen (quartz) and less * 75 Watt Mercury Vapor and less e 50 Watt High Prassur~ Sodium and less 40 Watt Fluorescent and less · 3ot allowed in Zone A, Class I. Lights shall be shielded where feasible and focused to min~nize spt~l light into the night sky or adjacent properties, ~xi~ of 8100 total lumens per acre or per parcel if under one (1) acre. JAN6 t986 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEP.~ed:ITMENT Jim" Case rio.Is) T./: EA IIo.(s) OiNitst~t ~!tk kintel.tiaa · M~tleml !lfWlt~l kqastld 11. Iii. I~lrds I. M LI41ulfactlo~ I~JPd Ar~ 3..L Fiult Zone 4. _~_ Slopes end [restonodk~ Se~f6 13. ~ Agrtc~!turel Ibso~ces 14. -Z-- Mtldllfe 'H'tfbim4~f, 16. -EL Vept~tto, -b~t~, 16. ~ Energy liesources 17. -al&- Sc~tc Ntglme~s 18. jL. Ifistorlc Itesob~es m. m~ co~uom: Jd- Trtfftc IBPlCU-M/Z.fll~e~m-~l L~ q,f. i~ ID SItlC Tad, ............... . ......... .s...~.:~..~.. ......... ............................... .~:.'-.~., ~, ........ I Vo Vie Tki c~clu~tofil fiichId &re M es ~ ~ of tfu tIfffIitll* p~4did. lued in l~e l~of- ttltlt ptlvldld, b IIIIIllJq Olpftalnt I$ II~titt~ely dItifItfiI4 tlIt: (Chick ~ lke pnjJect tt It ctutttlt uttb tl~ ~f~umst~ 61mll fieft. ~be ~uJect ~11 set Idu · s*p~ficlt effect I tie IVifWm~t pd ~ legittue ~ The IfeJICt If IIw · stplfiunt effect ii t~e m~lraiint end I fj~ii~al Iiicl 15 ~qvtf~d. 6cbu,,l~ ~ Ire (PMr~ OIIf If li~) · -:,..-----tr>J-_.~ ' ~- ,. ' RI RrSIDE COUNTY PLANNING /~EPARTMENT · _ .... .~ ,'~ NEGATIVE 'OECLARAT~N AND~OTICE OF DETE~MINATIO~119) ..... -. ,..~ ~ . . ~ .. ~ Case No. (Mod)C~ 4742 '~ ". , ~ ~ EA No. 30956 ~ ~*~'J NEGATIVE DECLARATION Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project will not have a si gni fi Ca~t-envi ronmental effe~z. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCaTe_,- Be~ ~o~e~ Im~t~Z St~ Roger S. streeter]--Planning Director COMPLETED By D~vfd A. J~es Title Assoc~a:e Planner Date 10-23-~6 216~ ~1T~'216~3]~: No~ I T~'2~6~4'~d: No' I ....................... Ca~e No.(Mod).CZ 4~42 (119) T~ 21675 ~d. No. I L~nd Div Sch A Appl/Rep K, alse~ Development Date Submitted 7-2-~6 Existing Zones R-R Changes of Proposed R-2 2tines Only Zoning Acreage ADOPTED · ~ Boar~'d 'of Supervisors ~ Planning Commission Area Planning Council F1 ~ni~g Director Developable Lots 798 Open Space Lots 12 HEARING BODY OR OFFICER ':"~) Board of Supervisors D Planning Commission Area Planning Council FIPlanning Director 0 . (Other) ? TR 21672 Amd. No. I TR 21673 Amd. No. I TR 21674 Amd. No. 1 TR 21675 Amd. No. I RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPAhI~IEN,T . "4080 LEMON STREET;- 9TU. FLOOR 2IVERSIDE; CA 92501 2rid Canary - Case File 3rd Pink - Scheduling 295-31 (~ev. C~e~rk of t!l~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOV 0 2 1987 GERALD A. MALONEY CLERK of tho BOARD OF $UI~RVI,~ORS County of Riverside. State I~ C,11~hia COUNTY STAMP ......... 177, ~0, .... 75f, 57.~t, ......................... Developable Lots 155~ 325 Dev.Ac 44i, 106.3f Open Space Lots - O.Sp. Ac Changes of ~pproved Zones Only.' ~ones R-2 R-1 R-5 Acreage 283~ The project will not have a siunificQgt effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted. and may be exa.,tne~.t, lthe~lanning Department at the address below. Person· verifying ~'ction cmtX~lc{C~' .~a'"!on~~ Titl~ R-I R-5 146.3B 26.36 (Other) · NOTICE OF DETERMINATIO}~ ACTION ON PROJECT Person Date DATE: · )')EPUTY ~g Approval I-1 Disapproval Date October 27, 1987 Ord 348.2715 Oev. Ac 256.74 0.Sp. Ac 26.36 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP ! TRACT NO. 21673 DATE 12/30/90 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS Streets and Drainaqe $ 60,500.00 12,500.00 13,500.00 86,500.00 Water $ Sewer $ TOTAL $ *Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) *(or Bonds if work is completed) Monument Security City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFC Drainage Fee Due Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD #9 Road and Bridge Benefit Fee Other Developer Fees Plan Check Fee Due Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee Fee Paid To Date (Credit) Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY $ 30,250.00 $ 6,250.00 $ 6,750.00 $ 43,250.00 $ 8,650.00 $ 5,016.00 $ 2so.oo $ -0- $ 2,100.00 $ -o- $ 1,o82.oo $ $ $ $ $ 3,127.50 3,192.18 60.00 5,342.50 1,037.18 STAFFRPT\ TM21673 ITEM NO. 12 FINANCE OFFI C~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department January 8, 1991 City-Wide Speed Survey Program PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer That the City Council approve the proposed Speed Survey Program. City-wide BACKGROUND: The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the speed survey program at the December 19, 1990 meeting. Implementation of a speed survey program allows the Police Department to enforce speed limits with radar, Although the Police Department has units equipped with radar. it cannot be used in many cases due to the lack of speed surveys on most streets within the City, The Engineering Department has identified approximately 70 locations on 19 streets for radar speed surveys covering approximately 40 miles of roadway. The proposed streets to be surveyed are: STREET LIMITS DE PORTOLA ROAD DEL REY ROAD DIAZ ROAD FRONT STREET JEFFERSON AVENUE LA PAZ STREET LA SERENA WAY MARGARITA ROAD NICHOLAS ROAD PALA ROAD JEDEDIA SMITH RD. TO MARGARITA RD. VIA DEL NORTE TO AVENIDA DEL REPOSO WINCHESTER RD. TO RANCHO CALIF. RD. VIA MONTEZUMA TO ROUTE 15 WINCHESTER ROAD TO VIA MONTEZUMA HIGHWAY 79 TO YNEZ ROAD MARGARITA ROAD TO CALLE MEDUSA SOLANA WAY TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT WINCHESTER ROAD TO CALLE MEDUSA HIGHWAY 79 TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT STAFFRPT\ ENG- 0 0 7 1 PAUBA ROAD RAINBOW CANYON ROAD RANCHO CALIF. ROAD RANCHO VISTA ROAD SOLANA WAY VIA DEL NORTE WINCHESTER ROAD YNEZ ROAD YNEZ ROAD TO EAST CITY LIMIT PALA ROAD TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT WEST CITY LIMIT TO EAST CITY LIMIT YNEZ ROAD TO EAST CITY LIMIT YNEZ ROAD TO DEL REY ROAD SOLANA WAY TO AVENIDA DEL REPOSO DIAZ ROAD TO JEFFERSON AVENUE WINCHESTER RD. TO JEDEDIA SMITH RD. The speed surveys are to be conducted by Engineering Department Staff lWilldan Associates), and the estimated cost is $11,000. STAFFRPT\ENG-007 CITY OF Incorporated November 7, 1989 MURRIETA WINCHESTER COLLECTIOI Admln Clr TEMECULA Prepared for the City Manager's Office , -~.~ i.,. CODE ;; I ~2396 ,, c*.~ i* ~6 ',~. Patlen~ar MEADOWVIEW Callaway ~RENA eCALIFORNI ?_ E~ev wwpo~ Zl / RANCHOS !' _ 27 26 E~ev ~ A 1475 Ft Elev ..~.?~.~ ~ 2349 Ft. ZiP CODE 92390 i TEMECU Population: 31.000 AT FIRE STA: Elevation 1004 Feet Latrlude 33°29' 45"N ESTATES RANCHOS , .~ ZiP CODE g23g0 / REDHAWK ITEM NO. 13 APPROVALA _ FINANCE OFFI~.ER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council David F. Dixon, City Manager January 8, 1991 Flood Lights RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to request bids for flood lights. DISCUSSION: Currently, the City is renting flood lights to illuminate the roadway on Rancho California Road and Interstate 15. This has been done for several months to create a safer environment for the traffic directors. We have developed specifications for a similar flood light unit and are recommending that the City Council authorize the solicitation of bids for two units. Upon receipt of the bids, authorization to purchase will return to the City Council for action. FISCAL IMPACT.' The rental on the units is $740 per month and estimated cost to purchase is approximately $7400. Unencumbered funds exist for equipment in the FY 1990-91 budget. ITEM NO. 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager January 8, 1991 Policy Regarding Preparation of Minutes and Retention of Audio and Video Tapes PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached policy regarding the preparation of all City Council and City Commission minutes. Direct the City Clerk to prepare a retention schedule for all Audio tape recordings and Video tape recordings of City Council and City Commission meetings. BACKGROUND: Minute Preparation Policy In December of 1989, the Interim City Manager directed the Deputy City Clerk to prepare City Council minutes based on an "action" format. This method does not attempt to record all discussions which take place during the course of a meeting but rather addresses those discussions which have a bearing on the action the Council takes. This method has been utilized for the past year. Recently the City Commissions have begun holding regular meetings and the Minute Clerk has been instructed to utilize the same method in preparing the minutes of those meetings. To assist the members of the commissions to understand the manner in which the City Council desires to have the minutes prepared, I recommend the adoption of a standard policy such as attached. I believe we can effectively support the City Council and the four Commissions with the existing City Clerk's staff if we continue to utilize the action format. If more detailed minutes or "verbatim" minutes are required, it will be necessary to seek the services of a court stenographer or someone trained in the use of stenotype equipment. The City Attorney has advised that the approximate cost for four hours of this type of service with transcription could exceed $1,000. Retention of Audio and Video Tapes There is no statutory requirement that City Council meetings be tape recorded. Where a City Clerk makes an authorized tape recording of a City Council meeting to facilitate the preparation of the minutes, any person has the right to inspect the tape and to listen to the tape on equipment provided by the city. any person also has the right to receive a copy of the tape by either purchasing a copy or making a duplicate copy on his or her own equipment. This does not include the right to have a written transcript made by the city. The tape recording may be destroyed at any time if the sole purpose of making the recording was to facilitate the preparation of the minutes of the meeting. If however, the tape was made or retained for the additional purpose of preserving its information contents, it may not be lawfully destroyed expect as expressly authorized by state law. (See Attorney General Opinion No. 80-1006, dated 4/17/81 for further reference.) With this in mind, I recommend that the City Council make a finding that the audio tapes of City Council meetings are authorized for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes. The City Clerk should be directed to prepare a retention schedule with a two (2) year retention and destruction period for these tapes. I further recommend that the City Council make a finding that the video tapes are prepared as a community service and have no record validity. This action is recommended because all of the Council meetings have not been video taped and the City does not have the necessary equipment (i.e. video tape recorder and television monitor) to allow viewing of video tapes by the public. Pro. # 006 Date 1/8/91 Dept. City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA Policies and Procedures Preparation of the Minutes City Clerks in general law cities are specifically required to keep a record, journal of proceedings or minutes of City Council meetings (G.C. 36814 and 40801). The form in which this record is to be maintained is not spelled out in the Government Code, therefore, the City Council of the City of Temecula has approved the following policy. Purpose of Council Minutes Keeping a good record of City Council proceedings is very important. A sufficient record must be kept to furnish evidence that the City Council has complied with the law or rules by which it is governed, thus pointing to the need for accurate and clear Council proceedings. The facts contained in the minutes are also treated as evidence in a court of law. Form and Content of Council Meeting Minutes Standard Format Use of a standardized format is needed to develop uniformity of minute entries and to save time in composing the record. The minutes will be drafted on word processing equipment to increase the efficiency of preparation. Jurisdictional Matters To establish proof that jurisdictional requirements have been complied with, it is important that minutes contain the following: Re Date, hour and place of meeting. Whether it is a regular, adjourned regular, or special meeting. That proper notice has been given it is a special meeting. The names of councilmembers in attendance. If a councilmember arrives late or departs before adjournment, the minutes should reflect the time of arrival and/or departure at that point in the minutes. Policies and Procedures City Clerk Pro. //006 1/8/91 o Approval of Previous Minutes Although there is no legal requirement that minutes be approved by the Council, the City of Temecula will place them on the agenda for approval, since it lends further weight to the accuracy and completeness of the record. Copies of the minutes will be provided to Councilmembers in sufficient time prior to a City Council meeting to allow review. When approved as written, or as amended by the City Council the minutes area then official record. o Record of Action Taken The City of Temecula requires "Action Only" minutes, where very little narrative is included, and only motions and votes are shown in the record. In adoption of a resolution or introduction or second reading (adoption) of an ordinance, the minutes shall include the title of the resolution or ordinance. If the ordinance is not going to be read in full, the motion shall include, and the minutes reflect that full reading was waived by unanimous vote of the members present. When the full reading is waived, but there is a split decision on introduction or adoption, the minutes shall show the separate actions and vote on each. Since any written record is the best evidence of its contents, a written report or written communication presented at a City Council meeting need only be referenced in the minutes with the name and title of the author, date of the report or communication, subject of the communication or title of report, and the action taken on the matter. Oral reports or communications will be referenced in the minutes by name of person, address, the subject matter and any disposition made by the Council. Oral Debates, Arguments and Discussions The City Clerk will, as a matter of course, make no reference in the minutes regarding Councilmember's remarks, except where a Councilmember specifically requests that his/her remarks be included in the minutes or when those remarks make reference to reasons for voting for or against a motion. 2 Policies and Procedures City Clerk Pro. ~06 1/8/91 6. Hearings Minutes of City Council meetings with respect to hearings shall include: 1) Jurisdictional facts In order that there be sufficient proof that a heating was held in compliance with the statue or ordinance governing same, the minutes shall record the fact that required notice was given in accordance therewith, and that the hearing was held at the time and place specified in the notice. 2) Evidence produced at hearings Written Evidence. Minutes shall make appropriate reference to any written evidence in the form of statements, affidavits, reports, photographs, maps, correspondence, or other objects filed at the hearing, and included as part of the record. Oral Testimony. The record shall show the name of the person speaking, his or her address, and whether testimony was for or against the heating subject. The City Clerk will briefly refer to the content of the testimony in the minutes. Findings of Council. Usually the findings made by City Councils in respect to public heatings are incorporated in the ordinance or resolution adopted as a result of the heating. When this is done, the minutes need not record these findings in the body of the minutes, but shall refer to the resolution or ordinance voted upon by the City Council. Arguments and Debates at Hearings. There is no requirement for inclusion in the record, but as a matter of procedure, the City Clerk will briefly note arguments and debates. Policies and Procedures City Clerk Pro. gO06 1/8/91 7. Adjournment o In recording adjournment, the minutes shall show whether it is to another time prior to the next regular meeting or merely adjourned. Adjournment will be by motion. Signing the Minutes The approved minutes will be signed by the Mayor and certified by the City Clerk. ITEM NO. 15 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council City Attorney January 8, 1991 Negative Declaration for the Widening of Ynez Road to Six Lanes from Rancho California Road to Apdcot Street PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: BACKGROUND: Lynn Calvert-Hayes, Associate Planner J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. It is requested that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration with the mitigation measures, as proposed for the Ynez Road widening, and direct the City Clerk to post and file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the Board of the County of Riverside. Attached is a copy of the Initial Environmental Study for the widening of Ynez Road from four to six lanes from Rancho California Road to Apricot Street. The Ynez Road widening is in connection with CFD 88-12. It was determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and that a mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. The environmental checklist, related discussion, and project description are attached for review. Background 1. Date: CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST December 14, 1990 2. Case No.: Widening of Ynez Road from four to six lanes to an ultimate right-of-way width of 134 feet from Rancho California Road to Apricot Street 3. Applicant: City of Temecula II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). Yes Maybe N__o 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X do The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? fe Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X go Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X Page 1 Yes Maybe N_q 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? Co Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Do Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? eo Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? go Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal wave? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: so Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 2 Yes Maybe N__o b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X Co Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: so Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X Co Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ao A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response or an emergency evacuation plan? X Page 3 Yes Maybe N__o 11. Popul&tion. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? do Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X X X X X X X Page 4 Yes Maybe N__o Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. H%unan Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? bo Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Co Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? do Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X Page 5 Yes Maybe N__o IV. Mandatory Findings of Significance Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X Page 6 V. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X Date Signature Page 7 III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 1. Earth Unstable each conditions or changes in geologic su~tru~u~s: No. The project will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures. The surface strata in which the project will be located consists of recent alluvium and Pleistocene nonmarine. The improvements are limited to surface construction and necessary foundation work, and will not significantly alter existing conditions. Source: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan, Final EIR No. 217, p. VI-38B & C, Figure VI-13 Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovehng ~ the soil: Yes. The improvements will require grading and soil compaction for site preparation and road construction. Soil import and/or export may be required. These impacts are not considered significant. Mitigation: Keep the site and area traversed by vehicles and other construction machinery, sprayed and watered sufficiently to suppress dust during construction. 2. All vehicles and equipment shall be restricted to travel along established and properly watered roadways. All vehicles hauling dirt or other particulate material shall be sprayed and moistened prior to leaving the construction site. Operations that create dust shall be suspended when the wind velocity is sufficient to cause severe dust blowing problems. 5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Temecula grading regulations. Co Change in topography or gwund su~ace ~lief featu~s: Yes. The valley floor, where the improvements are located, is relatively flat; Ynez Road traverses a slightly sloping terrain. The impact of grading will be minimal for the widening of Ynez Road Street as the road is expected to follow the existing slope of Ynez Road. No significant changes to topography or ground relief will result from the improvements. Source: U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, Murrieta, and Temecula quadrangles do Destruction, covering or modifi~tion ~ any undue geologic or physical features: NO. NO unique geologic or physical features are known to exist in the areas affected by the improvements. The Page 8 fo go improvement site, and the surrounding area that could be affected by future development, have not been identified in the Riverside County General Plan as providing such resources, and the areas have not been designated for open space or conservation. Source: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, Open Space and Conservation Map, Fig. VI.30 Any increase in wind or water erosion ~ soil, either on or off the site: Yes. Surface grading will leave soil bare until road paving is complete, which will expose the soil to wind and water erosion. Further erosion may occur after construction if landscaping or other control measures are not applied. The project is located in sandy loam and is subject to rapid runoff and high erosion rates. Due to the limited area that will be disturbed by grading for the Ynez roadway improvements the impacts to soil erosion by wind and/or water is not considered significant. Future development of the surrounding area will expose large areas to erosion. These potential effects of erosion will be controlled through application of existing policies under the City of Temecula, and County of Riverside General Plan which call for a variety of techniques applied on a project-by- project basis to control erosion and to protect downstream properties from flooding. Refer to mitigation proposed in lb. Sources: United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, November 1971, Sheet No. 188. County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, Composite Environmental Hazards Map, Fig. VI.30, pp. 313- 314 Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean oranybay, inletorlake: No. The widening of Ynez Road extension will not affect river channels or other bodies of water. Source: U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, Murrieta, and Temecula quadrangles Exposu~ of people or property to geologic hazards such as m~hquakes, ~ndslides, mudslides, ground ~ilure, or similar hazards: No. The Wildomar fault system trends northwest-to-southeast through the Temecula Valley. The project improvements are located approximately three to four feet east of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Page 9 Zone which runs parallel to Interstate 15 and intersects the interchange at 1-15/Rancho California Road. Seismic ground shaking zones have been established in the Riverside County General Plan. The zones represent the level of ground motion that can be expected from earthquakes on a principal fault system, given the distance from the Alquist- Priolo zone and differentiation of soil and bedrock. The County's system classifies most of the project area as Zone II-B. Zone I is the zone closest to the fault. Designations A, B, and C represent soil and bedrock conditions, with Zone B indicating more than 200 feet of alluvium over bedrock. In the County's seismic maps, Zones I to V represent ground shaking based on distance from the fault, with Zone I representing the lowest, Zone V the highest shaking potential, and designations A through E representing soil and bedrock conditions. As indicated the Ynez Road widening is located in Zone II-B. Major highways, bridges and tunnels are identified by the County as Essential Land Uses which are classified as Generally Unsuitable in Zone II-B. This is an advisory classification intended to promote community safety and disaster recovery during and following an earthquake. Detailed site investigations and engineering studies may be necessary for structures in this zone. As Ynez Road is not a state or county highway, it is not considered a major highway. The project improvements are not located within a known liquefaction, subsidence, or landslide hazard area. Sources: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, Figure VI-14. County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, Composite Environmental Hazards Map, Fig. VI-30; Seismic- Geologic Map, Fig. VI.1; pp. 304-308 Seismic/Geologic Area Information Maps, panel 147, County of Riverside Planning Department 2. Air Substant~l air emissions or d~eHomtion ~ ambient air quality: Yes. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in conjunction with the Federal and State governments establishes standards and criteria for measuring air quality in the region. Air quality standards for oxidants (ozone) and suspended particulates have been exceeded in the Temecula Valley for many years. Pollutant levels in the Temecula Valley can be attributed to pollutants carried from Southern San Diego County and Orange Page 10 County. The two air masses meet and mix in the Elsinore Convergence Zone. Even though the valley is experiencing relatively low pollutant levels relative to the metro Riverside area, if urbanization continues along the coasts of Orange and San Diego Counties the air masses that reach the Temecula Valley via sea breezes will be heavily polluted and contribute to the further degradation of air quality in Temecula. Typical air pollutants include lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, sulfur compounds and ozone. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is implementing its 1989 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin, which is designed to bring the basin into compliance with federal air quality standards by 2007. The Temecula Valley contributes a certain amount of pollutants primarily from vehicular emissions. High ambient temperatures and intense solar radiation "cook" primary pollutants into secondary pollutants through chemical changes. Secondary pollutants include oxidants such as ozone. The project will contribute incrementally to higher pollutant levels in the Temecula Valley. Heavy equipment use and vehicular activity during construction will release dust and sand particles into the air. Vehicular emissions will also be produced during the construction phase, which will have a short-term impact on air quality. Long-term impacts will result from the total vehicular pollutants emitted in future years. The project will contribute, however, to a decrease in standing motor vehicles and associated emissions by improving the traffic flow patterns in the area. Currently, traffic congestion is experienced along Ynez Road due to commercial activity in the vicinity and the narrowing of the roadway as one travels from south to north. Future congestion will be much more severe, in the absence of the proposed improvements. See item 13.a, below. By improving levels of service at existing routes and intersections, the project will reduce traffic congestion and therefore help reduce long-term air quality impacts. According to the Air Quality Management Plan 1989, the improvements that are proposed for Ynez Road are not considered regionally significant in that improvements are not large enough in scale to have an impact on an area greater than the jurisdiction in which the project is located. The widening of Ynez road is not receiving funding from the state or the federal government. Sources: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan, Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, pp. VI-8 to VI-18 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, March 1989, Guildlines For Implementing 1989 AQMP Conformity Procedures Related To Transportation, pp. 1 to G-3 Page 11 Creation ofo~ectionableodors: Yes. During construction, odors will be present as a result of diesel fuel combustion, paving operations, and other typical construction activities. This is a short-term, localized impact and is not considered significant. Alt~ation ~ air movement, mo~ture, or tempemtu~, or any change in climate, eitherlocal~orre~onal~: No. The project is not large enough to alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or affect the climate. Water Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marineor fresh waters: No. No bodies of water will be impacted by the widening of Ynez Road. Changes in a~orption mtes, dminage patterns, or the rate and amount ~ su~a~ runoff: Yes. The general drainage pattern in the Temecula Valley floor is southwesterly. The area adjacent to Ynez Road drains to the west and then southwesterly into the Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek drains southward into the Santa Margarita River Channel. The Santa Margarita River then flows southwesterly through Temecula Canyon. Eventually it enters San Diego County and drains into the Pacific Ocean near the southern boundary of Camp Pendleton. These general drainage patterns will not be significantly affected by the improvements. The Master Plan of Drainage for the Murrieta Creek Area includes underground storm drains that are intended to collect local urban runoff and are located in the existing street rights-of-way. The majority of facilities proposed by this plan are open channels carrying relatively large flows and are generally aligned along the paths of existing natural drainage courses. Open channels are designed to carry runoff from a 100-year storm. Other improvements planned for the area are the improvement of the Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis and Warm Springs Channels to include a trapezodial channel section ranging in bottom width of 40' 'to 260' and depths of 9' to 21'. Concrete lined open trapezoidal channels are existing and proposed perpendicular to Interstate-15 on the west side directing stormwater flows to the Murrieta Creek. The County of Riverside General Plan and Eastern Municipal Water District policies call for onsite retention of increased runoff, construction of storm drains, elevation of building pads, and localized flood protection improvements until regional flood control facilities are constructed. These measures, imposed on development as it occurs, will mitigate the impacts of development on drainage patterns in the vicinity of Ynez Road. The roadway improvements will cover soil which is permeable resulting in an increase in runoff. The proposed improvements are relatively small in area as compared to the surrounding Page 12 undeveloped lands and therefore will not significantly affect absorption or runoff rates. Development throughout the area will create impervious surfaces, reducing water absorption and increasing the amount of runoff. Development will also result in more landscape irrigation, increasing the amount of water potentially subject to runoff. The cumulative impacts of development along Ynez Road has been addressed in the Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217 cited below. Sources: Master Drainage Plan for the Murrieta Creek Area, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, March 1986 County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, pp. VI-58 to VI-67 eo Alt~ations to the coupe ~fiow ~fiood waters: No. The project area is not within a 100-year floodplain and will not significantly alter runoff or drainage patterns. Therefore, the course or flow of flood waters will not be altered. Source: Federal Emergency Management Administration, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 060245 2745 B Change in the amount of su~ace wat~ in any water body: No. No significant effect on the amount of water in the Murrieta Creek Channel or other bodies of water will result from the project. D~charge into su~ace water, or any altemt~n ~ su~ace water quality, including but not limned to tempemtu~, d~solved oxygen or tu~ity: No. The improvements to be constructed may have a slight effect on surface water quality as a result of surface contaminants which are deposited on roadways by vehicles and then washed off the pavement during rains. These substances include petroleum products, rubber, fragments of brake lining, and heavy metals. Because the area of the roadway to be constructed is limited and because the vehicular traffic that will use the improvements is generally already occurring using different routes, this effect is not considered significant. By reducing congestion, the project will enable vehicles to traverse the roadways more quickly (less time spent idling and slow-go) and thereby tend to reduce the deposition of contaminants that would otherwise occur. The impacts of road surface contaminants introduced by ultimate development in the general area can be mitigated by appropriate street cleaning programs. Source: Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 13 fo A~ation of the di~ct~n or mte of flow of g~und water: No. The pro ject is located in an area of unconsolidated deposits which yield significant quantities of water. Ground water is recharged naturally from runoff. The project will not significantly affect runoff patterns and will not affect underground flows. Source: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, pp. VI-43 to VI-55 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through dired additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations: No. The project will not affect natural groundwater recharge and will not directly pump or recharge ground water supplies. No physical intrusion into aquifers will occur as a result of the project. Source: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final Eir No. 217, March 1989, pp. VI-43 to VI-55 Substant~l reduction in the amount ~ wat~ otherw~e avai~b~ ~r public water suppli~: No. The project will not use substantial amounts of water in the short term, during the construction phase. For landscaped areas, water may be required for ongoing maintenance. The amount of water involved will be minimal if low-water-demand plantings are used. Water in the area is supplied from groundwater in the Murrieta-Temecula Basin, and supplemented with imported water from the San Diego Aqueduct (MWD). Sources: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, pp. VI-43 to VI-55 ExEosu~ of peop~ or property to water ~ted hazards such as flooding or tidal wave: No. Ynez Road is located in an area that is subject to dam inundation flow from Skinner Dam. If the southern section of the dam were to collapse it would take approximately 60 minutes for water to inundate Temecula, 80 minutes would pass before water would reach Temecula from a break in the northern section of the dam. The project area is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Source: Murrieta-Rancho California Area 100-Year Floodplains, Dam Inundation Areas and Area Drainage Plans Information Maps, panels 147, County of Riverside Planning ~epartment County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, pp. VI-61 to VI-62 Federal Emergency Management Administration, Flood Insurance Rate Map, 060245 2745B Page 14 4. Plant Life so Change in the dive~ity of sped~, or number of any spedes ~ p~nts (including tr~s, shrubs, gr~s, c~ps, and aquatic p~nts): Yes. Areas that may be landscaped as a result of the project are relatively small and are not expected to impact the vegetation in the larger area. Vegetation to be removed in connection with the project would include non-native landscaping within the existing Ynez Road right-of-way. The project impacts are not considered significant. Refer to 4b. through 4c. Sources: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, Endangered or Rare Vegetative Species, Figure VI-6, po VI-24B County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, Vegetation Resources, Figure VI.38, p. 393 Do Reduction of the numbe~ ~ any undue, mre or endange~d species ~ p~nts: No. The widening of Ynez Road is located within an area of the City of Temecula that is planned for commercial and light industrial land uses. The majority of Ynez Road is developed in commercial land uses and landscaped with non-native plant species. Areas that have not been developed adjacent to Ynez Road contain native grasses and plant species indicative of areas that have been disturbed by grading and re-established with weedy or ruderal vegetation. Plant communities found along the Ynez corridor include Riversidian sage scrub, annual grassland, native (perennial) grassland, riparian herb, streambed and ruderal plant communities. A biological assessment was performed on the site of the proposed roadway widening. No plant species were found that have been designated as rare or endangered on the project site or were these species expected to be located on the project site due to lack of suitable habitat. Species of special concern that may potentially occur in the region are Munz's onion (Allium fimbriatum munzii), thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), Pa¥son's caulanthus (Caulanthus simulans), slender-horned spineflower (Centrotegia leptoceras), Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe_parryi var parrvi), many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), Mission Canyon bluecup (Githopsis diffusa ssp. filicaulis), Palmer's grappling hook (Harpaonella palmeri), smooth spikeweed (Hemizonia laevis), Nevin's barberry (Mahonia_nevinii), little mousetail (M¥osurus minimus vat apus), California orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), and Englemann oak (Quercus enqlemannii). None of these listed plant species of special concern were found on the project site. Riverside County planning documents do not identify sensitive plant species in this area. The project area is not located within the biologically sensitive areas of Rancho Santa Rosa, Vail Lake or Antelope Valley. No plants designated as rare or Page 15 endangered species by the federal or state governments are known to exist in the vicinity of Ynez Road according to these documents. Sources: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, Endangered or Rare Vegetative Species, Figure VI-6, p. VI-24B, pp. VI-21 to VI-25 County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, Vegetation Resources, Figure VI.38, p. 393 David Btamlet, Consulting Biologist, biological survey, December 1990. Int~duction of new specks of p~nts into an area, or a bar~er to the normal replenishment ofex~tingspedes: Yes. The vegetation in the vicinity and adjacent to Ynez Road consist of non-native species in areas that have been landscaped as a result of development. Areas that have not been developed are disturbed grasslands that have been re-vegetated with introduced species such as ripgut brome, red brome, soft chess, foxtail barley and foxtail fescue. The project improvements may be landscaped with non-native species in the median of Ynez and in the landscaped right-of-way areas adjacent to the roadway. Non-native plant species may be introduced into the areas adjacent to Ynez Road that are currently vacant through seed dispersement by small animals, wind, birds and other methods. The area affected is small and plant materials likely to be used in landscaping have already been introduced into the general area through human occupation and use. Sources: County Of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, Endangered Or Rare Vegetative Species, Figure VI-6, p. VI-24B, PP. VI-21 TO VI-25 Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, Vegetation Resources, Figure VI.38, p. 393 David Bramlet, Consulting Biologist, biological survey, December 1990. Reduction in acreage of any ag~cultuml crop: NO. Ynez Road currently exists. The widening of Ynez Road will not effect agricultural land uses in the vicinity of the road. The southeast corner of Ynez Road and Winchester Avenue is designated as "prime farmland" and is currently vacant; however the County of Riverside in the Southwest Area Community Plan has designated that area for commercial land uses. The project will not impact the scattered areas designated as locally important farmland farther east of Ynez Road. Page 16 Sources: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, Agricultural Resources Map, Fig. VI.34., p. 381 County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, p. VI-2A, Figure VI-2 County of Riverside Community Plan Land Use Allocation Map, November 30, 1989 5. Animal Life Change in the div~sity of spedes, or numbe~ of any sp~ies of animals (birds, land animals including reptil~, fish and shellfish, benthic organ~ms or insects): Yes. Construction of the improvements may eliminate those insects, small rodents and reptiles that do not have the ability to flee the project site. However, construction of the roadway improvements will not adversely affect the diversity of species or the numbers of any one species of animal on the project site. Refer to item 5b. Reduct~n of the numbe~ of any undue, mre or endangered speci~ ~ animal: No. The improvements are within the habitat range of the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomvs stephensii), which is listed as threatened by the California Department of Fish and Game, and as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The improvements are not located within areas designated as Study Areas for the Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan according to the County of Riverside. The closest proposed reserve areas are the Lake Skinner/Bachelor Mtn. and the Santa Rosa Plateau reserve study areas. The improvements are located within the the SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Fee Area and are subject to mitigation fees. Potential habitat for the Stephens' kangaroo rat occurs within the annual grasslands found east of Ynez Road, south of the Solana Creek area. Site inspections conducted in October of 1990 did not indicate the existance of active SKR burrows. The project will incrementally add to the reduction of SKR habitat (annual grasslands) in the Temecula area. Development is incompatible with long-term maintenance of the Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat. For this reason, the County of Riverside is developing a Mulit-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The Habitat Conservation Plan is the basis for a permit under Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act which allows incidental taking of the creatures throughout much of the valley exclusive of the reserves. The project improvements are in an area where incidental taking is permissible subject to the requirements of the Section 10(a) permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on August 1, 1990 issued to the County of Riverside a permit under Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The permit Page 17 allows the incidental take of SKR in the course of developmental projects with the exception of take within reserve study areas. The County of Riverside as a precondition to the issuance of the Section 10(a) Permit must collect a mitigation fee on any parcel within the fee area (County Ordinance No. 663 adopted on November 14, 1988). The fee is to be used for the management, operation and maintenance of land that is acquired for SKR reserves. Mitigation fees are currently $1,950 per acre for commercial and industrial development and residential dwelling units on lots less than one-half acre. For residential lots greater than one-half acre the fee is $1,000 per dwelling unit. Incidental take of SKR will be allowed outside SKR Study Areas after the payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the terms and conditions of the Section 10(a) Permit. The Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (the "JPA") is responsible for acquiring SKR habitat for conservation purposes. To date the County has identified ten areas within Riverside County that are being studied as possible SKR reserve areas. Environmental Impact Reports (CEQA) and Environmental Impact Statements (NEPA) are being prepared on the proposed SKR reserve areas and will need to be certified by the County Board of Supervisors prior to the adoption of the Habitat Conservation Plan. The City of Temecula has been included as a "member agency" with the County of Riverside on the Section 10(a) Permit. The City was emitted into the Joint Powers Agreement which will create the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (JPA) and which will enable member agencies to carry out the provisions of the Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan and to develop and implement plans for a Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation: 1. The project proponent shall pay applicable SKR mitigation fees. Sources: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, p. VI-19 to VI-25, Endangered or Rare Wildlife Species Figure VI-5, p. VI-24A County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, p. 385-390.2, Figure VI.36, p. 387 County of Riverside SKR Habitat Conservation Plan Fee Area Map, October 28, 1989 County of Riverside SKR Study Areas and Known Occupied Habitat, June 19, 1990 Luke Stowe, Biologist, J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc., site inspection, October 2, 1990 Page 18 U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 10(a) Permit issued to the County of Riverside August 8, 1990 Int~duction ~ new species of anima~ into an area, or a barrier to the m~tion or movement ofanima~: NO. The widening of Ynez Road will not divide existing populations of animals. The roadway is existing. The expansion of the roadway will lead to a continued disruption of wildlife movement in the area and an increase in the mortality rate of wildlife which still reside in the nearby habitats. This is not considered a significant loss, due to the removal of habitat currently occurring in the in the areas adjacent to Ynez Road. D~e~omtion to exiting fish or wildlife habitat: Maybe. All construction will eliminate habitat in the immediate area of the improvements. Destruction of SKR habitat in the Temecula Valley has been mitigated through establishment of several habitat reserves which together will provide thousands of acres of protected habitat. Refer to item 5.b, above. If channels which are considered under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, "Water's of the U.S." are to be altered for the construction of the roadway improvements a stream alteration agreement (1601) shall be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game. Sources: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, pp. 385-390 County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, pp. VI-21 to VI-25 Noise so Incrms~inex~tingno~eleve~: Yes. Construction of the proposed improvements will result in increased short-term noise levels in the project vicinity resulting from construction activities, equipment and vehicles. A long-term increase in noise levels will occur along the widened Ynez Road due to the increase in vehicular carrying capacity of the roadway. According to the Noise Element of the County of Riverside General Plan, the desired outdoor average noise range for commercial and industrial uses is 50-80 dBA. The typical 70 dBA noise contour of Ynez Road when widened to 110 feet will be located approximately 80 feet from the centerline of Ynez Road. Mitigation to these standards, where required, can be accomplished through appropriate design of future development projects in the area. Page 19 Sources: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, County of Riverside Planning Department, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, pp. 320-339 County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, VI-68 to VI-71 Exposu~ ~peop~ to sever no~e levels: NO. The project will not subject existing development in the project vicinity to severe noise levels. The area adjacent to Ynez Road consists of existing commercial and industrial land uses. Future land uses planned for vacant property along Ynez Road in the project area will contain similar land uses. Interstate 15 is the major contributor of ambient noise. Noise effects of traffic on future development can be mitigated by appropriate design conditions at the time of development. Sources: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1898, pp. 320-339 County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, VI-68 to VI-71 7. Liqht and Glare N~mlightorg~: Yes. The Ynez Road expansion project lies within the Mr. Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area (MOPSLA). The project will require that some of the existing light standards be relocated and additional light standards be installed along Ynez Road. Increased traffic will increase night glare from vehicular headlights. MOPSLA policy statements indicate that street lighting will be low pressure sodium vapor. Lights are to be oriented and shielded to minimize glare. The project will comply with the requirements of the MOPSLA, therefore, reducing the project's impacts on light and glare to a level of insignificance. Mitigation: 1. Street light standards along Ynez Road shall use low pressure sodium vapor light bulbs. 2. Street lighting shall be oriented and shielded to mininmize glare. 3. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area. Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, pp. 127-128, 451-452 County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, p. VI-76 Page 20 8. Land Use Substant~l altemtbn of the pr~ent or p~nned ~nd use ~ an arm: Maybe. Existing land uses in the area consist largely of commercial and light industrial developments (existing and under development) adjacent to Ynez Road. The most intense commercial land uses occur at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road at the southern limit of the proposed widening of Ynez Road. Although recently incorporated, the City of Temecula has adopted the County of Riverside's General Plan and the Southwest Area Community Plan to provide for land uses and zoning regulations until the formulation and adoption of the City's own General Plan and zoning ordinances. The Southwest Area Community Plan designates commercial land uses for the entire length of Ynez Road with the exception of the southwest corner of Apricot and Ynez Road which is designated as restricted light industrial. The widening of Ynez Road may encourage further development adjacent to the roadway. However, the project will not alter planned land uses along the Ynez corridor. The roadway improvement has been deemed necessary to facilitate anticipated development along Ynez Road and the neighboring area. The improvements are a response to growth which is already planned. Sources: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Land Use Allocation Map, November 30, 1989 County of Riverside Specific Plan No. 149, Rancho California Plaza, adopted March 10, 1981 Natural Resources Incrmseintherateofuse~anynatumIresources: Maybe. Construction of the improvements will require the use of energy resources, natural resources, and human resources in the form of construction materials, fuel, petroleum products, and manual labor. Ongoing maintenance of the roadways and bridges will require the use of petroleum products such as asphalt, oil, and gasoline. The widening of the roadway may encourage a greater use of vehicles. Consumption of these resources is minor, and the project will not increase their rate of use. Source: 10. Risk of UDset County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, pp. X-1 R~k of an expl~ion or the ~lea~ ~ hazardous substances (including, but not lim~ed to, oil, pestidd~, chemica~ or md~tion) in the event ~ an acddent or ups~ condit~ns: Maybe. Hazardous substances could potentially be released into the surrounding area in the event of a traffic accident involving a vehicle transporting some form of hazardous materials. If there is fuel stored on site to facilitate construction vehicles there is the possibility of risk of explosion and/or spillage of petroleum products. This risk is considered minimal, and the project will not increase Page 21 the risk above that which already exists. The risk is mitigated by the strict regulatory controls applied to transportation of hazardous materials. Do Possible inte~erence with an emergency response or an emergency evacuation plan: No. The project will lessen response time of emergency vehicles by providing an improved transportation system. The effect will be positive. 11. Population A~ed locatbn, d~tribut~n, density, or gwwth ~te ~ the human popu&tion q an arm: NO. The project is in response to both existing and future demand for an improved circulation system in the Temecula Valley brought about by growth in the area. The growth is consistent with the General Plan of Riverside County, Southwest Area Community Plan, and with regional planning programs. Demographic and socioeconomic factors will continue to stimulate population growth in the area, with or without the present project. See further discussion and sources at item 13.a, below. 12. Housing Effeds on existing housing or demand ~r additional housing: No. ?he pro j ect will not affect the housing stock or housing demand. 13. Transportation/Circulation ao Generation ~ subs~nt&l additbnal veh~u~r movement: Yes. The proposed improvements are mitigation measures for traffic increases which are, or will be, occurring irrespective of this project. All of the proposed improvements are specifically called for by existing transportation plans for the region. Ynez Road is indicated on the County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Study Area 6 as a 134-foot wide right-of-way. The widening of Ynez Road is approximately two miles in length. Ynez Road from Winchester south to Apricot is presently six lanes with a center median. The proposed roadway improvements will not ~nclude this section of roadway. The widening of Ynez Road to an ultimate right-of-way width of 134 feet in this area is a condition of approval of Plot Plan 11222 "Palm Plaza". The section of Ynez Road that connects the six lane section at Winchester Road is three lanes south of Apricot Street with a center turning lane (two lanes southbound and one lane northbound). This section connects to a four lane section south to Solana Way. The four lanes on Ynez Road at the intersection with Solana Way continue south for 100 yards and narrow to two lanes which increase to four lanes at the intersection of Ynez and Rancho California Roads. Page 22 Do Co Ynez Road improvements have been included in the environmental assessments and adopted Negative Declarations for individual development proposals within the Ynez Corridor Area. Full roadway improvements for a 50 foot half-width on Ynez Road were the conditions of approval for the following land divisions: 1.West side of Ynez Road : PM 23430, PM 215191, PM 19145, PM 23496, PM 17454, PM 20363. 2.East side of Ynez Road: PM 23354, PM 21219, PM 23426, PM 22556, PM 20390, PM 22863. Full roadway improvements to a full 134 foot right-of-way width were a condition of approval for PP 11222 "Palm Plaza located on the southwest corner of Ynez Road and Winchester Avenue. Thus, the widening of Ynez Road is a mitigation measure which will respond to growth that is already occurring and is expected to occur. Traffic will increase as a result of other factors unrelated to these improvements. The Southwest Area Community Plan EIR and Riverside County Resolution No. 89-639 study shows that these and other improvements are necessary in order to avoid severe deterioration of levels of service on roads throughout the Temecula Valley. This is supported by the traffic modeling for the CFD, which indicates that future traffic on other roads in the area will increase if the proposed improvements are not provided. The proposed improvements will provide adequate capacity for this vehicular movement. Sources: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, County of Riverside General Plan Circulation Study Area 6 amended map Resolution 89-639 County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, pp.VII-67 to VII-94 County of Riverside EA #34121 Case No. 88-12 Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District, August 16, 1989 Effe~s on exiting paring ~lities, or demand ~r new paring: NO. The project will not affect parking demand or parking facilities. Subs~nt&l impad upon exiting tmnspor~tbn systems: Yes. It is the nature of the project that vehicular traffic will increase on the existing roadway systems in the vicinity of Ynez Road. Generally the impact of widening Ynez Road upon the existing transportation network will be positive. The T~mecula Valley east of 1-15, between Winchester and Rancho California Roads, Page 23 is currently poorly served by the existing road network. Traffic congestion, at times quite heavy, is the result of the inability of Ynez Road to handle the ever increasing vehicular load. The area is experiencing major commercial and industrial development which is expected to continue over the next several years. The improvement of Ynez Road will serve not only to facilitate future development, but also to provide the necessary circulation to alleviate the present congestion. Source: same as in 5a. above A~ations to p~sent patterns of ci~u~t~n or movement of people and~r goods: Yes. The improvements will not alter major circulation patterns in the area. However, Ynez Road as a widened roadway may attract additional traffic due to its ability to accommodate additional vehicles. The predominate circulation pattern in the Temecula Valley is in a north-south direction. This pattern is expected to continue, as the area develops, due largely to the topography of the area. The widening of Ynez Road will relieve traffic congestion for vehicular travel in the north/south direction paralleling Interstate-15, therefore, improving the movement of people and goods through the area. During construction, traffic will be detoured as necessary to accommodate construction. This will result in some short-term inconvenience to area drivers. Because alternate routes exist and because any closures will be temporary, this is not considered a significant impact. glt~ations to waterborne, ~il or air traffic: No. The project will not affect air or water traffic. Incrinse in traffic hazards to motor veh~les, bicycl~ts or pedestrians: Yes. The roadway widening will accommodate additional traffic which may effect pedestrian and bicyclist safety in addition to the possibility of an increase in traffic accidents. The improvement plans will comply with applicable design standards for vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian safety. The plans will include construction-period safety measures such as detours, traffic control devices, etc. Therefore, no significant traffic hazards are expected to result from the project. 14. Public Services Effe~ upon, or need ~r new or altered fire protection services: NO. The project will not affect fire protection services. However, by providing improved access routes and helping to relieve existing traffic congestion, the project may have a beneficial effect on response times. Effed upon, or need ~r new or ait~ed police pr~ection services: No. The project will not affect police or sheriff protection services. Page 24 However, by providing improved access routes and helping to relieve existing traffic congestion, the project may have a beneficial effect on response time. c . Effed upon, or need for new or altered school service: NO. The proposed widening of Ynez Road will have no effect on school services. Effed upon, or need for new or altered park or recreational service: No. The project will not affect park and recreation facilities or services. Effed upon, or need for new or a~ered maintenance of public ~ciliti~, including Bads: Yes. The improvements will require ongoing maintenance. Maintenance impacts are not considered significant, as continuing development will increase the tax revenue available for maintenance programs. Source: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, p. VIII-2 f . Effed upon, or need ~r new or altered governmental servi~s in other areas: No. Impacts on other government services are not anticipated. 15. Enerqv Use of subsmnt&l amounts of fuel or energy: Yes. Construction of the improvements will involve consumption of petroleum products and other forms of energy. However, the magnitude of these requirements is insignificant in relation to available supplies. Refer to item 9. Substant~l increde in demand upon existing sources ~ energy, or requi~ment ~r development of new sourc~ of en~gy: NO. Energy demands associated with the project are insignificant and can be readily met from existing sources. 16. Utilities Need ~r new systems or su~mnt~l altemtions to publ~ utilit~s: Yes. The project will require relocation of existing electric power poles along the entire west side and portions of the east side of Ynez Road within the right-of-way. This is not considered to be a substantial alteration as the utility lines exist in the area of Ynez Road and no additional utility lines are required. There may be drainage improvements that will be required to facilitate sheet flow on the roadway however, these improvements are not considered significant (refer to item 3a-i). The proposed roadway widening will have no significant impacts on utilities. 17. Human Health a. Creation of any h~Ith hazard or potential hmlth hazard (excluding mental health): NO. The project will not create health hazards. Page 25 Do Exposure ~ peop~ to potentMl hcalth hazards: No. The project will not expose people to health hazards, other than exposure of the construction workers to the occupational hazards associated with road construction. Worksite hazards are mitigated by existing regulatory programs. 18. Aesthetics O~trudMn of any scenic v~ta or ~ew open to the public, or crmtion of an aesth~ical~ offensive site open to publ~ view: No. ¥nez Road has not been designated by Riverside County or the State of California as an official or eligible scenic route. There are no scenic vistas or views in the vicinity which would be obstructed by the widening of Ynez Road. The improvements will not have significant aesthetic impacts. Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, Fourth Edition, December 19, 1989, pp. 415-422, Figure VI.45 Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, Scenic Highways Figure VI-27 19. Recreation Irapad upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational oppo~unities: No. The project will not have an adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities. 20. Cultural Resources a . A~atMn or d~trudMn ~ a preh~to~c or h~todc archaeological s~e: No. The project area does not contain any known archaeological or historic resources. The Riverside County Southwest Area Community Plan identifies a portion of the project area as sensitive for archaeological resources based on topographic features, hydrologic conditions, vegetation, and known sites. Several archaeological surveys, which collectively cover the entire project area, have been conducted. No archaeological sites were discovered. A thorough records check was conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit of the University of California, Riverside which revealed no archaeological or historical resources in the project area. If archaeological resources are unearthed during grading operations, the artifacts shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate mitigation shall be determined. Source: County of Riverside Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217, March 1989, Areas of Sensitivity For Archaeological Resources Figure VI-8 Page 26 Do do Records Check Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside, Daniel F. McCarthy, ARU Co-ordinator, December 5, 1990 Adve~e physical or a~thetic effe~s to a p~historic or historic building, structure, oro~ect: NO. NO such resources will be affected by the project; see item 20.a, above. Potentel to cause a physical change which would affect unique ~hn~ cultural values: NO. No unique ethnic cultural values are known to be attached to the project site. Resthction of exiting rel~ious or sac~d uses within the potential impact area: NO. NO known religious or sacred uses exist in the project vicinity. Page 27 Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. The City Council will consider issuance of a negative declaration for the widening of Ynez Road to six lanes from Rancho California Road to Apricot Street. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or 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(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday form 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Lynn Calvert-Hayes (714) 686-0844. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING: Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula Tuesday. ~anuary 8. 1991 7:00 PM County AUTC CENTEF Cu'. ~ M. LC~G CITY OF TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Date Filed December 14, 1990 General Information Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 3000, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 Address of project: See attached mad Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 910-130-023, -030, 921-080-014, -017, -026,-027, -039, -041, -053, -054, -055, -056, 921-090-006, -007, -068, 921-290-002, -003, 921-300-005, 921-320-007, -009, -012, -026, -027, -028, -036, -038, -041, 042. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Timothy Serlet, City Enqineer, City of Temecula, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-1989 Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: 5o List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Existing zoning district: Commercial (C), Restricted Liqht Industrial (RLI), Rancho California Specific Plan No. 149 and SDecific Plan No. 180 Proposed use'of site (project for which this form is filed): Wideninq of Ynez Road from four to six lanes to a maximum riqht-of-way width of 134 feet from Rancho California northward to Apricot Street (Phase 1) Project Description o Site size: The widening of Ynez Road is approximately two miles in length. Ynez Road from Winchester south to Apricot is presently six lanes with a center median. The proposed roadway improvements will not include this section of roadway. The widening of Ynez Road to an ultimate right-of-way width of 134 feet in this area is a condition of approval of Plot Plan 11222 "Palm Plaza". The section of Ynez Road that connects the six lane section at Winchester Road is three lanes south of Apricot Street with a center turning lane (two lanes southbound and one lane northbound). This section connects to a four lane section south to Solana Way. The four lanes on Ynez Road at the intersection with Solana Way continue south Page - 1 for 100 yards and narrow to two lanes which increase to four lanes at the intersection of Ynez and Rancho California Roads. 9. Square footage: Not applicable 10. Number of floors of construction: Not applicable 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: Not applicable 12. Attach plans: Not applicable at this time 13. Proposed scheduling: To be established 14. Associated projects: The Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District No. 88-12 has been formed to finance the improvements to Ynez Road in addition to a new overpass at Apricot Avenue, new Interstate-15 north bound on-ramps at the Winchester Road and Rancho California Road Interstate-15 interchanges, library and convention center improvements. Infrastructure improvements are to include additional sewer mains and storm drain improvements. Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed improvements have been evaluated in the environmental assessment for the formation of the Community Facilities District in evaluating traffic and other conditions. A Negative Declaration was issued on the formation of the CFD (EA No. 34121), and filed with the Clerk of the Board of the County of Riverside on October 3, 1989. Ynez Road improvements have been included in the environmental assessments and adopted Negative Declarations for individual development proposals within the Ynez Corridor Area. Full roadway improvements for a 50 foot half-width on Ynez Road were the conditions of approval for the following land divisions: 1. West side of Ynez Road : PM 23430, PM 215191, PM 19145, PM 23496, PM 17454, PM 20363. 2. East side of Ynez Road: PM 23354, PM 21219, PM 23426, PM 22556, PM 20390, PM 22863. Full roadway improvements to a full 134 foot right-of-way width were a condition of approval for PP 11222 "Palm Plaza located on the southwest corner of Ynez Road and Winchester Avenue. 15. Anticipated incremental development: Not applicable 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected: Not applicable 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities: Not applicable Page - 2 18. 19. 20. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: Not applicable If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: Not applicable If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Not applicable Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked Yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. X 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. X X X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. X 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. X 29. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. X 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). X 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). X 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. X Page - 3 Environmental Setting 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.) Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached Exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date / Page - 4 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM - Attachment 25. 27. 32. 33. During construction, the construction activities such as grading will release dust and fine sand into the atmosphere and will expose disturbed areas to wind erosion. Emissions from construction-related vehicles will contribute to the short-term degradation of air quality in the surrounding area; however, due to the small scale of the area to be disturbed by grading to increase the right-of-way width of Ynez Road the impacts are insignificant. There are no sensitive noise receptors located along Ynez Road. Land uses along Ynez Road consist of and are planned for commercial and light industrial uses. Noise levels may increase incrementally on Ynez Road due to the anticipated increase in vehicular traffic that has been projected for the area. Construction will result in increased short- term noise levels in the project vicinity. The impacts associated with noise increases along Ynez Road are not significant. Associated projects are the City of Temecula Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District No. 88-12. The Community Facilities District (CFD) is providing the funding for paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping, medians, traffic signals, and utilities for Ynez Road, Solana Way, Margarita Road, and Hotel Road within the City of Temecula. The CFD in addition will fund a new overpass at Apricot Avenue, new Interstate-15 north bound on ramps at the Winchester Road and Rancho California interchanges. Infrastructure improvements will include additional sewer mains and storm drain improvements. The cumulative effects of the proposed improvements have been evaluated in the environmental assessment for the Community Facilities District in evaluating traffic and other conditions. A Negative Declaration was issued on the formation of the CFD (EA No. 34121), and filed with the Clerk of the Board of the County of Riverside on October 3, 1989. There are no known historical or archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project site. The Riverside County Southwest Area Community Plan Final EIR No. 217 identifies an area to the east of the intersection of Solana Way and Ynez Road as having the potential for sensitivity for archaeological resources. An archaeological and historical records check was preformed through the Archaeological Research Unit at University of California, Riverside. There found no archaeological or historical sites on record in the vicinity of the roadway improvements on Ynez Road. A copy of the records check is attached to this environmental assessment for clarification. There will be no existing structures effected by the widening of Ynez Road. Ynez Road is not designated as a scenic roadway by the Sate of California or the County of Riverside. No scenic features will be effected by the project. The roadway is existing. The plant life adjacent to the roadway consists of non-native species the result of development landscaping areas in the right-of-way. Areas adjacent to Ynez Road that are vacant Page - 5 34. occur generally on the east side of Ynez Road south of Solana Way. Plant life in these vacant areas consists of native grasses and weedy or ruderal vegetation. No rare or endangered plant or animal species will be effected by the project. Property to the east and west of the proposed Ynez Road widening is primarily built with commercial and light industrial land uses. No residential land uses are planned for the area adjacent to Ynez Road. The most intense commercial land uses occur at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. Specific Plan No. 149 Rancho California Plaza which is located on the northwest corner of this intersection includes 32 acres of retail/commercial, bank, restaurants, office/commercial, movie theater and a supermarket. The commercial center is existing and additional phases are in the process of being constructed. North and adjacent to the specific plan is a shopping center under construction. Adjacent and south of the proposed extension of Apricot Street on the west side of Ynez Street is Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Inc. a light industrial land use. South of Advanced Cardiovascular Systems is a car dealership. On the east side of Ynez Road north of Solana Way, south of the proposed extension of Apricot are office land uses. South and on the east side of Ynez the area is vacant with the exception of an approximate 40 acre shopping center on the northeast corner of Ynez Road and Rancho California Road. Page - 6 ' ~(:) SCale YNEz RO4D WIDENING CITy OF I'EMECULA IN Rd. LEGEND TO ~ INTERSTATE EXISTiNQ ROADs California Eastern Archaeological Informatio~ Inventory_ ..... Center J. F. DAVIDSON.o Archaeological Research Unit University of California Riverside, CA 92521 (714) 787-3885 December 5, 1990 (RS # 1207) Bruce D. Risher, Assistant Planner J.F Davidson Associates, Inc. 27349 Jefferson, Suite 115 Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Bruce, We received your request on November 30, 1990, for an archaeological records search for the areas designated Temecula/I-15, Ynez Road Roadway Improvements located in an unsurveyed area Temecula in Riverside County. We have reviewed our site records, maps, and manuscripts against the location map you provided. Other available heritage resource listings, including the National Register and the State Historic Resources Inventory, have been checked. Our records indicate that several archaeological surveys has been conducted that cover the entire subject area. These reports are listed below. No recorded archaeological sites are recorded within the project boundaries. MF #991 Cultural Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment for the KACOR/Rancho California Property, by C. W. White (Archaeological Systems Management), 131 pp., 1/80. MF # 2430 Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assess- ment of Parcel Map 23496 Rancho California Auto Center Alternative II Riverside County, California, by C. E. Drover, 12 pp., 3/88. MF # 2431 Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assess- ment of Parcel Map 23430 Riverside County, California, by C. E. Drover, 1! pp., 3/88. In addition to the California Archaeological Inventory, the following were reviewed: A. The National Register of Historic Places, Vol. I, II, and subsequent Federal Register Listings: None. B. California Historic Landmarks, 1982, California Department of Parks and Recreation: None. C. California Inventory of Historic Resources: None. D. A review of early maps of the area indicated no historic structures present. Bruce D. Risher December 5, 1990 Page 2 Based on existing information, no further archaeological study is recom- mended. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, the area should be re-evaluated by a qualified archaeologist in order to prevent destruction of any such resources. Sincerely, Daniel F. McCarthy Coordinator ~o Scolo YNEz ROAD ~IDENING CITY OF TEMEOULA so~ana I I I CaJifomia Rd. LEGEND TO BE WlOENEo I~VT£RSTA T£ £XISTINc ROADs RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION STUDY AREA 6 LEGEND NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: XXX Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County of Riverside Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Administration Building, 14th Floor 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 FROM: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 SUBJECT: Project Title: Contact Person: Project Location: Project Description: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Widening of Ynez Road State Clearinghouse Number: Timothy Serlet, City Engineer City of Temecula Telephone Number: (714) 694-1989 Ynez Road from Rancho California Road north to Apricot Street within the City of Temecula. The widening of Ynez Road from four to six lanes for an ultimate right-of-way width of 134 feet from the intersection of Rancho California Road northward to Apricot Street. Date of Action: January 8, 1991 This is to advise that the Temecula City Council has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will not ha've a significant effect on the environment. 2. _ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ~ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, (714) 694-1989. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions Section 15091 of the State Guidelines. 4. 5. Date Received for Filing: Signature Title NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE AND FILE NUMBER: PROJECT APPLICANT: PROJECT LOCATION: Widening of Ynez Road City of Temecula TELEPHONE NUMBER: (714) 694-1989 Timothy Serlet, City Engineer Ynez Road from Rancho California Road north to Apricot Street within the City of Temecula. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widening of Ynez Road from four lanes to six lanes for an ultimate right-of-way width of 134 feet from Rancho California Road northward to Apricot Street within the City of Temecula. FINDING The City of Temecula has reviewed the above project in accordance with the City of of Temecula Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) need not be prepared because: [ ] The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. ix] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described on the attached and hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration have been added to the project. The initial study which provides the basis for this determination, including any applicable mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant effects, is attached. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Temecula, City Clerk's Office, located at 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. PREPARED BY: DATE: REVIEW PERIOD: NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the Negative Declaration during the 21-day review period. The appropriateness of the Negative Declaration will be reconsidered in light of the comments received. COMMENTS RECEIVED: DATE ADOPTED: YES NO INITIAL STUDY REVISED: YES NO BY: ITEM NO. 16 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department January 8, 1991 PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS UNTIL JANUARY 8, 1992. PREPARED BY: Oliver Mujica R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: Adopt Ordinance No. 91- entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE 90-01, WHICH DECLARES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS." BACKGROUND: On January 8, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-01, declaring a forty-five (45) day moratorium on the construction and location of radio and television transmitting antennas. The Moratorium was; based upon the following findings: I1) That the public and City staff had indicated to the Council that aesthetic and land use problems had arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmitting antennas within the City. STAFFRPT\ PLNG- 0 01 1 REQUEST: ANALYSIS: 12) That it is necessary to re-examine all of the land use regulations of Riverside County which the City has adopted by reference, as they apply to television and radio transmitting antennas. 13) That it is necessary, pending the conduct of such study, and the enactment of such regulations based thereon, that a moratorium on the construction of any television and radio transmitting antennas be imposed pending the completion of such study and report. That if such moratorium were not imposed, construction of such television and radio transmitting antennas would be undertaken which could very well frustrate the zoning proposal to be examined and studied. On February 13, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-03, declaring a ten I10) month and fifteen 115) day extension of Ordinance No. 90- 01, which was due to expire on February 23, 1990. Staff requests that the moratorium established under Ordinance No. 90-01 be extended for a period of one I1) year to January 8, 1992 so as to permit the Staff and the Planning Commission the opportunity to recommend new zoning regulations. The moratorium could be removed with a new zoning ordinance once the issues are resolved sat i sfactor i I y. The authority for the moratorium is found in Section 65858 of the Government Code; a copy of that Section is attached hereto for reference. Notice is provided as specified by Section 65090 of the Government Code; a copy of that Section and the Notice provided is also attached for reference. Subsection l a) of Section 65858 provides that, after notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the City Council may extend the moratorium for ten 110) months and fifteen 115) days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one I1) year. Any extension shall require a four-fifths vote for adoption; and not more than two 12) extensions may be adopted. STAFFRPT\PLNG-001 2 Subsection I d) of Section 65858 provides that the City Council must issue a report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance. On January 8, 1990, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report, pursuant to Section 65858, prior to adopting Ordinance No. 90-01. In summary, the report indicated the following: Non-commercial I ham radio) antennas are permitted in all zones as an accessory use. On the other hand, commercial broadcasting antennas are permitted in the R-R and W-2 zones by right. They are also permitted, subject to a discretionary plot plan approval, in the C-l/C-P, C-P-S, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones. The chief weakness in the County zoning regulations regarding commercial t ransmitti ng antennas is that they are permitted in zones too close to the City center. In addition, a plot plan approval should be required for the installation of an antenna in any zone. The City may wish to impose limitations on the location of ham antennas. However. the Council should be aware that there are limitations on the City's ability to regulate ham antennas by the Federal communications Commission. Staff only requested that Council provide some direction as to what types of issues the Planning Commission should examine in drafting new zoning regulations in this area. In the meanwhile. it was proposed that the moratorium be adopted. Based on the Staff Report, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-17 describing measures taken to alleviate the Condition which led to the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 90-01, based upon the following findings: (a) That the public and City staff had indicated to the Council that aesthetic and land use problems had arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio STAFFRPT\PLNG-001 3 lb) (c) Id) transmitting antennas within the City· That it is necessary to re-examine all of the land use regulations of Riverside County which the City has adopted by reference, as they apply to television and radio transmitting antennas. That it is necessary, pending the conduct of such study, and the enactment of such regulations based thereon, that a moratorium on the construction of any television and radio transmitting antennas be imposed pending the completion of such study and report. That if such moratorium were not imposed, construction of such television and radio transmitting antennas would be undertaken which could very well frustrate the zoning proposal to be examined and studied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- , entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE 90-01, WHICH DECLARES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS." OM: ks Attachments: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ordinance No. 91- Extending the Moratorium Ordinance No, 90-01 Ordinance No, 90-03 Resolution No, 90-17 Public Notice Coyeminent Code Sections 65858, 65090 City Council Staff Report ( dated February 13. 1990) City Council Meeting Minutes of February 13. 1990 STAFFRPT\PLNG-001 4 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO 90-01. WHICH DECLARES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-01, the City Council of the City of Temecula enacted a zoning moratorium, which expired on February 23, 1990, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858; WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-03, the City Council of the City of Temecula extended Ordinance No. 90-01, which expires on January 8, 1991 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find. determine and declare. as follows: la) That the public and City staff have indicated to this Council that aesthetic and land use problems have arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmitting antennas within the city; lb) That such problems pose a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare; That it is necessary to re-examine all of the land use regulations of the Riverside County. which the City has adopted by reference, as they apply to television and radio transmitting antennas; Id) That it is necessary, pending the conduct of such study and the enactment of regulations based thereon. that a moratorium on the construction of any television and radio transmitting antennas be imposed pending the completion of such study and report; (e) That the City is conducting such an examination; if) That it is necessary. pending the completion of such study and the enactment of regulations based thereon, that the existing moratorium on the construction and location of television and radio transmitting antennas be extended through January 8. 1992; and (g) That if such moratorium were not extended, construction of such antennas would be undertaken which could very well frustrate the zoning proposal to be examined and studied, and would result in a threat to public health, safety and welfare. STAFFRPT\PLNG-001 1 SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any provisions of any City or County Ordinance to the contrary, during such time as this Ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall construct or locate any television and radio transmitting antennas within the boundaries of the City. No officer, employee or agent of the City or the County of Riverside shall issue any permit or other entitlement which would have the effect of allowing such a television or radio transmitting antenna during such time as this Ordinance is in full force and effect, and in addition any permit or other entitlement issued shall be revoked. Should any party in receipt of such permit or entitlement believe that they have a vested right to build a television or radio transmitting antenna or would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an antenna, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon. Non- commercial (Ham Radio) antennas are exempt from this section. SECTION 3. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and shall take effect immediately and extend City Ordinance No. 90-01 through January 8, 1992. A statement of facts constituting the basis of such urgency is set forth above. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. This Ordinance shall remain in effect until January 8, 1992. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 1991. ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK STAFFRPT\PLNG-001 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) $S. I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91- was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council ont he 8th day of January, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK Scott F. Field City Attorney STAFFRPT\PLNG-001 3 sff/ORD18228 (010390-1) ORDINANCE NO. 90- 01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS. (URGENCY ORDINANCE) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare, as follows: (a) That the public and City staff have indicated to this Council that aesthetic and land use problems have arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmitting antennas within the City; (b) That it is necessary to re-examine all of the land use regulations of the Riverside County, which the City has adopted by reference, as they apply to television and radio transmitting antennas; (c) That it is necessary, pending the conduct of such study and the enactment of regulations based thereon, that a moratorium on the construction of any television and radio transmitting antennas be imposed pending the completion of such study and report; and (d) That if such moratorium were not imposed, construction of such television and radio transmitting Antennas would be undertaken which could very well frustrate the zoning proposal to be examined and studied; SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any provision of any city or County Ordinance to the contrary, during such time as this Ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall construct or locate any television and radio transmitting antennas within the boundaries of the City. No officer, employee or agent of the City or the County of Riverside shall issue any permit or other entitlement which would have the effect of allowing such a television or radio transmitting antenna during such time as this Ordinance is -1- sff/ORD18228 (010390-1) in full force and effect, and in addition any permit or other entitlement issued shall be revoked. Should any party in receipt of such permit or entitlement believe that they have a vested right to build a television or radio transmitting antenna or would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an antenna, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon. SECTION 3. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. A statement of facts constituting the basis of such urgency is as above set forth. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Law of the State of California and other applicable law. This Ordinance shall remain in effect for a period of 45 days from and after its adoption and may, thereafter, be extended in the time and manner provided by law. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January , 1990. RON PARKS MAYOR ATTEST: F. D. ALESHIRE City Clerk -2- sff/ORD18228 (010390-1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss. I, F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-01 was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _9J_h day of January , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None F. D. ALESHIRE CITY CLERK -3- ORDINANCE NO. 90-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO 90-01, WHICH DECLARES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-01, the City Council of the City of Temecula enacted a zoning moratorium, which expires on February 23, 1990 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare, as follows: (a) That the public and City staff have indicated to this Council that aesthetic and land use problems have arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmitting antennas within the city; . (b) That such problems pose a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare; (c) That it is necessary to re-examine all of the land use regulations of the Riverside County, which the City has adopted by reference, as they apply to television and radio transmitting antennas; (d) (e) That it is necessary, pending the conduct of such study and the enactment of regulations based thereon, that a moratorium on the construction of any television and radio transmitting antennas be imposed pending the completion of such study and report; That the City is conducting such an examination; That it is necessary, pending the completion of such study and the enactment of regulations based thereon, that the existing moratorium on the construction and location of television and radio transmitting antennas be extended through January 8, 1991; and (g) That if such moratorium were not extended, construction of such antennas would be undertaken which could very well frustrate the zoning proposal to be examined and studied, and would result in a threat to public health, safety and welfare. Ordinance No. 90-03 2 SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any provision of any City or County Ordinance to the contrary, during such time as this Ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall construct or locate any television and radio transmitting antennas within the boundaries of the City. No officer, employee or agent of the City or the County of Riverside shall issue any permit or other entitlement which would have the effect of allowing such a television or radio transmitting antenna during such time as this Ordinance is in full force and effect, and in addition any permit or other entitlement issued shall be revoked. Should any party in receipt of such permit or entitlement believe that they have a vested right to build a television or radio transmitting antenna or would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an antenna, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon. Non-commercial (Ham Radio) antennas are exempt from this section. SECTION 3. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and shall take effect immediately and extend City Ordinance No. 90-01 through January 8, 1991. A statement of facts constituting the basis of such urgency is set forth above. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. This Ordinance shall remain in effect until January 8, 1991, and may, thereafter, be extended in the time and manner provided by law. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance..and cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February, 1990. RON.~LD J. PARKS MAYOR ATI"EST: F. D. ALESHIRE, City Clerk Ordinance No. 90-03 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-03 was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 13th day of February, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Mufioz, NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None APPROVED AS TO FORM: F. D. ALESHIRE CITY CLERK Scott F. Field City Attorney sff/RES13001 RESOLUTION NO. 90-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESCRIBING MEASURES TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO THE ADOPTION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 90-01. WHEREAS, on January 8, 1990 the Temecula City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 90-01 which declared a moratorium on the construction and use of radio and television transmitting antennas; WHEREAS, the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 90-01 was based upon the following findings: That the public and City staff have indicated to this Council that aesthetic and land use problems have arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmitting antennas within the City; (b) That it is necessary to re-examine all of the land use regulations of the Riverside County, which the City has adopted by reference, as they apply to television and radio transmitting antennas; (c) That it is necessary, pending the conduct of such study and the enactment of regulations based thereon, that a moratorium on the construction of any television and radio transmitting antennas be imposed pending the completion of such study and report; and (d) That if such moratorium were not imposed, construction of such television and radio transmitting Antennas would be undertaken which could very well frustrate the zoning proposal to be examined and studied; WHEREAS, Section 65858(d) of the Government Code provides that ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance; and -1- sff/RES13001 WHEREAS, described hereinafter in Section 1 are the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 89-31; they in sum constitute the report referred to in Section 65858(d) of the Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of Temecula has taken the following measures to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 90-01. A. The city Staff has presented Council with a report reviewing the current zoning standards for transmitting antennas, and proposing that the zones where such antennas are permitted be restricted. Council has directed that its new Planning Commission review the report and make a recommendation to Council pursuant to Government Code Sections 65853, et seq. B. Ordinance No. 90-01 provides an exemption procedure for those persons who have a vested right to continue construction despite the Moratorium, or who suffer a hardship due to the Moratorium. To date, Mr. L. Penfold has filed for such an exemption. The Council granted a limited exemption to permit processing a plot plan to relocate an antenna pursuant to Resolution No. 90-1--7 on February 6, 1990. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this February , 1990. ]3th day of RON PARKS MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk [SEAL] -2- sff/RES13001 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 13th day of February , 1990 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT:0 COUNCILMEMBERS F. D. ALESHIRE CITY CLERK -3- Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Extension of Ordinance No. 90-03 declaring a moratorium on the construction and use of television and radio transmitting antennas. Ordinance No. 90-03 presently prohibits any person from constructing or locating a television or radio transmitting antenna within the City. Ordinance No. 90-03 expires on January 8, 1991. City Staff recommends that it be extended through January 8, 1992. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or 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(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday form 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Oliver Mujica, (714) 694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING: Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula Tuesday. January 8. 1991 7:00 PM CHAPTER 2.7 Public Hearings [Title 7, Planning and Land Use--Division I, Planning and Zotfing-- Chapter 2.7, Public Hearing;, Chapter added by Stats 1984 ch 1009 9 2.] § 65091. § 65092. § 65093. § 6~094. § 6~9~. Notice by publication or posting Notice by mail or delivery Written request for notice Effect of failure to receive notice "Notice of a public hearing"; Contents Continuances Collaternl References: Cal Jur 3d Zoning and Other Land ControLs 99 103 et seq. Cal Digest of Official Reports 3d Series, Zoning and Planning 99 14 et seq. Am Jut 2d Zoning and plnnning 99 60 et seq. § 65090. Notice by pubHention or posting (a) When a provision of this title requires notice of a public hearing to be given pursuant to _this section, notice shah be published pursuant to Section 6061 in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction of the local agency which is conducting the proceeding at least 10 days prior to the hearing, or if there is no such newspaper of general circulation, the notice shall be po~ted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in at least three public places within the jurisdiction of the local agency. Co) The notice shall include the information specified in Section 65094. (c) In addition to the notice required by this 'section, a local agency may give notice of the hearing in any other manner it deems necessary or desirable. Added Stats 1984 ch 1009 9 2. Prto~ Law: Former 9 65351, as added by Stats 1965 ch 1880 9 5. Former Section: Former 9 65090, relating to authority for area planning commissions, was added by Stats 1953 ch 1355 9 2 and repealed by Stats 1965 ¢h 1880 9 8. Former Set. on: Originnl 9 65090, rehting to area pla~lning commission, was added by Stats 1951 ch 334 9 I and repealed by Stats 1953 ch 1355 9 L 2O8 Cross Refer, Publicatic QuaJificat city: §' Establish' Manner ~ Cotta~eral 1 Cal Forms: Am $ur Form Law Revfi § (a) Whe to be gi~ followinl (1) Noti prior to owner's (2) Not prior tc sewage, to the may be (3) No prior t, latest e that is roll, th collect, roll. I~ delivex provid eighth prior (4) if notic~ (A) l gener proce sff/AGD13001 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY ~~ FEBRUARY 5, 1990 FEBRUARY 13, 1990 PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS UNTIL JANUARY 8, 1991. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 90- , entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE 90-01, WHICH DECLARES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS." Adopt Resolution describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the Antenna Moratorium. Direct the new Planning Commission to make recommendations on new zoning regulations for transmitting antennas. DISCUSSION: Ao History Of Events Leading To The Moratorium On November 21, 1989, County Staff approved a plot plan to permit construction of a 240' radio antenna at 28715 Via Montezuma in Temecula. The property owner later applied for a building permit, but because the proposed engineering plans did not clear County plan check no building permit was ever issued. Nonetheless, the antenna was constructed on December 22, 1989. -1- sff/AGD13001 B. Moratorium On January 8, 1990, the City Council, in response to citizens concerns and upon recommendation of City Staff, adopted Ordinance No. 90-01, declaring a forty-five (45) day moratorium on the construction and location of radio and television transmitting antennas. The Moratorium was based upon the following findings: (1) That the public and city staff had indicated to the Council that aesthetic and land use problems had arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmitting antennas within the City. (2) That it is necessary to re-examine all of the land use regulations of Riverside County which the City has adopted by reference, as they apply to television and radio transmitting antennas. (3) That it is necessary, pending the conduct of such study, and the enactment of such regulations based thereon, that a moratorium on the construction of any television and radio transmitting antennas be imposed pending the completion of such study and report. (4) That if such moratorium were not imposed, construction of such television and radio transmitting antennas would be undertaken which could very well frustrate the zoning proposal to be examined and studied. The Moratorium expires February 23, 1990, unless extended. Analysis Of Existing Zoning Ordinance And Discussion Of Alternatives The attached letter from Mark Balys of the Riverside County Planning Department, identifies the zones where transmitting antennas are permitted. In summary, non- commercial (ham radio) antennas are permitted in all zones as an accessory use. On the other hand, commercial broadcasting antennas are permitted in the R-R and W-2 zones by right. They are also permitted, subject to a discretionary plot plan approval, in the C-i/C-P, C-P-S, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones. A zoning map identifying where -2- sff/AGD13001 these zones are located in the City is available at City Hall. Also attached for the Council's reference are ordinances regulating antennas from other jurisdictions. For example, in Norco, antennas may not exceed forty-five (45) feet in height. By contrast, in Costa Mesa, which recently adopted an ordinance which comprehensively regulates all types of antennas, commercial antennas in excess of thirty (30) feet must have a conditional use permit. In our preliminary view, the chief weakness in the County zoning regulations regarding commercial transmitting antennas is that they are permitted in zones too close to the City center. In addition, a plot plan approval should be required for the installation of an antenna in any zone. The City may also wish to impose limitations on the location of ham antennas. However, the Council should be aware that there are limitations on the City's ability to regulate ham antennas by the Federal Communications Commission. At this time, the Staff only requests that Council provide some direction as to what types of issues the future Planning Commission should examine in drafting new zoning regulations in this area. In the meanwhile, it is proposed that the moratorium be extended. De Request To Extend The Moratorium Through January 8, 1991 Staff requests that the moratorium be extended so as to permit the Staff and the Planning Commission the opportunity to recommend new zoning regulations. The moratorium could be removed with a new zoning ordinance once the issues are resolved satisfactorily. The authority for the moratorium is found in Section 65858 of the Government Code; a copy of that Section is attached hereto for reference. Notice is provided as specified by Section 65090 of the Government Code; a copy of that Section and the Notice provided is also attached for re ference. Subsection (a) of Section 65858 pro~ides that the City Council may extend the moratorium for ten months and fifteen days (i.e., January 8, 1991) after providing Notice -3- sff/AGD13001 of Public Hearing. the extension. A four-fifths vote is required to adopt Subsection (d) of Section 65858 provides that the City Council must issue a report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance. A suggested resolution attached to this report constitutes the report required by law. &TTACHMENTS= 1. Ordinance Extending the Moratorium. 2. Resolution identifying measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the Moratorium. 3. Ordinance No. 90-01. 4. Letter from Riverside County Planning Department identifying zones where antennas are permitted. 5. Public Notice. 6. Gov't Code §§65858, 65090. 7. Antenna Ordinance from Corona, Norco, Riverside, Camarillo, Costa Mesa, and West Covina. -4- sff/ORD13001(020590-1) ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-01, WHICH DECLARES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO TRANSMITTING ANTENNAS. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 90-01, the City Council of the City of Temecula enacted a zoning moratorium, which expires on February 23, 1990 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare, as follows: (a) That the public and City staff have indicated to this Council that aesthetic and land use problems have arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmitting antennas within the City; (b) That such problems pose a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare; (c) That it is necessary to re-examine all of the land use regulations of the Riverside County, which the City has adopted by reference, as they apply to television and radio transmitting antennas; (d) That it is necessary, pending the conduct of such study and the enactment of regulations based thereon, that a moratorium on the construction of any television and radio transmitting antennas be imposed pending the completion of such study and report; (e) That the City is conducting such an examination; (f) That it is necessary, pending the completion of such study and the enactment of regulations based thereon, that the existing moratorium on -1- sff/ORD13001(020590-1) the construction and location of television and radio transmitting antennas be extended through January 8, 1991; and (g) That if such moratorium were not extended, construction of such antennas would be undertaken which could very well frustrate the zoning proposal to be examined and studied, and would result in a threat to public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any provision of any City or County Ordinance to the contrary, during such time as this Ordinance is in full force and effect, no person shall construct or locate any television and radio transmitting antennas within the boundaries of the City. No officer, employee or agent of the City or the County of Riverside shall issue any permit or other entitlement which would have the effect of allowing such a television or radio transmitting antenna during such time as this Ordinance is in full force and effect, and in addition any permit or other entitlement issued shall be revoked. Should any party in receipt of such permit or entitlement believe that they have a vested right to build a television or radio transmitting antenna or would suffer a hardship if not permitted to build an antenna, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon. SECTION 3. This Ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure and shall take effect immediately and extend City Ordinance No. 90-01 through January 8, 1991. A statement of facts constituting the basis of such urgency is set forth above. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. This Ordinance shall remain in effect until January 8, 1991, and may, thereafter, be extended in the time and manner provided by law. -2- sff/ORD13001(020590-1) SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 1990. day of ATTEST: RON PARKS MAYOR F. D. ALESHIRE City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) $$. I, F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90- was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: F. D. ALESHIRE CITY CLERK Scott F. Field City Attorney -3- Hr. Frank A11eshire, City Nanager City of Temecul~ P.O,Box 3000 Temecula, CA g23gO ATTN: Scott Field, City Attorney :liVi=43iDE C(Xlnc.u LAnnin(3 DEP RCI IEnC Dear Scott: In responding to your broadcast facilities, I information: request for a list of zones allowing have compiled the following for your Non-commercial (Ham) Radio - permitted in all zones as an accessory use. Commercial Broadcasting Permitted Use - R-R, W-2 zones 18.30 Plot Plan Approval - C-l/C-P, C-P-S, M-SC, M-M M-H Zones With respect to other sections of Ordinance No. 348 which may affect the placement of Broadcast towers the following sections should be referred to. S;CTION 21.2 Accessory use - a use customarily incidental and accessory to the principal use of a lot or a building located upon the same lot or building site. 18.20(b) Height Exceptions - Structures necessary for the maintenance and operations of a building and flagpoles, wireless masts, chimmeys, or similar structures may exceed prescribed height limits where such structures do not provide additional floor space. 18.34(3) For structures other than buildings, an application for a greater height limit in accordance with the limitations of the zoning classification may be made to the Planning Director pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of this Ordinance. If granted, the approved plot plan shall specifically state the allowed height. If you have further questions on this matter please feel free to call me at (714) 787-2216, Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director Balys, Chief Oep~c~ Director 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342'8277 Notice of Public Hearing CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 13, 1990 at 7:00 p.m., the Temecula City Council will conduct a public hearing pertaining to the item listed below. PLACE OF HEARING: Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula DATE OF HEARING: Tuesday. February 13. 1990 Extension of Ordinance No. 90-01 declaring a moratorium on the construction and use of television and radio transmitting antennas. Ordinance No. 90-01 presently prohibits any person from constructing or locating a television or radio transmitting antenna within the City. Ordinance No. 90-01 expires on February 23, 1990. Staff is recommending that it be extended through January 8, 1991. Those persons desiring to testify in favor or in opposition to the extension will be given an opportunity to do so at the public hearing. If further information is desired, you may contact the City of Temecula at (714) 694-1989. If you challenge the extension of Ordinance No. 90-01 in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Temecula City Council at, or prior to'the public hearing. City Clerk Send proof of publication to: City of Temecula, 43172 Business Park Dr., Temecula 92390 Publish: By February 3, 1990 AFFID&VIT OF POSTIN~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that on the 2nd day of February, 1990, I caused to have posted the attached Notice of Public Hearing, regarding: Extension of Ordinance No. 90-01 declaring a moratorium on the construction and use of television and radio transmitting antennas. at the following locations: Bulletin Board at the U.S. Post Office, 28360 Front Street; 2. County Library, Rancho California Branch, 2733A Ynez Road 3. Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California, the 3rd day of February, 1990 . F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk ~FF~D~V~T OF I~LIN~ NOTICE I, F. D. ~LESHIRE, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, hereby certify that on January 26, 1990, I caused to be mailed Notices of Public Hearings, regarding: EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 - declaring a moratorium on the construction and use of television and radio transmitting antennas. to the individuals on the attached list. F. D. Aleshire, City Clerk Ladd Penfold KRTM-FM 28715 Via Montezuma Temecula, CA 92390 Department of Building and Safety County Administrative Center 27403 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: Bob Sizemore, Sr. Bldg. Inspector (3) A swimming pool may be constructed contrary to subsection (1) above when it lies partially within and partially without a dwelling which conforms with all cther provisions of this Ordinance. 18.31.16 - Accessory Structures and Height Exceptions: (1) Structures necessary for tke main%enance (2) and operation of a building, flag poles, chimneys or similar structures are permitted in any zone and may exceed the prescribed height limits where such structures do not provide additional floor space subject to the provisions of this section. Antennas (a) In all zones, noncommercial antennas are permitted as accessory structures and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development when it is determined that building permits are required pursuant the Uniform Building Code. · (b) In Agricultural, Residential, Hillside, Commercial and Industrial Zones antennas shall meet the following standards: (1) Satellite dish type antennas shall be ground mounted and not exceed 196 (Norco 11/84) (3) a height of 15 feet as m~asured from ground level, except satellite dish may be mounted on the roof of Commercla!/Indus~ria! buildings if screened ~o the satisfaction of tke Planning Commission. (2) All other antenna shall not exceed an overall height of forty-five feet as measured frcm ground level; and (3) All antennas shall be located to the rear or side of the main dwelling ~r princi. pa] ~truc~ur~. (c) Antennas shall be adequately secured with safety lines to prevent contact with power lines or prevent damage to property caused by i~s falling. (d) All antenna mountings shall be grounded for protection against a direct strike of lighting. (e) All utilities servicing antennas shall be placed und~rqround wherever appro- priate. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) (a) Noncommercial WECS are permitted in all zones as accessory structures provided that building permits have been obtained. 196-I (Norco 11/84) 19,68.0~O AITIIIAE AID Arrd~Ls-Arf aufiOLs STIIJC- TUI~9. (a) Non-counarcial antemuss and appurcemanC sup- por~ structures for the purpose of ~ransuiccins and/or receiving electromagnetic waves, includins radio and television signals, may be erected in all zones except the Floodplain Combining or the Course Zones as a permitted accessory use and are noC subject to the height limits of their respective zones. However, such ancenrms and support tures excluding guywires may not be established in any required franc or street side yard and their es- tablishment umy also be restricted or precluded if contrary to resulatioua of the federal govermnent. Design Review Board approval shell mac be required on non-commercial accessory antennas except where otherwise required by this Chapter. (b) Antennas and support structures intended for coumercial broadcasting and/or receiving or which are established as the principal or sole use on a given property shall be subject co the grantin~ of a conditional use per~ic. (c) Nou-co~mercial satellite dish antenna for the demonstration of products sold ~-lthin a business es- ~ablishumnC are peruit~ed subject co the following criteria: (1) A maximum of t~o such antennas may be in- stalled on the premises of each business which sells' or operates equipment using a satellite dish. complexes or shops, offices and industrial spaces, a single dish should be shared; (2) The satellite dishes installed ~usc be the smallest unica available in the business escablish- u~en~ for the intended use, not co exceed 12 feet in diameter; (3) The satellite dish must be ground ~ounced in a location noC visible co adJoining streets. If ic is established chat ground mounting is noC feasible, then the dish nay be roof ~ounCed provided chac is situated so as co be as visually obscured as prac- ticable from adjacent streets and adJoining property; (&) Any dish uust be painted to match the predomi- nant building wall color or otherwise blend inca the background and be adequately screened from adjoining properties and (!~ve,~eAde 6-30-89) ~ 762-4 Tg~flq)lA~ U~ Ig~.AX.~ 19.68.050-19.68.0~0 (5) Design aaviev Board approval of all such ia- stallation~ is required; (6) All roo£-~ouaced - satellite dishes require a buildin~ per~it~ Decisions regarding permit require- meats for other installations rill be made on a case-by-case basis; (7) Variances from chase criteria may be $ranced pursuant to the variance procedure contained in Chap- cer 19.6& of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 5609 1988; 0rd. &969 ~2, 1981). 19.68~050 0CCUPMICY IIDEZBITgD AB1) ~~0~8. ~xcepc ~n approved ~b~e h~e par~ ~ere c~ pro~- sion~ o~ ~hi~ Section .~11 no~ apply or ~se provid~ in c~s Section, no house car, ~obile h~e, Borer h~e or ~railer vhich is ~cupied or used or desdied or in~e~d~ to be ~cupied or ~sed tot d~llinl, residential or sleepinl pu~osee s~11 be erectS, move, plac~ a~n~ai~d or used tot dwelling~ resid~tial or sleeping pu~oses ampere ~n ~he City, a~ us person shall occupy or use any ~use car, ~obile h~e, ~o~or h~e or ~r~ler d~llin~, residential or sleepi~ pubssea City; provide, heyever, ~ a hou~ car, ~o- bile h~e, ~ocor hose or ~railer ~y ~ ~e~porarily placed, ~n~ained, occupied a~ used for dwellin~, residential and sleepi~ pu~oses [or a period no~ ~o exceed fi[~een ~o~al days in any one calendar year on a~ ~iven parcel in a residen~ial zone. T~ provision o~ ~ Section s~11 any house car, mobile ho~, ~o~or ho~ or ~railer a~ prov~ ~or residen~i~ ~cupa~y by a condi~io~l use pe~ as prescri~d by ~p~er 1~.61 o[ this C~e, nor ~o a sobils h~e lawfully es~ablish~ on a pe~nen~ founda~ion. (Ord. ~323 ~1, 198~). 19.68.060 TOi ~l~. ~pair of astor ve~cles in any resi- dential zone s~11 ~ li~Cg Co the follo~ng: a. Motor ve~cle repairs ~curriq in an~ front or street side yard, or in any ar~ visible co a public scree~ s~11 ~c~ o~y on a legal drive~y area or parkin~ space a~ s~11 ~ li~ ~o ~ saner re- pair st ~ sore ~n one ve~cle a~ a ~ime. Minor repairs ~o any o~ ~cle s~11 ~ exceed ~ days 762-5 (Riverside 6-30-89) ZONING 26-685.983 be obtained prior to the start of the operation of the use. (e) The location of the "defined area," for serv- ing alcoholic beverages, as shown on Study Plan "A," shall not be changed without a revision to this unclassified use permit. (f) The hours of operation of the alcoholic bev- erage service shall be limited to between 3:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and shall not be changed without a revision to this unclassified use permit. (g) Room service for alcoholic beverages is prohibited. (h) No person under twenty-one (21) years of age shall be permitted in the defined area at any time. The defined area shall have signs posted to that effect. (i) Alcoholic beverages may be served compli- mentary or sold to guests, and shall be available for sale to the general public during the hours of operation. (j) Outdoor signs advertising the alcoholic bev- erage service are prohibited. (k) The alcoholic beverage service shall not be advertised to the general public, but guests and potential guests may be informed of the service. (t) Such other conditions as deemed by the plan- ning commission to reasonably relate to the pur- pose of thLs division. (Ord. No. 1769, § 2, 2-22-88) Secs. 26-685.107--26-685.979. Reserved. DIVISION 16. RF, CEPTION AND TRAN~JION ANTglqN~ ' This division sets forth the development stand- ards for the installation and maintenance of an- tennas within all land-use zones of the city. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design and location of antennas are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the city, while providing for the technical re- quirements of these antennas. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) Sec. 26-685.981. Regulation application. Unless otherwise exempt by this di~'ision, the regulations set forth herein shall apply to anten- nas used for both commercial and noncommercial purposes. The regulations do not apply to anten- nas used to service public utility stations, yards and similar facilities which are governed by &rti- cle XI (Non-Residential Uses) and require an un- classified use permit. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) Sec. 26-685.982. Definitions. (a) Antenn~ Any system of wires, poles, rods, reflecting discs, or similar devices of various sizes, materials and shapes including but not limited to solid or wire-mesh dish, horn, spherical, or bar configured arrangements, used for the transmis- sion or reception of data, facsimile, television, voice or other forms of telecommunications. Any such system is further defined to be external to or attached to the exterior of any building. (b) Antenna support structure A mast, pole, tri- pod or tower utilized for the purpose of support- ing an antenna(s) as defined above. (c) Amateur and/or citizen band antennas. An- tennas used for the operation of amateur and/or citizen band radio stations and which are licensed by the Federal Communication Commission. (d) Reception window. The area within the di- rect line between a land-based antenna and an orbiting satellite. (e) Obstruction-free reception window. The ab- sence of man-made or natural physical barriers that would block the signal between a satellite and an antenna. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) Sec. 26-685.983. Installation of antennas. All antennas and antenna support structures shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the City of West Covina Municipal Code Chapter 7 (Buildings and Build- ing Regulations), the Uniform Building Code, and the manufacturer's structural specifications. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) $upp. No. 31 1842.15 26-685.984 WEST COVINA CODE Sec. 26-685.984. Exemptions. The regulations of this division do not apply to amateur radio antennas when said regulations would prevent the regular transmission and re- ception of amateur radio signals. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) Sec. 26-685.985. Prohibited antennas in res- idential zones. ~a) No radio or telecommunication "transmis- sion" antennas shall be permitted in residential zones, except that those of amateur radio oper- ators who are licensed by the Federal Communi- cations Commission and capable of providing emer- gency communication service to the public, or that conform to the regulations of this division and Division 5, home occupations, of this Article XII. (b) Antennas with a solid or wire-mesh surface with a diameter or maximum width greater than twelve (12) feet are prohibited in residential zones. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) Sec. 26-685.986. Development standards. (a) Location on property. I1) Residential zones. a. No antennas and antenna structures shall be permitted in the required side yard or front yard. b. No antennas shall be permitted within five (5) feet of the rear property line. c. No antennas consisting of a solid or wire- mesh surface shall be permitted on the roof except as permitted through the ap- proval of a variance application. (2) Commercial zones. a. No antennas and support structures shall be permitted in required front or street side yard. b. No antennas and antenna support struc- tures shall be permitted within fifteen (15) feet of the portion of a rear or side yard line that abuts a residentially zoned or developed site. Supp. No. 31 (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (1) (2) c. No antennas and antenna support struc- tures shall be permitted in a required parking space. d. Roof-mounted antennas are permitted sub- ject to the roof-mounted screening stand- ards per section 26-685.986(dX2) of this division. Co) Height restrictions. The height of an antenna shall be the total maximum to which it is capable of being raised. No ground-mounted antennas and antenna support structures shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height measured from the average finished grade of the subject site. No roof-mounted antennas and antenna sup- port structures shall exceed twenty (20) feet above the peak of the roof. (c) Lot coverage. Lot coverage shall be determined as the ground space obscured from the sky by the antenna and antenna support structure, regardless of height. Antennas and antenna support structures shall comply with the lot coverage requirements of the underlying zone. (d) Screening standards. All antennas and antenna support structures shall be as visually unobtrusive as possible. To the extent feasible as determined by the planning director, all antennas consisting of a solid or wire-mesh surface and antenna sup- port .structure shall be seventy-five (75) per cent screened when viewed from ground level from any adjacent public rights-of-way, parks, schools, or residentially zoned properties. Such screening may consist of solid fencing, block wall, including the existing perimeter fenceJwall on the site, landa~aping or any combination there- of. In the case of a roof-mounted installation, such screening may incorporate features of the existing roof (e.g., a parapet, the slope of a pitched rooD, landscaping, or fencing which is compatible with the design and material of the existing development on the site. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) 1842.16 ZONING 26-688 Sec. 26-685.987. General. (a) Antenna surfaces shall not be painted or shiny bright colors and shall be treated so as not to reflect glare from sunlight. (b) No signage or lighting shall be incorporated into or attached to any antenna or antenna sup- port structure, except to indicate danger. (c) All antennas must be permanently and prop- erly grounded for protection against a direct strike of lighting, with an adequate ground wire as speci- fied by the electrical code. (d) All electrical wires shall be protected in con- duit, which shall be undergrounded or fixed to the ground and/or building. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) Sec. 26-685.988. Provision for relief. Relief from the development standards contained herein may be granted by the planning commis- sion subject to the approval of a variance applica- tion if the following specific findings can be determined: (1) That none of the permitted locations or height restrictions for antennas and antenna support structures provide for an obstruction-free re- ception window of said antenna as per block- age by the primary on-site structure or off- site buildings and trees of abutting properties; and/or (2) Existing natural geographic conditions pre- clude an obstruction.free reception window. (Ord. No. 1801, § 2, 1-9-89) ARTICLE XIII. OVERLAY ZONES DMSION 1. CIVIC CENTER See. 26-686. Purpose. The purpose of the civic center overlay zone is to provide for the orderly, harmonious, and at- tractive development of the area around the pub- lic buildings in the civic center in order to protect and preserve the character and integrity of the public and private investment and to encourage the development of the area as a focal point for Supp. No. 31 the community. The regulations contained in this division are in addition to those in the underlying zones which are applicable to the property in the civic center area. (Code 1960, § 11201.11; Ord. No. 1333, § 1, 4-25-77) Sec. 26-687. Location. The civic center area consists of the property in the civic center area including: All land lying between the center line of San Bernandino Free- way; a line of three hundred fifty (350) feet east- erly of the center line of Sunset Avenue; a line three hundred thirty-five (335) feet southerly of the center line of Cameron Avenue (eighty (80) feet wide); the most westerly property line of Or- ange Avenue, exclusive of any portion thereof lying southerly of the northwesterly line of the Walnut Creek Wash. (Code 1960, § 11201.02; Ord. No. 1333, § 1, 4-25-77) Sec. 26-688. Development standards. The following development standards, 'in addi- tion to the requirements of the underlying zone, shall apply to all development within the civic center overlay zone. (a) Precise plan for design. Before property in the civic center overlay zone is developed or improved, a precise plan of design will be required as specified in article VI, divisions 1 and 2 of this chapter. Co) Architectural treatment The planning commis- sion and the city council shall consider the exterior architectural design and appearance, signage, landscaping, and other physical char- acteristics, including location and type of pub- lic utility facilities proposed to be constructed in the civic center overlay zone. A scale ele- vation of each exposed side, as well as at least one perspective and samples of the sur- face materials, shall be submitted with the application for approval of the precise plan of design and shall become an integral part of such application. (1) The exterior architectural design and ap- pearance shall include strong vertical and horizontal lines to convey a definite feel- ing of massiveness and volume. Building 1842.17 ZONING 19.04.695 Rooming unit. "Rooming unit" means any room, or group of rooms, forming a single habitable unit used for living and sleeping, but which does not contain cooking or eating facilities. (Ord. 347 § 1 (part), 1976: prior code § 9300.5(137).) 19.04.700 Sanitarium. "Sanitarium" means the same as "hospital" (Ord. 347 § 1 (pan), 1976: prior code § 9300.5(138).) 19.04.703 Satellite dish antenna. "Satellite dish antenna" means an antenna in the shape of a shallow dish, and appurtenant equipment, for reception of communications (television and otherwise) from orbiting satellites or ground transmitters. (Ord. 593 § 2, 1985: Oral. 590 § 2, 1985.) (cama,a~ s-s8~ 480-30b A-E AGRICULTURAL EXCLUSIVE ZONE 17. Residence of the owner or owners. or lessees or lessor. of the land upon which the use is conducted. (Ord. 512 § 1 . 1982: Ord. 260 § I (vart). 1970,: prior code § 9401.1.) !9.10.030 Uses p~rmitt~l by conditional us~ p~nnnit. The following additional uses may be permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit as provided for in Section 8163.3 of the zoning ordinance: 1. Nurseries, retail; 2. Feed lots: 3. Dairies; 4. Production of eggs, and hatcheries involving more than five hundred laying birds; 5. Fur farms; 6. Electrical distribution substations' 7. Natural resources, development of, including necessary structures and appurtenances. Development of water resources shall be limited to the following: a. The drilling and operation of water wells on lots which are principally used for agriculture and are forty acres or larger. The water produced shall be used only for the lot on which the well is located, b. The drilling and operation of water wells and distri- bution of water therefrom by any mutual water company to the persons and properties which it serves; 8. Soil amendment activities to incorporate certain oil field waste into the soil; 9. Residence in excess of those permitted in Section 19.10.010: 10. Farm labor mobile home park; 1 I.Private nonvehicular daytime recreational activities for hiking, riding, fishing, and hunting which such uses require structures or improvements such as, but not limited to, fireplaces, paving or swimming pools; 12. Automated radio, television transmitter relay signal distribution facilities and associated equipment; 480-47 (cm~m) ~-~) ZONING 13. Temporary agricultural stands in accordance with Chapter 19.62; 14. Satellite dish antennas in a side yard or at heights greater than fifteen feet. t'Ord. 593 ~ 3. 1985: Ord. 590 § 3. 1985:Ord. 512 § I0 (part). 1982: Ord. 444 § I. 1979: Ord. 260 § I (part). 1974: prior code § 9401.2.) 19.10.040 Development standards. The development standards set forth in Sections 19.10.050 through 19.10.100 shall apply to all developments within the A-E agricultural exclusive zone and no building or structure hereinafter shall be erected which does not provide these standards. lord. 260 § 1 (part~. 1974: prior code § 9401.3 ~ part ~. ) 19.10.050 Lot area. Tile minimum acreage for any A-E zone shall be ten acres. A parcel cannot be divided into parcels of less than ten acres. In the event that a greater required lot area is designated for a particular area in the A-E zone, it shall be indicated by the number expressing the required acres for the lot following the zone symbol, such as A-E (40 acres) and such property shall be hereafter so classified. The planning commission and/or city council can implement this change in accordance with the procedures in Chapter 19.70 of the Camarillo Municipal Code. (Ord. 260 § 1 (part), 1974: prior code § 9401.3(a).) 19.10.060 Lot dimensions. All lots hereinafter created shall comply with the minimum standards set forth in Sections 19.10.070 through 19.10.100 and lots not held under separate ownership or of record shall not be reduced below the ten-acre minimum lot area and the standards set forth in Sections 19.10.070 through 19.10.100. (Ord. 260 § 1 (part). 1974: prior code § 9401.3(b).) (c-,,,~ ~-~) 480-48 R-E RURAL EXCLUSIVE ZONE three months of age or older but not including birds kept for commercial purposes or poultry: 2. The total number of pigeons shall not exceed five pigeons for each one thousand square feet of lot area or ten ornamental or song birds for each one thousand square feet of area: 3. Accessory. buildings or structures incidental to such permitted uses shall- not be located closer than ten feet from any property line nor twenty-five feet from any residential dwelling used for human habitation other than the residence on the same lot: 4. Such pigeons and birds shall be kept and maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times and shall not cause or tend to cause detrimental or injurious condi- tions to the public health. safety. or general welfare of any human being or animals: L. Public parks. playgrounds and athletic fields: N. Temporary subdivision office: temporary subdivision office for the limited purpose of conducting sale of lots in the subdivision tract. Such use shall be subject to approval by the planning director and any conditions deemed neces- sary to insure compatibility with the area in which it is proposed to be placed: O. Temporary storage in any building project during con- struction and sixty days thereafter property in said project may be used for storage of materials, excluding batch plants. used in the constructloft of the individual buildings in the project and for the contractor's temporary office: P. Accessory buildings and structures auxiliary to the principal permitted uses: Q. Special events as set forth in Chapter 19.63. (Ord. 628 § 2, 1987; Ord. 512 § 2, 1982; Ord. 459 § 1, 1980; Ord. 444 § 2. 1979; Ord. 320 (part), 1976: prior code § 9402. 1.) 19.12.030 Uses requiring conditional use penni~ The following uses may be permitted in the R-E zone if a conditional use permit is obtained in the manner provided in 480-55 ZONING this section and such use conforms to every term and condi- tion of the permit. A permit for any of these uses may be granted by the planning commission if the applicant produces sufficient evidence that the use will not be injurious nor detri- mental to the public health. safety or welfare or to the property in the vicinity of the property on which the use will be situated or that said effects can be modified to insure compatibility through conditions of approval: A. Animals. fowl not otherwise permitted in this zone ex- cluding livestock feeding pens: B. Boardinghouses and rest homes: C. Cemeteries. crematoriums and mausoleums: D. Churches: E. Commercial stables and riding academies: F. Community and publicly owned recreational centers. club- houses and similarly used buildings and structures open to the public: G. Day nurseries for six or more children: H. Farm labor mobile homes: housing may be permitted on a parcel of not less than forty acres and in accordance with the following: a. Not more than ten temporary mobile homes shall be maintained per acre of the area devoted to such use: b. Mobile homes shall be placed a distance of not less than fifteen feet papart: c. In no event shall any mobile home be located closer than seventy-five feet to any other farm _~tructure: d. A parking area shall be provided with approved access and paving with one and one-half spaces per unit in suit- able proximity to each mobile home; e. Farm labor, mobile homes and related parking areas shall not be less than thirty-five feet to any property line or public right-of-way; f. Each site for a mobile home shah be thirty feet in width with one thousand five hundred square feet per space; g. Temporary farm labor mobile home housing shall meet or exceed the minimum requirements as provided in the California Health and Safety Code; ¢c,-,,,m~ ,~'~) 480-56 R-E RURAL EXCLUSIVE ZONE I. Farm animals and fowl in excess of those authorized ex- cluding for commercial purposes: 1. Class IV animals being turkeys, guinea fowl, geese and animals which are wild by nature: 2. An exception to increase the minimum area standard and/or decrease the minimum setback standards as provided for farm animals and fowl in the R-E zone: J. Golf courses, tennis clubs, swim clubs, including clubhouse and accessory restaurant, pro shop, either publicly or pri- vately owned but not including miniature golf courses; K. Public utility buildings and structures; L. Schools, coUeges and boarding schools and similar establish- ments for education and training facilities and housing for the accommodating of faculty, students, tramees and other persons associated with such establishments when located on the same parcel or continuous parcels of land upon which a school or establishment is located; M. Natural resources, development of, including necessary structures and appurtenances. Development of water resources shall be limited to the following: L. Th'e drilling and operation of water wells on lots which are principally used for 'agriculture and are forty acres or larger. The water produced shall be used only for the lot on which the well is located, 2. The drilling and operation of water wells and distribu- tion of water therefrom by any mutual water company to the pe .r~..ns an.d properties which it serves; N. Mobilehome parks and mobilehome subdivisions, in accordance with Chapter 19.18 and state law: O. Temporary agricultural stands in accordance with Chapter 19.62; P. Parking lots, as accessory uses, within one hundred fifty feet of the building, lot, parcel or site they are intended to serve. Publicly owned parking lots shall be excluded from the conditional use requirement; Q. Second residential units may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 19.62; 480-56a (Cam~a~ R-E RURAL EXCLUSIVE ZONE R. Roof-mounted satellite dish antennas, satellite dish antennas in a side yard or satellite dishes havLlg a height greater than fifteen feet. No conditional use permit may be issued for a roof-mounted satellite dish unless it meets the following criteria: 1. The applicant must demonstrate that ground-mounting of the satellite dish antenna would result in the obstruc- tion of the satellite antenna's reception window, and tl',at such obstruction involves factors beyond his/her control, 2. The height of the proposed satellite dish antenna shall not exceed the maximum height restriction imposed upon primary uses within the zone, 3. The proposed satellite dish antenna must be compatible with neighboring uses and improvements and should be located away from public view as much as possible. 4. The application shall include certification that the proposed installation is in conformance with applicable city building code regulations. Furthermore, the applica- tion must contain written documentation of such con- formance, including load distributions within the build- ing's support structure' S. Buildings containing a height greater than thirty-five feet with a maximum height of seventy-five feet. This provision shall not apply to single-family residences. (Ord. 634 § 2, 1987: Ord. 621 § 1, 1986; Ord. 596 § 2, 1985; Ord. 593 § 5, 1985; Oral. 590 § 5, 1985; Ord. 560 § 2 (part), 1984: Oral. 512 § 10 (part), 1982: Ord. 482 § 1, 1980:Ord. 474 § 3, 1980; Ord. 444 § 3, 1979: Ord. 320 (part), 1976: prior code § 9402.2.) 480-5 R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE N. In any building project. during construction and sixty days thereafter. property in the project may be used for the storage of materials used in the construction of the indi- vidual buildings in the project and for the contractor's temporary office; O. Special events as set forth in Chapter 19.63. (Ord. 628 § 3, 1987: Ord. 512 § 3, 1982; Ord. 492 § I (part), 1981: Ord. 444 § 4, 1979: Ord. 317 § I (part), 1976: prior code § 9403.1.) 19.14.030 Uses requifi~ conditional use permits. The following uses may be permitted in the R-1 zone if a conditional use permit is obtained in the manner provided in this chapter and such use conforms to every term and condition of the permit. A permit for any of these uses may be granted by the planning commission if the applicant produces sufficient evidence that the use will not be injurious or detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or to the property in the vicinity of the property on which the use will be situated or that the effects can be modified to insure compatibility through the conditions of approval: A. Animals, birds, and poultry in excess of the number per- reitted elsewhere in the zone for commercial or private use: B. Cemeteries, columbariums, crematories and mausoleums: C. Churches; D. Day care nurseries for more than six individuals; E. Elementary, junior high and high schools, boarding, in- cluding offering a full curricula as required by state law: F. Tennis clubs and swim clubs, golf courses with driving range including pro shop and restaurants but excluding miniature courses and separate driving ranges; G. Governmental facilities; H. Libraries and museums; I. Model experimental dwellings; J. Philanthropic and charitable institutions: K. Public utility buildings and structures; L. Rest, convalescent or nursing homes; ) 480-64a (Camara~ R-I SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE M. Temporary residence; a mobile home may be used as a temporary residence for such time as the commission may permit during the period of construction of a permanent dwelling on the same lot when the dwelling is not inhabi- table. but in no case longer than six months from the date of zone clearances issued for the mobile home: N. Water supply. governed by the following: 1. The drilling and operation of water wells on lots which are principally used for agriculture and are forty acres or larger. The water produced shall be used only for the lot on which the well is located. 2. The drilling and operation of water wells and distribu- tion of water therefrom by any mutual water company to the persons and properties which it serves: O. Parking lots, as accessory uses, within one hundred fifty feet of the building, lot. parcel or site they are intended to serve. Publicly owned parking lots shall be excluded from the con- ditional use requirement; P. Temporary agricultural stands in accordance with Chapter 19.62; Q. Second residential units may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 19.62; R. Roof-mounted satellite dish antennas, satellite dish antennas in a side yard or at heights greater than fifteen feet. No conditional use permit may be issued for a roof-mounted satellite dish unless it meets the following criteria: I. The applicant must demonstrate that ground-mounting of the satellite dish antenna would result in the obstruc- tion of the satellite antenna's reception window, and that such obstruction involves factors beyond his/her control, 2. The height' of the proposed satellite dish antenna shall not exceed the maximum height restriction imposed upon primary uses within the zone, 3. The proposed satellite dish antenna must be compatible with neighboring uses, improvements and should be located away from public view as much as possible, 4. The application shall include certification that the proposed installation is in conformance with applicable 480-65 (Camm'iBo 548) ZONING city building code regulations. Furthermore, the applica- tion must contain written documehtation of such con- formance. including load distributions within the build- ing's support structure: S. Buildings containing a height greater than twenty-five feet with a maximum height of seventy-five feet. This provision shall not apply to single-family residences. (Ord. 634 § 4. 1987: Ord. 596 § 4, 1985: Ord. 593 § 7, 1985; Ord. 590 § 7, 1985: Ord. 560 § 2 (part), 1984: Ord. 512 § 10 (part), 1982; Ord. 482 § 2, 1980:Oral. 444§ 5, 1979:Ord. 317 § 1 (part), 1976: prior code § 9403.2.) 19.14.040 Property development and performance standards. The property development and performance standards set forth in Sections 19.14.050 through 19.14.150 shall apply to all lots and premises in the R-1 zone. Site plan review and ap- proval shall be required for original installation and any modifi- cations and shall include review and consideration of general siting, roofing materials, exterior siding, and roof overhang, to insure consistency and compatibility with existing units within the area and the unit or units proposed and assure compliance with applicable standards. The review of application shall be (cam~tiUo s-ss) 480-66 RPD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE G. Keeping of household pets, domestic animals for personal purposes in a single-family detached residence shall be main- rained in accordance with the standards established in the R-I zone; H. Attached residential units may maintain not more than three dogs or cats over the age of four months or combina- tion thereof; I. Agricultural uses, temporary agricultural uses and stands, subject to the following conditions and limitations: 1.. Growing agricultural crops and accessory structures are permitted uses, but no poultry or animals shall be raised or kept except as otherwise permitted by this chapter; J. Rented rooms in any single-family detached residence (RPD-5 or lesser zone) for occupancy of not more than two persons in addition to members of the family occupying such dwellings; K. Special events as set forth in Chapter 19.63. (Ord. 628 § 4, 1987;Ord. 610 § 1, 1986;Ord. 512§4. 1982: Ord. 493 § 1 (part), 1981; Ord. 364 § I (part), 1977: prior code § 9404.1.) 19.16.025 U~m sub~,ct to conditional use permit. The following uses may be permitted in the RPD zone if a conditional use permit is obtained in the manner provided by Chapter 19.62: A. Water supply, governed by the following provisions: 1. The drilling and operation of water wells on lots which are principally used for agriculture and are for~y acres or larger. The water produced shall be used only for the lot on which the well is located. 2. The drilling and operation of water wells and distribu- tion of water therefrom by any mutual water company to the persons and properties which it serves; B. Parking lots, as accessory uses, within one hundred fifty feet of the building, lot, parcel or site they are intended to serve. Publicly owned parking lot shall be excluded from the con- ditional use requirement; C. Temporary agricultural stands in accordance with Chapter 19.62; 480-70a (cammno RPD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE D. Second residential units may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 19.62; E. Roof-mounted satellite dish antennas, satellite dish antennas mounted in a side yard or at heights greater than fifteen feet in the RPD-5U or lesser zones with detached residential units. No conditional use permit may be issued for a roof- mounted satellite dish unless it meets the following criteria: I. The applicant must demonstrate that ground-mounting of the satellite dish antenna would result in the obstruc- tion of the satelhte antenna's reception window, and that such obstruction involves factors beyond his/her control, 2. The height of the proposed satellite dish antenna shall not exceed the maximum height restriction imposed upon primary uses within the zone, 3. The proposed satellite dish antenna must be compatible with neighboring uses and improvements and should be located away from public view as much as possible, 4. The application shall include certification that the proposed installation is in conformance with applicable .city building code regulations. Furthermore, the applica- tion must contain written documentation of such con- formance, including load distributions within the build- ing's support structure. (Ord. 634 § 6, 1987; Ord. 593 § 9, 1985: Ord. 590 § 9, 1985; Ord. 560 § 2 (l~art), 1984; Ord. 512 § 10 (part), 1982; Ord. 482 § 3, 1980;Oral. ~.~. § 6, 1979.) 19.16.030 Uses permitted by residential planned development permit. Residential planned development permit may be approved by the planning commission for the following uses and de- velopers are encouraged to include innovative approaches in residential design which may include general departures from standard design principles, still provide adequate open space, separation of units, and allow for mix of unit types. In addition, O-S OPEN SPACE ZONE twenty feet from any property line. public road. street or highway. 3. The stand shall be removed when not in use for a period of thirty days: J. Temporary movie sets or locations in connection with motion pictures. television programs or commercials: K. Parks owned by public agencies: L. Nurseries and greenhouses without retail sales: M. Commercial or private stables and riding academies: boarding and care of horses, including living quarters for grooms and caretakers located within the same building; N. The production and dispensing of water together with normal appurtenances accessory thereto on any lot or parcel of land under the ownership of any mutual water company, established water district or other public water supply agency: O. Fire stations and facilities for federal. state and county law enforcement. excluding jails, prisons and other places of confinement. (Ord. 405 § I (part), 1978: prior code § 9413.2.) 19.34.040 Um mbj~et to a conditional u~ !~mit. The following us~ may be permitted if a conditional use permit is obtained in the manner provided in the zoning ordinance and such use conforms to every term and condition of the permit. A permit for any of these uses may be granted by the planning commission if the applicant produces sufficient proof that the use will not be injurious or detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or to the property in the vicinity or zone in which the use will be situated: that the effects can be prevented with the imposition of conditions, and that the permit is necessary for the owner of the property to make reasonable use of the property: A. Public and privately owned recreational centers, clubhouses and similarly used buildings open to the public including tennis, swimming or similar activities, other than arcades; B. Cemeteries. columbariums, crematories and mausoleums; C. Buildings, structures and maintenance yards owned by public utilities and all other public entities; 480-189 (camaaUo ~.~) ZONING D. Feed lots for the raising of livestock: E. Radio and television towers and related facilities excluding studios: V. Rifle. pistol. skeet or trap ranges: G. A mobile home used as temporary housing for a caretaker on parcels of forty acres or more. where an employee must be on the property for a substantial portion of each day for vital functions or protection from vandalism: H. Oil exploration and extraction: I. Golf courses with or without clubhouses and restaurants within the clubhouse: J. Campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks: K. Any operation performed in a permanently fixed structure or establishment on the farm or on a moving packing plant on the farm for the purposes of preparing agricultural. horticultural. egg. poultry. meat. rabbit or dairy products for market where such operations are done on the premises owned and operated by the same person who produce the products referred to herein and includes all operations incidental thereto: L. Satellite dish antennas in a side yard or at heights gxeater than fifteen feet. lord. 593 § 19. 1985: Ord. 590 § 19. 1985: Ord. 537 § 5. 1982: Ord. 405 § I (part). 1978: prior code § 9413.3.) 19.34.050 l)annd~pment standards. . The following development standards shall apply to all developments within the O-S open space zone and all buildings or structures hereinafter erected shall conform to the following: A. Lot Area. Minimum parcel size shall be ten acres unless designated for greater lot area by a suffix after the zone designation. B. Lot Dimensions. 1. Lot width shall be a minimum of three hundred feet. 2. Lot depth shall be a minimum of four hundred feet. C. Setbacks. 1. Front Yard. All buildings shall be setback a minimum of fifty feet. 48(3-190 OPEN SPACE ZONE 2. Side Yard. All buildings shall be setback a minimum of fifty feet. 3. Rear Yard. All buildings shall be setback a minimum of fifty feet. D. Accessory Buildings and Structures. An accessory building and structure shall not occupy any portion of the front yard. There shall be a minimum of fifty feet between build- ings used for human habitation and accessory buildings and structures. except as provided in subsection K of this section E. Parking. Parking shall be provided as set forth in the parking regulations. Chapter 19.44. F. Fences and Walls. 1. A fence. wall or hedge. not to exceed six feet in height. may be located or maintained along the side or rear lot lines provided such fence. wall or hedge does not extend within twenty feet of the front property line or within a corner cutback area in which case such fence or wall shall be limited to three feet in height. 2. No fence. wall or hedge shall exceed three feet in height in any corner cutback area. G. Building Height. Building height shall not exceed twenty- five feet. H. Utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground in accord- ance with provisions of Chapter 13.08. I. Signs. Signs may be erected in the O-S zone in accordance with the residential section of the rdgn ordinance codified in Title 17. J. Animals and Fowl Maintenance. The keeping of animals and fowl shall be maintained in accordance with the following: 1. The area where animals and fowl are maintained shall not create a nuisance in relation to adjoining property and shall be kept in a healthful manner. 2. The animals and fowl shall be contained in such a manner to restrict their movement onto the public fight-of-way or adjoining property. 3. The area where animals or fowl are maintained shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any building used for human habitation excepting domestic pets such as dogs or cats. 480-191 (Camariilo 1-86) ZONING K. Satellite Dish Antenna, Rear Yard. A satellite dish antenna may extend into a rear yard; provided, that such antenna is not more than fifteen feet in height. and not less than six feet from the main building. A roof-mounted satellite dish antenna is strictly prohibited. The placement of such antenna in a side yard. or at heights greater than fifteen feet. may be permitted upon the granting of a condi- tional use permit. The antenna shall incorporate an earth- tone or background color which blends with adjacent structures and land features, and corrosive resistant material. The antenna shall be erected in a secure, wind resistant manner, and shall conform to applicable city building code regulations. (Ord. 593 § 20. 1985: Ord. 590 § 20. 1985: Ord. 405 § I (part). 1978: prior code § 9413.40 Sections: 19.36.010 ! 9.36.020 19.36.030 19.36.040 19.36.050 19.36.060 19.36.070 19.36.080 19.36.090 19.36.100 19.36.1 I 0 19.36.120 !11. GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 19.36 YARDS Measurement procedure. Application to main and accessory structures. Required yard or open space not to apply. to other buildings. Projections. Detached accessory buildings-Generally. Detached accessory buildings-Rear yard. Breezeways. Covered patios-Rear yard. Covered patios-Side yard. Architectural features. Chimneys and fireplaces. Balconies. fire escapes. and stairways. (Canmriilo I 480-192 Sections: 17.66.010 17.66.020 17.66.030 Chapter 1'7.66 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND BUILDING HEIGHT Accessory buildings. Building height. Elrth station disc antenna receivers. I 7.66.0 I 0 Accessory buildings. A. No garage or other accessory building shall be located in any R zone without a permissive main building. B. Detached accessory buildings shall be at least ten feet from the main bui|ding. C. No detached accessory building shall be located closer than sixty feet from the front property line. O. Detached accessory buildings without fire resistive walls shall be at least four feet from a side or rear lot line. Detached accessory buildings with fire resis- tive walls shall be permitted at least two feet from a side or rear !or line; provided, however, that any area three feet or less shall be poured with a minimum of two inches or concrete and finished to provide proper drainage. E. Garages with automobile access from an alley shall not be closer than twenty- five 'feet from the opposite property line of the alley. F. No accessory building shall occupy any portion of the side yard on the street side of the corner lot, and on a reversed corner lot no accessory building shall be erected closer to the street than the building line of the adjacent key lot. (Prior code § 9-1-420.) 17.66.020 Building height. All buildings hereafter erected and existing buildings which may be recon- structed, altered. moved, or maintained, or enlarged shall comply with the height regulations of the zone in which they may be located. Roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans, or similar equipment re- quired to operate and maintain the building, and fire or parapet walls, skylights, towers, church spires, flag poles, chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts or similar structures may be erected above the height limits prescribed in this title; pro- vided. that the same may be safely erected and maintaincd at such hcight in vicw of the surrounding conditions and circumstances, but no roof structurcs or any space above the height limit shall be allowed for the purpose of providin~ addi- tional floor space. (Prior code § 9-1-440.) 17.66.030, Earth station disc antenna receivers. A. A single earth station disc antenna receiver up to twelve feet in diameter may be installed on any property in any zone of the city p,.r..~vided that: !. Antennas mounted or maintained at ground level-shall be provided with screening around the lower two-thirds of the installation. 2. Screening may consist of a fence, wall, landscaping or othcr material as approved by the planning director. (CMC 8/87) -496- ZONING CORONA MUNICIPAl. CODE .q 17.66 3. The disc antenna foundation surface may not bc elevated more than onc foot =bove the ground clcvation, and shall be sccurcly af£ixcd to thc ground installation structure. B. in residential and agricultural zones: i. The receiver shall be ground mounted and located in the rear yard area. 2. Where evidence is submitted that a rear yard location will not permit a direct line of sight to the transmitting satellite, a ground mounted side yard location may be allowed, provided it is adequately screened. C. The following applications shall require Board of Zoning Ad.iustment approval pursuant to Section 17.98.020: I. All earth station receivers between 12 and 15 feet in diameter, in any zone. 2.All roof mounted antennas up to fi£teen feet in diameter in any zone. D. The provisions of Section 17.92.030 shall apply to all disc antenna receivers over fifteen feet in diameter in any zone, and all disc antenna transmitters of any size in any zone. (Ord. 1771 § I, 1985; Ord. 1650 § 4 (part), 1982.) (CMC 8/87) -496a- ORDINANCE NO. 89- ~- ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T~E CITY OF ~OaT~ ~BBXv C~%LIFORNIXv A~ENDING TITLE 13 OF THE COST~t HES]t MUNICIP&L CODE TO I~ODXFY PROCEDURES REGARDING REVIEW AND REGULATIONS OF ~%!~TEUR RADIO ANTENN]%S. BECTION ~. FINDINGS The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa finds and declares as follows: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established a rule preempting State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur radio communications. However, the FCC has not preempted local regulations involving placement, screening, or height of amateur radio antennas so long as the regulations are based on health, safety or aesthetic considerations, represent a reasonable accommodation of amateur radio communications, and constitute the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the local agency's legitimate purpose. The City of Costa Mesa desires to allow amateur radio antennas in residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial areas of the City, subject to appropriate regulation to prevent these antennas from creating a negative impact on neighboring properties. The amateur radio antenna development standards set forth in Section 2 allow antennas, subject to regulations regarding the location, type, and height to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community, while allowing amateur radio op~rator~ r~asonable opportunit~ to communicate. ACCORDINGLY, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby amends Title 13 as follows: SECTION 2. 1. Scotion 13-40. Definitions. Add the following definitions in appropriate alphabetical order: Antenna, ~mateur Radio. An antenna array and its associated support structure, such as a mast or tower, that is used for the purpose of transmitting 1 and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal -Communications Commission. Antenna Height· The distance from the property's grade to the highest point of the antenna and its associated support structure when fully extended. Antenna, Satellite. An antenna designed to receive broadcasts relayed from communication satellites. Antenna, Vertical. An antenna and its support structure that is used for the purpose of transmitting and receiving radio signals other than in conjunction with an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Antenna, Whip. An antenna and its support structure consisting of a single, slender, rod-like element which is supported only at or near its base. se=t on 13-313. Antennas. Replace paragraph I with the following language: Permitted AccessoryUse. The following antennas are permitted as an accessory use in the specified zoning districts and are subject to all applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits. a) Satellite receiving antennas in nonresidential zones on sites not contiguous to a residential zone. b) Amateur radio and vertical antennas that do not exceed 30 feet in height in all zones. c) In all zones, amateur radio an%ennas that exceed 30 feet in height and comply with Section 13-313(5) Amateur Radio Antennas Development Stand&rds. Conditional Uses. The following antennas may be allowed by a Minor Conditional Use Permit in the specified zoning districts. a) Satellite receiving antennas in residential zones, and in nonresidential zones on sites contiguous to a residential zone. b) Vertical antennas that exceed 30 feet in height, in all zones. 2 Antenna height limitations shall not apply to antennas which do not require building permits nor to satellite antennas. Building permits are not required for antennas that meet all of the following criteria: a) The antenna and its associated support structure are supported primarily by attachment to a building. b) The antenna, including its associated support structure, does not weigh more than 80 pounds. c) The antenna, excluding its associated support structure, does not exceed 4.4 square feet in effective wind loading area. d) Attachment of the antenna and its associated support structure to a building does not require modification or reinforcement of load bearing elements of the building in order to support the antenna and its associated support structure at wind speeds up to 70 miles per hour. Amateur Radio Antennas Development Standards No part of any amateur radio antenna shall exceed 75 feet in height measured from the property's grade. Be Not more than one amateur radio antenna support structure and one whip antenna structure in excess of 30 feet in height shall be permitted on each building site. No portion of any amateur radio antenna, including the array, shall be located within any front yard or any required side yard. An antenna support structure and its associated antenna may be located in a required rear yard area provided that it is placed as far forward as possible from the rear property line. Antenna support structures mounted on roofs shall be kept to the rear of the centerline of the main structure. The development standards for amateur radio antennas may be waived or modified by the Zoning Administrator upon approval of an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit described in Section 13-353. 3 o Replacement. Replacement of an amateur radio _antenna support structure shall be subject to all applicable regulations and issuance of appropriate permits. However, the supported antenna, including the array, may be replaced without issuance of a new building permit, provided the replacement antenna does not exceed the maximum weight, dimensions or wind load area specified in the current building permit. Section 13-353. Batellite Antennae. Delete this section in its entirety and replace with the following: Seot~on 13-353. Amateur Radio Antenna Permit. ApDlication. Application for an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit shall be made to the Zoning Administrator on forms provided. Plans and information reasonably needed to analyze the application may be required by the Zoning Administrator. The application shall include a statement of the reasons why strict conformance with the Amateur Radio Antennas Development Standards will unreasonably interfere with the operator's ability to receive or transmit signals or will impose unreasonable costs on the amateur radio operator when viewed in light of the cost of the equipment. Issuance of Permit. The Zoning Administrator may issue an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit if the applicant demonstrates that strict compliance with the Amateur Radio Antennas Development Standards specified in Section 13-313(5) would unreasonably interfere with the operator's ability to receive or transmit signals or impose unreasonable costs on the amateur radio operator when viewed in light of the cost of the equipment. The Zoning Administrator may impose conditions reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of Section 13-313(5), provided those conditions do not unreasonably interfere with the ability of the operator to receive or transmit signals or result in unreasonable costs on the amateur radio operator when viewed in light of the cost of the equipment. Notification. Notice of an application for an Amateur Radio Antenna Permit shall be given to all owners of real property located within 300 feet of the parcel on which the proposed antenna is to be located. 4 Fees. Fees for consideration of Amateur Radio Antenna Permit Applications may be established by resolution of the City Council. 4. Section 13-353.5. Nonconforming Amateur Radio Antennas. An amateur radio antenna that is in existence as of the effective date of this Section may continue as a nonconforming development and need not comply with the development standards contained in Section 13-313 provided that a record of its size, location, height and any other information deemed necessary by the Development Services Director is on file with the Planning Division. In order to secure any right under this section, the amateur radio antenna owner must establish this record within six months of the effective date of this Section; the amateur radio antenna owner is responsible for providing the necessary information to the City for inclusion in the record of nonconforming amateur radio antennas. No additions or structural alterations may be made to a nonconforming amateur radio antenna support structure that would increase its nonconformity with the development standards contained in Section 13-313. Replacement of a nonconforming amateur radio antenna support structure shall be subject to the issuance of appropriate permits and the regulations contained in Section 13-313. This requirement does not apply to the antenna which may be replaced without conforming to the provisions of Section 13-313. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED this , 19 . ATTEST: C! ty Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa Mayor of the City~osta Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF COSTA MESA ) cs. I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mes_a~ hereby certify that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. ~~ was introduced and considered section by s~c~on at a regg~a~ meeting of sak~ City Council held on the /7~ day of (~&~ , 19~, and thereafter passed and adopted~as a who~ ~ a regular meeti~ of said Council held on the ~ day of U ~]~,~ , 19~ by the following roll call vo~: .,~ ~ No s: CO C L ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby~gt my hand,a~d affi~gd the Seal_of the City of Costa Mesa this '~ day of (.~~F~¥ , ~ity Clerk and ex-officio Cl~k of the City Council of the ~y of Costa Mesa City Council Minutes February 13. 1990 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Mufioz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: O COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECESS Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:03 PM The meeting was reconvened following the scheduled CSD Meeting at 8:33 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS ¢Cont) l':tensioa of Ordinance No. 90-01 Decl&rin~ & Moratorium on the Co-struction and Use of Television end Radio Antennas Mayor Parks declared the Public Hearing open at 8:34 PM City Attorney Scott Field presented the staff report and pointed out zoning areas in the City which allow radio antennas He also referred to various ordinances from other Cities which regulate antennas. He stated that extending the moratorium would allow the City Council over ten months to thoroughly research this matter and determine the best methods of dealing with transmitting towers and antennas. Councilmember Lindemans questioned if the language in the suggested ordinance includes ham radio antennas. City Attorney Field replied that under the new ordinance new construction of ham antennas would not be permitted. Councilmember Mufioz questioned if the staff could recommend the ~mount of time they would need to prepare the zoning ordinance. Scott Field responded that there needs to be time for the City's Planning Commission to be selected, trained and operating with staff to advise them, and that this could conceivably take place by September of 1990. Mayor Parks closed the hearing at 8:45 PM. Council~ember Lindemarts requested the Council consider an exemption for ham radio antennas in this proposed ordinance. #tnutes\Z/l~\9~ -?- 03/02/90 City Council Minutes February 13. 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt an urgency ordinance to extend the moratorium through January 8, 1991, with a provision added to Section 1, exempting non-commercial (Ham Radio) antennas as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 90-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 WHICH DECI~%RES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Muhoz Parks None It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESCRIBING MEASURES TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO THE ADOPTION OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Muhoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None e Change of Zone No. 5~85 and Plot Plan 11001 Mayor Parks declared the Public Hearing open at 8:46 PM. nutes\Z/13\~0 - 8- 0;]/02/~0 City Council Minutes February 6, 1990 ® Reloc&t~on of KRTM-PM~adio Antenn& Tower City Manager Aleshire gave a staff report outlining the reasons for granting an exception to the moratorium (Ordinance No 90-01), which would allow consideration of relocation of the KRTM-FM antenna tower. Mayor Parks asked if the City could be held responsible for any liability arising from the fact that the tower was built without benefit of a building permit. City Attorney Scott Field stated that this could be a problem since, in effect, the existing moratorium was preventing the removal of the structure. Ladd Penfold, the applicant, addressed the Council and pointed out the suggested new location for erecting the tower. He explained that the proposal was to paint the structure green to blend into the hillside in a more harmonious way. Councilmember Muhoz questioned if the applicant had paid any fine for the building code violation. Mr. Penfold responded that he has not paid any fees since the City's moratorium has not allowed him to proceed with obtaining a permit. Mayor Parks asked if the applicant would be willing to name the City as additional insured on his liability insurance policy. Mr. Penfold said he would agree to have his policy amended to name the City additional insured in the amount of $1,000,000. Councilmember Muhoz asked the City Attorney if there is a way for the City Council to assess a penalty for the building violation. City Attorney Scott Field advised that a Notice of Pendency is recorded on the property to notify all potential future landowners that there is a pending violation which needs to be remedied. If the present landowner does not respond to the order to remove the tower criminal or civil prosecution could be initiated. City Manager Aleshire stated that the City Council is only allowing the applicant to continue with the process of applying for the necessary permits to relocate the tower. This action does not commit ~he City Council to approve the new location. 03/02/90 City Council MSnutes February 6, 1990 Mayor Parks suggested that the applicant personally show the members of the Council the suggested location. Councilmember Lindemans asked if the applicant would voluntarily agree to accept a fine in the amount of $1,000. Mr. Penfold responded that he would make a donation in that amount to the Parks District. The City Attorney read a suggested wording change to the ordinance as follows, in Section 2, page 2, "The City Council further directs staff to suspend all abatement action directed at the present antenna, so long as a Plot Plan application to relocate the antenna is pursued in good faith and the City is named as an additional insured on the applicants liability policy in an amount not less than $1,000,000. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt a resolution, as amended by the City Attorney in section 2, page 2, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 90-10 ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA GRANTING ANEXEMPTION FROM ORDINANCE NO. 90-01 TO PERMIT PROCESSING OF A PLOT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A RADIO ANTENNA (AP# 9922-22-013). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore Parks NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Muhoz ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans The City Attorney, Scott Field ad%ised the Council that if the staff has not received word of the matter being pursued in good faith within two weeks, it will be returned to the City Council for amendment. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to extend the hour of adjournment to 11:00 p.m. The motion was unanimously carried. Z/# i nutes\Z\6\90 - 5- 03/02/90 ITEM NO. 17 CITY ATTORNEY's> (. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department January 8, 1991 Tentative Tract No. 25603 PREPARED BY: Steve R. Jiannino RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 91--- Denying Tentative Tract No. 25603 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Tierra Investment REPRESENTATIVE: Walter B. Dixon PROPOSAL: 57 lot multi-family residential subdivision of 20.8 acres. LOCATION: South side of Margarita Road, approximately 1,500 feet easterly of Moraga Road. EXISTING ZONING: R-3-3000 I General Residential, 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit). SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-1 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot min. lot size). R-3 ( General Residential). R-1 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot min. lot size). R-3-2,500 I G e n e r a I Residential, 2,500 square foot min. per dwelling unit. PROPOSED ZONING: Same EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Tract Apartments Under Construction Single Family Residential Tract Vacant J Proposed Town Homes) Lot Size: 20.8 acres No. of Lots: 57 lots Min. Lot Size: 9,000 sq. ft. Max. Lot Size: 24,695 sq. ft. Conceptual Proposal: Construction of 4-plexes on each lot. The Planning Commission at their December 3, 1990 meeting held a Public Hearing regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 25603. After closing the Public Hearing the Planning Commission recommended denial of Tentative Tract No. 25603 by a 3-2 vote. The two Commissioners voting against denial were recommending continuance of the project for a re- design to address the issues raised at the Planning Commission Hearing. The major issues raised by the Commissioners were: The lack of a common open space/recreation area within the tract. The lack of CC&R's or a Homeowners Association for management of the site. Grading concepts for the site requiring high crib walls along the northern portion of the project. The proposed conceptual density of 11D. U./acre for the site. The Commissioners indicated that a lower density of 8D.U./acre to 9D.U./acre would be a more appropriate buffer to the R-1 tracts to the north and west.. The lack of a formal development plan or design guidelines and criteria for the project. Ten to fifteen surrounding property owners also expressed concerns regarding the project and recommended the project be denied. STAFFRPT\TM2 5 6 0 3 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 91--- denying Tentative Tract No, 25603 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. 1. Resolution 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 3, 1990 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated December 3, 1990 STAFFRPT\TM25603 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 57 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1500 FEET EASTERLY OF MORAGA ROAD. ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 921-370-005. WHEREAS, Tierra Investments filed Tentative Tract No. 25603 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Tentative Tract Map No. on January 8, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council denied said Tentative Tract Map; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. the following Findings: That the Temecula City Council hereby makes A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall not adopt a general plan within the thirty 130) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: I1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. 12 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STAFFRPT\TM25603 4 (a) (b) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. There is not a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the Southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its general Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP. However, the SWAP designation for the property that is the subject of this proposed Zone Change and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (hereinafter the "Property") is inconsistent with the future General Plan, to wit: (1) The City Council finds,in denying the application that: (a) There is reasonable probability that Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed tentative tract map is not reasonable and beneficial at this time as it does not provide a logical transition to the single family residential development to the east and north. STAFFRPT\TM25603 5 D. ( 1 ) Pursuant to section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, and subdivision may be denied if any of the following findings are made: (a) That the proposed land division is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. (el That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife and their habitat. (f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access throucj'h, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Council in denying the proposed tentative tract map makes the following findings: STAFFRPT\TM25603 6 (a) lb) (c) (d) The proposed tract map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for the project. A mitigated negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. ao The tract map has been reviewed for possible environmental impacts. The project has been conditioned to mitigated possible environmental impacts. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project proposes mass grading and does not provide any common open space or recreational facilities for a multi-family project. It is likely that all future subdivisions of multi-family zoned properties will require a development plan or a plan residential development to be processed concurrently with the tentative tract map. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project impacts current recreational facilities and will set a precedence of not providing recreational facilities in multi-family projects. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. ao The project is consistent with current zoning for the site. STAFFRPT\TM25603 (e) The site is not suitable to accommodate the 7 (f) (g) (h) (i) proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. The project, as designed, requires mass grading of the site and the use of retaining walls and crib walls to a height of 29 feet to provide for the proposed flat pads. The project does not conform to the conceptual development plan and current zoning for the site. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An environmental initial study has been completed and no unique habitats were observed on site and no significant impacts are anticipated. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. Ae Potential residential units will have significant southern exposure which allows for proper solar accessibility for active solar potential. All lots do not have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of- way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. The secondary access to Margarita Road with proposed retaining walls of 16 feet is not acceptable access. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property. A. The project does not conflict with STAFFRPT\TM25603 8 existing easements, the Conditions of Approval require the project to conform to State, County, and Town codes for subdivision development. (k) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION :7. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Tentative Tract Map No. 75603 for the subdivision of a 70.8 acre parcel into a 57 lot multi- family subdivision located on the south side of Margarita Road approximately 1500 feet east of Moraga Road, also known as Assessor Parcel No. 9:71-370-005. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 1991 RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES COUNCILMEMBERS NOES COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK STAFFRPT\TM25603 9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 3, 1990 Case No.: Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: R EPR ESENTAT I VE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Tierra Investment Walter B. Dixon 57 lot multi-family residential subdivision of 20.8 acres. South side of Margarita Road, approximately 1,500 feet easterly of Moraga Road. R-3-3000 ( General Residential, 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit) North: South: East: West: R-1 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot min. lot size) R-3 ( General Residential ) R-1 (Single Family Residential, 7,200 square foot min. lot size) R-3-2,500 ( General Residential, 2,500 square foot per dwelling unit) Same Vacant North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Tract Apartments Under Construction Single Family Residential Tract Vacant (Proposed Town Homes) STAFFRPT\TM25603 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Lot size: No. of Lots: Min. Lot Size: Max. Lot Size: Conceptual Proposal: 20.8 acres 57 lots 9,000 sq. ft. 24.695 sq. ft. Construction of [[-plexes on each lot This project was first submitted to the County on December 1, 1989. The first Land Development Committee for this project was conducted February 1, 1990. The project was found to be incomplete at that time and additional information was requested for review of the project. The project was transferred to the City of Temecula April 2~, 1990. The project is a proposed 57 lot multi-family residential subdivision of 20.8 acres located on the south side of Margarita Road east of Moraga Road. The site is currently vacant rolling hill topography. The project is designed with two north-south cul- de-sacs off of Margarita Road with two east-west connecting streets between the cul-de-sacs. The project proposes to mass grade the site to provide large building pads for multi-family units on each lot. The design of the tract is for all the lots to function independently with no common open space or recreational facilities being provided within the project. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan for the site. This conceptual development plan is for the construction of ~-plex units on the individual lots. With ~ units per lot, as conceptually proposed, the end result would be 228 rental units with the possibility of 57 separate owners. The current zoning for the site would allow a maximum of 302 units. The current zoning for the site is R-3-3000 which requires 3,000 square feet per unit and a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. With the current zoning, a ~-plex unit would require a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. 35 of the proposed lots are too small for ~-plex units and only a maximum of three units could be built on these lots. The maximum number of dwelling units that could be constructed on the proposed project with this design is 219 units. A chart showing the proposed lot sizes and maximum number of units per lot is attached. STAFF R PT\TM25603 2 The project, as designed, proposes a crib wall up to a height of 29 feet along the southern portion of the project. The applicant has an agreement with the property owner to the south to maintain the area between the property line and the crib wall. The project also requires the use of retaining walls between the lots and along the access road to Margarita Road (Avenida Tierra Dulce). The wall along the road is up to 16 feet in height while the walls between lots are up to 8 feet high. The design of the project also requires off-site drainage easements be obtained. The applicant has agreements with the surrounding property owners to accept the off-site drainage. Tract design concerns are due to the mass grading of the rolling hill terrain. These concerns include the need for high retaining walls and off-site drainage easements. The project has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee on two occasions. The project has been redesigned to address some of the concerns of the Development Review Committee. A second access has been provided to the project and the project has been conditioned to provide for a flashing yellow light for increased pedestrian safety along Margarita Road. Major concerns still existing include: Mass grading and the use of high walls. An increase in school attendance in the high density area. Lack of a formal development proposal for the project, including architectural and landscaping standards. The conceptual development of ~-plex units does not.conform to the current zoning of the site and the proposed tract map. The high retaining walls along Avenida Tierra Dulce at the access with Margarita Road. GENERAL PLAN SWAP AND ZONING CONSISTENCY: The project is not likely to be consistent with the proposed General Plan because of the design of the project. The multi-family project does not provide any common open space or recreational facilities. STAFFR PT\TM25603 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: CONCLUSION: FINDINGS: As indicated elsewhere in the report, the conceptual development plan does not conform to the current zoning for the site. The environmental impacts of this project can be mitigated by project design and compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, a mitigated negative declaration is recommended. The proposed subdivision does not include a development project. Without a development proposal, there is no guarantee of what will be built on the site. Consequently, there is very little City control of proposed projects so long as they conform to the zoning for the site and are ~ units or less. With the current proposal, 57 different owners could propose 57 separate multi-family units ranging from tri-plexes to eight-plexes on the site. Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 The proposed tract map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for the project. A mitigated negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. The tract map has been reviewed for possible environmental impacts. The project has been conditioned to mitigated possible environmental impacts. e There is a reasonable probability that this project will be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project proposes mass grading and does not provide any common open space or recreational facilities for a multi-family project. Be It is likely that all future subdivisions of multi-family zoned properties will require a development plan or a plan residential development to be processed concurrently with the tentative tract map. STAFFRPT\TM25603 ~ 3e e e e There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project impacts current recreational facilities and will set a precedence of not providing recreational facilities in multi-family projects. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. Re The project is consistent with current zoning for the site. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. Re The project, as designed, requires mass grading of the site and the use of retaining walls and crib walls to a height of 29 feet to provide for the proposed flat pads. Be The project does not conform to the conceptual development plan and current zoning for the site. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Ae An environmental initial study has been completed and no unique habitats were observed on site and no significant impacts are anticipated. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. STAFFRPT\TM25603 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Re Potential residential units will have significant southern exposure which allows for proper solar accessibilityfor active solar potential. e All lots do not have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of- way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. Re The secondary access to Margarita Road with proposed retaining walls of 16 feet is not acceptable access, e The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property. Re The project does not conflict with existing easements, the Conditions of Approval require the project to conform to State, County and Town codes for subdivision development. 10. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 90- recommending that the City Council Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report. SJ: ks Attachments: 2. 3. Resolution Conditions of Approval Initial Study Exhibits STAFFRPT\TM25603 6 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 57 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EASTERLY OF MORAGA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 921-370-005. WHEREAS, Tierra Investments filed Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map on December 3, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity' to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended denial of said Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STAFFRPT\TM25603 1 (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds. in denying the project, each of the following: a) The proposed tract map will not have a significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the initial study performed for the project. A mitigated negative Declaration is recommended for adoption'. The tract map has been reviewed for possible environmental impacts. The project has been conditioned to mitigated possible environmental impacts. STAFFRPT\TM25603 2 b) c) d! e) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project proposes mass grading and does not provide any common open space or recreational facilities for a multi-family project. It is likely that all future subdivisions of multi-family zoned properties will require a development plan or a plan residential development to be processed concurrently with the tentative tract map. There is a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project impacts current recreational facilities and will set a precedence of not providing recreational facilities in multi-family projects. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. Re The project is consistent with ~.urrent zoning for the site. The site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. Re The project, as designed, requires mass grading of the site and the use of retaining walls and crib walls to a height of 29 feet to provide for the proposed flat pads. The project does not conform to the conceptual development plan and current zoning for the site. STAFFRPT\TM25603 3 f) g) h) j) k) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Ae An environmental initial study has been completed and no unique habitats were observed on site and no significant impacts are anticipated. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. Ae Potential residential units will have significant southern exposure which allows for proper solar accessibility for active solar potential. All lots do not have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of- way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic. The secondary access to Margarita Road with proposed retaining walls of 16 feet is not acceptable access, The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property. Re The project does not conflict with existing easements, the Conditions of Approval require the project to conform to State, County and Town codes for subdivision development. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\TM25603 ~ PASSED· DENIED AND ADOPTED this~day of · 1990. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof. held on the 3rd day of December, 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\TM25603 5 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Tract Map No: 25603 Project Description: 57 Lot Multiple Family Subdivision of 20.8 Acres Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-005 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, 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. e This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the City Engineer and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. e Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. e All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. STAFF R PT\TM25603 1 J o 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, 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 and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance of Lots E, F, and G Open Space, the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site 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 contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. c. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-3~3000 zone, all ~-plex lots shall have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. be Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. STAFFRPT\TM25603 2 16. 17. 18. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "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. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation, Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth betming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Margarita Road. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. fe Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. ge Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. he Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. STAFFRPT\TM25603 3 19. 20. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked, jo If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process, Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successotis- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. be All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Go Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. STAFFRPT\TM25603 ~4 21. 22. 23. 24. de All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A } roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. be Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with Inland Disposal, Inc., for the refuse service to include the utilization of a small pick-up truck equipped with a lift mechanism in order to move the containers out and back into the project; thus, prohibiting the entering of large refuse trucks into the project. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The acjreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 24633, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or STAFFRPT\TM25603 5 proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City .of Temecula. 25. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 26. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit. 27. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 28. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. 29. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R~s shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 30. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities. or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association. owning the common areas and facilities, 31. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CC&R~s. 32. All slopes are to be a maximum of 2:1. STAFF R PT\TM25603 6 33. 3q. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Redesign lot pattern at Lot C intersection with Margarita Road to reduce retaining walls. Retaining wall along street shall be no greater than 6 feet high. Redesign entire tract to provide minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet. Provide design manual and criteria to be recorded with the map. Prior to recordation, the designs shall be approved by the Planning Director. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor~s interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost. 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 at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66L~62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. 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. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 13, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations from the Riverside County Flood Control District. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance ~60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. The applicant shall comply with thefire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated November 19, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Geologist's transmittal dated February 2, 1990, a copy of which is attached. STAFFRPT\TM25603 7 The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the UCR Archaeolo9ist's transmittal dated January 8, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions recjarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 46. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; and CATV Franchise. 47. Margarita Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (43'/55'). Avenida Cima Del Sol, between Margarita Road and Luna Del Oro, shall be improved with ~ feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A {q~'/66'). Avenida Cima Del Sol, south of Luna Del Oro and Streets B, C, and D, shall be improved with 40 feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A (40'/60'). STAFF R PT\TM25603 8 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66q62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Margarita Road and so noted on the final map. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. ae Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities, including storm drain on Margarita Road. c. Landscaping (street and parks}. d. Sewer and domestic water systems. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments, Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\TM25603 9 59. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 60. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 61. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard ~00 and ~01 (curb sidewalk). 62. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line. 63. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on :7¥. x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 65. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 66. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements 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." 67. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map. 68. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 69. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 70, A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. STAFFRPT\TM25603 10 71. All lot drainage shall be to the street by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. 72, A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 73. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 75. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 76. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction, 77. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lq days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9q of the State Standard Specifications. 78. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\TM25603 11 Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION: 79. A signin9 and striping plan shall be designed by a registered civil engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for Margarita Road from Avenida Sonoma to Avenida Cima Del Sol and Avenida Cima Del Sol, including all necessary transitions. These signing and striping plans shall be included with the street improvement plans. This design shall include a left turn pocket on Margarita Road westbound for southbound Avenida Cima Del Sol with 125' of storage capacity and 120' of approach transition. 80. Traffic signal interconnect shall be designed by a registered civil engineer to show I 1/2" rigid conduit, with pull rope, and ~t3 pull boxes on 200 foot centers along the property fronting the south side of Margarita Road. This design shall be shown on the street improvement plans and must be approved by the City Engineer. 81. Design a flashing yellow school zone signal for the intersection of Avenida Barca and Margarita Road. The plans shall be designed by a Civil Engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and shall be separate from the street improvement plans. The developer shall enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City to receive a 35% reimbursement for the cost of design and construction for this flashing yellow signal upon recordation of Tract No. 25~3. A credit shall be given toward this developer's signal mitigation fees for the 65% responsibility of the design and construction of this flashing yellow school signal. 82. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design criteria. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 83. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation, as required by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: All signing and striping shall be instailed per the approved signing and striping plan. 85. All traffic signal interconnect shall be installed per the approved plan. 86. The developer shall inform the land owners that when the median on Margarita Road is constructed, there will be no break provided to permit left turning movements into or from the proposed second development access road, Avenida Tierra Dulce. Avenida Cima Del Sol shall be the only full access intersection provided for this project. STAFFRPT\TM25603 12 87, All flashing yellow school zone signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved plan, STAFFRPT\TM25603 13 09:29 COUNTY FIRE PLANNING DIVISION P. 02 PI.&NN1.NO & !~OING~R~O INDIa, CA 932,0; ATTlq ~ PLAN~'~IG DEPAETME.NT 1[: ~ACT 25603 ~th respect [o the conditio~s o! approval reiardlns the above referenced parcel ~ip, the Yi~s Depa=~min~ recow~endl the followinS ~ire pro~ec~lon measures be ~rovided in accordance wi~h Riverside Cavity 0r~inancea and/or re:osnized ~$re pro,action o~andarda~ The ~lre Department is required Co lec a minimum ~ixe ~13v ~or ~he remodel o~ come~ruc~ion o~ all co~er¢ial bulldials maims ~he procedure es~ablished iz Ordinance ~t$, Pxcvide or show there exists a vate~ eMste~ capable o~ deliverant 2000 ¢?M ~or a 2 hour tura~icm at 20 ~Sl residual ope~a~in~ preseure~ which mue~ be available before an2 combus~ible m~erlal is placed on ~hs lob si~e. Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x~"x21x2~) shall ba ioca~ed ac each e~reec i~srse~ion and spacat no~ more than 3~0 tae~ apat~ in any direction wt~h m~ portion ol a~y lot ironings mc~e than Applican~/~svalopar shall ~urnieh one ~opy o~ the water system plans co Yire Depar~msmt ~=r rsvia~. Planl shall conform ~o ~ha ~ire hydran~ e7~es~ lo~a~iom an& epa~im$~ an~, ~he s7s~em shall mee~ ~e ~ire ~1ow · et~iremanta. ~la~s shall ba aisned/app£oved by a reSll~arad ~ivil easinee~ the local wa~a~ ~m~pan2 ~i~h ~ha ~ollowin$ certilicaClon= "I certify ~Re dealart of ths water system is in a~cocdance with the requirements Zuacall a ~o~.pleee £1ze sprin~!er s7stem in all baillinEs requiriu~ a tire ~lo~ o£ 1600 ~Irg o~ ~reater. The Dmst indica~or valve and ~irs de~ar~msn~ ~ozi~eo~io~ shall ~e located ~o ~he ~zant, within 10 tes~ o~ a hydrant, and a u£uiu~a o£ 25 ~est E~o~ ~he buildins(e). A atetalent lnoluted o~ ~he ~i~le pass el ~e buLldins ~laas. submitted to the Fire Departmen~ for approval prior So inecallacion, as requ~rtd by the ~ni~orm Buildins Code. lieu of fire sp=inkler ce~uiremenca, buil~ing(e) must be area separated in~o square foot compartments, approved by the Tire Department, as per Pectins 505 (s) of C~e ~niforu BuildinS Code, 6. · statement that the bui!din~ will be aucow, atica!ly fire sprinklered mue~ appaa~ o~ ~he title pass o! the boil~i~ plan~. 9. Cereals designated areas will ~e required Co be maintained ae fire lanes. 10. Znscali portable fire ~xCinsulahers with a minimum racin~ cf 2A-10BC. Contact a cartilled exCin~uisher co~pany for proper placement o~ equipmen~. 11. be responsible co submit · chec~ or money ccde= in the amoun~ of $~$8.00 to Cba Riversi~e Count2 ~ire ~epar:menc for plan check fees. 12. 13. ~wio~ ~= the ias~ance of b~ildim~ permits, the developer sHAll deposit with tea City of T~mee~la. a check or money ordez equalin~ 'I~Xs amount mueC be submitted separately from the plan aback ~eviev fee. will ba f~d~ae~ed when build~ plans are reviewed i~ the All questions resardtni the meaninS of coud£~Lone shall be rs£erced to the ~la~ninI and £~ineerin$ staff. ~y Laura Cabtel, Fire S&~ecy Specialist DATE: January 8, 1990 RiVr :DiDE counc.u PLAnnino DEP, RClilEnC TO: Assessor Building and Safety - Land Use Building and Safety - Grading Surveyor - Ken Teich Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services County Superintendent of Schools Rancho California Water Dist. Southern CalifOrnia Edison-Doug Davies Southern California Gas General Telephone Caltrans ~8 City of Temecula Temecula Yalley Unified School Dist. Commissioner Turner Meadowview Community Assoc. Audobon Society Sierra Club UCR - Archaeological Unit San Bernardino County Museum Community Plans RECEIVED IN ARU JAN 17 1990 TRACT 25602-' .... ~T~--~) ..... E.A. 34677 - Tierra Investment - Walter B. Dixon - Rancho California Area ~ - First Supervisorial District - N of Rancho California Rd., E of Maraga Rancho Rd. - R-3-3,000 Zone - 20.83 Acres into 58 Lots - Schedule A - Mod 119 - A.P. 921-370-005 Please review the case described .above, ~along ~with the :attached case map. Division Committee meeting has beenetentatively scheduled for'February 1, 1990. clears, it will then go to public.hearing,./. A Land If it Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to February 1, 1990 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa Cooke at 787-1363. Planner COMMENTS: Th~ project area w~s surveyed for cultural resources as part of a larger project (see MF 991); no sites were recorded. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, it is rec~t,~nded that tb~ area be reevaluated by a qualified archaeologist. DATE: 1/23/90 SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title rs EASTERN iNFORMATiON CENTER Archaeological Research Unit universiitv of California Rlver$icl~ CA 92521 JAN 2 6 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL. fETTER COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 2, 1990 TO: FROM: RE: Lisa Cooke - Team 1 Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist Tentative Tract Map 25603 Slope Stability Report No. 206 The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability at the subject site: "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Parcel 28 Tract Map 3334, Rancho California Area, Riverside County, CA," by California Geo Tech, dated December 18, 1989. This report determined that: The on site earth materials consist of flat-lying, interbedded units of the Pauba formation comprised of sands, silty sands and silty sands with some clay. 2o Fill slopes are expected to be stable against rotational failure to a maximum height of 30 feet and cut slopes to a maximum height of 20 feet for slopes at a ratio of 2:1. This report recommended that: 1. All grading shall be in accordance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as amended by County Ordinance 470. 2. The project Geotechnical Engineer should review the foundation and grading plans prior to grading. 0 Fill slopes should be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Relative compaction shall be at least 90 percent on the finished slope face. This report satisfies the General Plan requirement for a slope stability report. The recommendations made in this report shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. SAK:mp COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE /DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FACS at (7t4) 358-4529 November 13, 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA 43180 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA. CA 92390 ATTN: STEVE JIANNINO RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603: M.B. 54/25-30. (58 LOTS) LOT 28, TRACT NO. 334, Dear Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Tract MaD No. 25603 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed accordin~ to plans and specifications as amproved 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 equals 200 feet. alono wlth the oriQlnal .drawlng to the Countv Surveyor. The prints shall show the lnternal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and .ioint specifications, and the size of the maln at the 3unction of the new system to the existing sysLem. The plans shall comply in all respects with Dlv. 5, Part l, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be siqned by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 25603 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage, and distribution system wlll be adequate to provide water service to such Tract MAD". City of Temecula Page Two Attn: Steve Jiann~no November 13, 1990 This certification does not constitute a ~uarantee that it will supply water to such tract map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for flre protection or any other purpose" This certification shall be si~ned bv a responsible officlal of the water companv. ~b_9._Dj.~ns.~a_k ~F_...~.gb,~3 t~_9_~_ tQ___The County Sur~e_y_~Ll,~,,Qffice to review at least two weeks Dzior to the request for_thg.._~£~at%_Qn of. the final maD=. This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District a~reelno to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand provldin~ satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider, It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final maD. Th~s subdivision lS within the Eastern Municipal Water Dlstrict and shall be connected to the sewer~ of the D~str~ct. The' sewer system shall be installed accordin~ to plan~ and specifications as apProved bv the D~strict, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted ~n triplicate, alon~ with the orl~lnal drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal plpe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and jolnt 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 water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer dlstrict wlth the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tentative Tract No. 25603 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste dlsposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract maD." City of Temecula Pa~e Three Attn: Steve 3iannlno November 13, 1990 Tb..e.. p !..a__n.~%_m_u.._s_t__kg__ ~ ubm_3. t t 9.~._t.o__tbe C oun ky__Su rveY. o__r. '__s Of f i c e ~_o_.r..e.¥_~_W_. at _~_9_a_s_t, t._w_q._.w_9_~_k._s_ p~'kp_r.._ to the_. reque. st____f_gr the_ ~_ec.o__r_4.a t3_Q n___ o f_ t_k~.e__f i n a_l___mAD .. It will be necessary for financlal arrangements to be completely finalized prlor to recordation of the final maD. SXncerely, SM:dr CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Tierra Investments Date of Environmental Assessment: 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: PO Box 332 Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-6349 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: October 17, 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA Tentative Tract Map No. 25603 6. Location of Proposal: Marqarita Road, 1,500 (+/-) feet easterly of Moraqa Road Environmental Impacts {Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ao Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X be Disruptions. displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\TM25603 1 Yes Maybe No o e fe Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? CJe Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? be The creation of objectionable odors? Ce Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? be Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Ce Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? de Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ee Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM25603 2 Yes Maybe No Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Ce Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? do Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Ce Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM25603 3 Yes Maybe No o e 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? be Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Clare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFF R PT\TM25603 ~4 Yes Maybe No 15. 16. be Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Ce Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? de Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? ee Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas~ X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\TM25603 5 Yes Maybe No 17. 18. 19. 20. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ae Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health ) ? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFF R PT\TM25603 6 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) de Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X STAFFRPT\TM25603 7 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1.a. 1 .b-f. 1.g. 3.b. 3.d-f. 3.9. 3.h. 3.i. No. The project is not located in any known unstable earth areas. Yes. The current topography consists of rolling hill type terrain. The area will be mass graded which will be a major change in the topography of the site and cause possible soil erosion. All mitigation measures will be included in the grading and building permits process. Prior to any construction, a City-maintained permit must be obtained and adhered to. No. The area is not located in a hazard zone and people will not be exposed to hazards. No. The project is a residential subdivision and should not have a substantial effect to the air. No unusual developments are proposed. Yes. The project proposes mass grading and will alter the current drainage patterns. The course of flood waters will also be altered. The project will have to conform to the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District and the City Engineer to mitigate flood and drainage concerns. Yes. The project will add road and housing units which will decrease the absorption rate of the site. All development causes a decrease in absorption rate, this will not be a significant impact. No. The project will not have a significant effect. Yes. The project will affect ground water because of a decrease in the absorption rate. The project will'not have a significant effect. No. The project will not require the use of a substantial amount of water. No. The project is not within a flood hazard zone and will not pose a threat to people. Yes. The native vegetation will be removed. No unique species were observed on site. There will not be a substantial impact. No. No rare or unique plant species were observed on site. Yes. The proposed multi-family project will introduce new vegetation to the area. The project is conditioned to use drought tolerant and native plant species. There will not be a significant impact. No. The area is not currently used for agricultural products. STAFFRPT\TM25603 8 .ao 5.b. oao 6.b. 9.a,b. 10.a.b. 11. 12. 13.a. 13.b. 13.c. 13.d,e. Yes. The development process will eliminate existing native animal species. This will not be a significant impact. The project is a residential in-fill project. Maybe. The area is within the K-Rat Habitat Study Area. No Stephen's Kangaroo Rats were observed on site. The project has been conditioned to pay the appropriate fees for K-Rat mitigation. Maybe. The existing site will be graded. No wetlands or unique habitat exists on site. The project will not have a significant impact. Yes. The area is currently vacant. The major noise increase will be during construction and grading activities. This will be for a limited time period and will not be a significant impact. No. No severe noise producing activities are proposed. Maybe. All lighting will be hooded and directed away from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. The project is conditioned to conform to the recommendations contained in the Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy. No. The project conforms to existing zoning and to SWAP. No. The project is a residential project and will not have a substantial impact on natural resources. No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a threat. Yes. The area is currently vacant and proposes residential development. This will alter the population, but the project is consistent with current zoning and SWAP. Yes. The project will create housing units on vacant land. The area is zoned for this, so no significant impact will occur. Yes. The project could provide a maximum 219 dwelling units which will increase vehicular movement. Mitigation will be achieved by adherence to Engineering and Traffic Conditions. Yes. The project will increase the demand for new parking. The project will provide the required parking for the proposed use. Maybe. The project will increase travel on existing roadways. The project will be conditioned to provide for necessary street improvements and pay capital improvement fees. No. The project will not impact the circulation pattern or alternate transportation methods. STAFFRPT\TM25603 9 13.f. 14.a-f. 15.a,b. 16.a-f. 17.a.b. 18, 19. 20.a. 21 .a-c. 21 .d. Yes. The project will increase traffic and possible hazards. Part of the mitigation will be with the installation flashing yellow lights for increased pedestrian safety, Yes. The project proposes a residential development which will increase service needs, The project is conditioned to pay the proper fees for mitigation. No. The project will not require a substantial use of energy. No. All necessary utilities exist in the vicinity of the site, The project is a residential in-fill project, No. The project is a residential in-fill project and will not pose a significant hazard, Maybe. The mass grading of site and the use of retaining walls and crib walls could be objectionable aesthetically. The site could be designed to incorporate contour grading. Yes. The multi-family residential project with no recreational facilities will impact the current City recreational facilities. Mitigation will be achieved by adherence to the Quimby Ordinance. Maybe. The area is in a possible sensitive paleontology area. During grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present, Maybe. The project impacts the environment in many ways. but no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed, No, No substantial impacts will occur. STAFFRPT\TM25603 10 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, X Date For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\TM25603 11 "- 0 R-I ,~00 R-I ,2,Z 2757 CZ 2757 3,000 Z4161 CZ4361 R- 3- 3000 CZ 4136 CZ 4433 cz,~5oo 4980 R-3 CZ 4179 · R-2 ~CZ3798 R-2 CZ 2841 C IP 8-16 ./' .C/ II MAR', II II RANCHO CALIFOJ~NIA ,'%, A~RPORT ~ DU! lot 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 No. INDIVIDUAL LOT DATA ANALYSIS Tentative Tract No. 25603 Net Maximum Lot Area No. of Units 10,036 3 11,310 3 11,165 3 11.600 3 11,935 4 11,460 3 11,376 3 12,833 4 17,180 5 24,695 8 20,800 7 15,540 5 14,145 4 12.240 4 12.240 4 12.240 4 12,806 4 13.080 4 11.165 3 10,585 3 10,005 3 9.628 3 10,815 3 19,685 6 20,400 6 10,910 3 12.900 4 9,125 3 9,000 3 9,000 3 9,548 3 10,147 3 9,720 3 9,720 3 9,693 3 20,706 6 10,920 3 10,440 3 9,012 3 9,000 3 15,624 5 13,070 4 11,475 3 14,075 4 19,985 6 23,960 8 10,320 3 10,125 3 10,125 3 9,720 3 9,720 3 13,700 4 9,504 3 9,504 3 9,504 3 9,504 3 9,504 3 TIERRA INVESTMENT P.O. Box 332 Temecula, CA. 92390 Mr. Thomas H. Ingram, Director Department of Building and Safety County of Riverside 1777 Atlanta Avenue, Suite No. G-5 Riverside, California 92507 SUBJECT: OFFSITE GRADING FOR TRACT N0.23304, CLUB VALENCIA, ON PARCEL NO. 28, TRACT NO. 3334, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA. Dear Mr. Ingram: Tierra %nvestment, A California Partnership, owners of Assessors Parcel No. 921-370-005, located in the unincorporated area of Rancho California, County of Riverside, California. Our property is located on Margarita Road, 1500± feet easterly of Moraga Road and is adjacent to and northerly of a portion of the subject Tract No. 23304. We hereby grant permission.to the Developers of said Tract No. 23304 to construct specific improvements over and upon the south- erly 25 feet, measured horizontally of our property. The improve- ments are shown on the Tract No. 23304 Grading Plan and Landscap- ing Plans approved by Riverside County and are defined as follows: Construct a cut slope of one vertical to one and one half horizontal within the area of permission. Construct a concrete brow ditch along the top of the slope per the approved grading plan. Install landscape irrigation system and landscape planting per the-approved landscape plans. We understand that all work shall be performed in the best work- manlike manner to the specifications of the County of Riverside, under the supervision of a qualified Soils Engineer. The Developer of said Tract shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work noted and that all such work shall be inspected and approved by the appropriate Agencies of Riverside County. It is also mutually understood that the improvements recited here- in will be maintained by the Developer, Appel Development Corpor- ation per tkeir letter addressed to Tierra Investment, dated August 24, 1989, of which a copy is attached hereto. TIERRA INVESTMENT, A California, Partnership ./ ~, -"~.. .... ~_....__-,,--~.--~ Walter B. Dixon, General Partner Date: - , ,~-,--' ~ .' Appel Development CORPORATION August 24, 1989 Mr. Walt Dixon Tierra Investments 41785 Enterprise Circle Suite "D" P.O. Box 332 Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Offsite Grading of Tract No. 23304 Dear Mr. Dixon: In response to our telephone conversation of 8/23/89 regarding the above referenced project, this letter is to provide you with assurances you desire. It is our intention and obligation to fully landscape and maintain the slope we will construct on your property in conjunction with our development. The second concern you expressed had to do with our providing a sewer easement and stub as discussed in the past. Please be advised that this provision is being submitted to the sewer district and is designed to meet their design standards. This letter shall serve as our agreement and obligation to provide the mentioned sewer stub and provide slope maintenance including landscape and irrigation indefinitely. If the above is satisfactory, please sign the letter of permission to grade and return it to our office immediately so we can finalize our grading documents with the County of Riverside. Please do not hesitate to call if I can be of further assistance or answer any questions you may have. Sincerely;.- APPEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Lawrence R. Doherty Vice President Development LD/sjc/FX ITEM NO. 18 CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department January 8, 1991 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143, First Extension of Time and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143/ Change of Zone No. 5535 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Scott Wright Staff recommends that the City Council: APPROVE a First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143, based on the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Staff Report and subject to the following additional Condition of Approval: The applicant shall resolve the issue regarding widening the open space buffer adjacent to Pauba Road not later than January 10, 1991, and shall submit revised maps no later than January 14. 1991 in order to enable the City Council to act on Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No, 23143 at the Council hearing of January 22. 1991; and CONTINUE Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143 and Change of Zone No. 5535 to the Council hearing of January 22, 1991. STA FFR PT\VTM23143. A 1 DISCUSSION: The County Board of Supervisors approved Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143 on August 16, 1988. On July 7, 1989, the applicant submitted Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143 and Change of Zone No. 5535. On July 12, 1990, the applicant submitted a request for an Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143 to prevent the expiration of the original approval before the City could take action on the revised map. The applicant has worked with City Staff to ensure that the revised map addressed Staff's concerns regarding circulation and !or access and provided additional park space and a school site acceptable to the School District. The applicant and Staff agreed that the Extension of Time and the map revision would proceed simultaneously for Planning Commission action at the same hearing. The Planning Commission added four Conditions of Approval at the hearing of December 17, 1990, including a recommendation to widen the open space buffer adjacent to Pauba Road or to create larger lots adjacent to Pauba Road. The hearing of January 8, 1991 is the latest hearing date on which the Council may take action on the Extension of Time. The applicant has not resolved the issue of widening the open space buffer in time for a Staff Report to be prepared for the Council hearing of January 8, 1991. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Extension of Time on January 8, 1991, and continuance of the map revision to January 22, 1991. SW: ks STAFFRPT\VTM23143. A 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23143, A SUBDIVISION WITH 1,026 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. WHEREAS. Taylor Woodrow Homes filed a request for an Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No, 23143 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use. Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Map Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS. the Planning Commission considered said Map Extension on December 17, 1990. at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS. at the conclusion of the Commission hearing. the Commission recommended approval of said Map Extension; WHEREAS. the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Map Extension on January 8. 1991. at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Map Extension; and WHEREAS. the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Map Extension; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE. DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, Findincls, That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:m A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360. a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds. in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits. each of the following: STAFFRPT\VTM23143. A I a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, l hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143 will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. STAFFRPT\VTM23143. A 2 c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or 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 land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. {2) The City Council in approving an Extension of Time for the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: STAFFRPT\VTM23143. A 3 a) b) c) d) e) f) The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-4 units per acre. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map, required as a Condition of Approval for the Extension of Time, is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed R-4 portions of the project, which includes the smaller lots, abuts Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 dwelling units per acre west of the site. The lots abutting the R-A zone north of the site are substantially larger than the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone (11,000 square feet or more) and a large open space area provides a buffer along the north side of the site. Future development of the remainder portion on the east side of the site will conform to R-A-2 1/2 acre and R-A-5 acre zoning to ensure compatibility with the R-A zone to the east. The Revised Map's lot design and internal street layout are acceptable to the City Planning and Engineering Departments. All lots conform to the standards of their respective zones. and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road, and seven 17) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, STAFFRPT\VTM23143. A 4 g) h) i) j) k) I) m) and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. It is unlikely that the proposed tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 and Change of Zone No. 5535 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 348 and 460 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The proposed Revised Map includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 15.3 acres of private parks which will include some facilities open to the public The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\VTM23143. A 5 E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts, An addendum to EIR No. 230 is hereby adopted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of T~mecula City Council hereby approves a First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract 23143, a subdivision comprising 1,026 residential lots located south of Pauba Road and east of Butterfield Stage Road subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A. attached hereto. Resolution. SECTION 4_:. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 1991. RONALD J PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the ~ day of . 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK STAFFRPT\VTM23143. A 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 Project Description: 1,026 Lot Sinqle Family Subdivision with 68 Open Space Lots Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-760-001 thru 005 926-770-001throuqkO03 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance q60, Schedule A, 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. This conditionally approved revised tentative map will expire on August 16, 1991, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. e All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, 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 and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. e Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. e A maintenance district or homeowners' association shall be established for maintenance of Open Space Lots 1027-1082, 1087-1090, and 1095. The developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district or the homeownersI association. STAFFRPT\VTM23143 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 1083- 1086. Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: ae Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots or as approved by the City Engineer. All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval outlined in the Temecula Community Service District's transmittal dated November 21, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Service Area 1/43 letter dated September 21, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 11, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated February 22, 1988, a copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance/460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated August 22, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated August 9, 1989, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. STA FFR PT\VTM231/43 2 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated January 27, 1988, a copy of which is attached. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: ae Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1 and R-~ zones. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. ae The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty 130) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy. b. ~ EIR No. 230 was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: ae Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. bo Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity. STAFFRPT\VTM231/43 3 Ce dm ee fe ge ke All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. e Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungradad natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: STAFFRPT\VTM23143 4 25. 26. The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. e Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain, The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developeris successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development, Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to mS Ldn. Ce All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivisionis approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 5 27. 28. 29. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. ee All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. g. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Ce Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is.required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an ag~'eement with the Community Services District which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~60. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 6 30. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 2q633, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temacula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider sha~l not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. 31. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66q62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. 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. 32. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 33. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit or Developer's Agrc:.ment. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 35. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CCSR's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC~,R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. STAFFRPT\VTM23143 7 36. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CCF, R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CCF, R~s shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 37. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either ~ 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. 38. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CC~,R's. 39. The applicant shall submit a new tentative tract application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22q30 to reflect the new boundary created by Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. ~. Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ and Change of Zone No. 5535 shall be subject to the terms of the Development Agreement. Prior to recordation, the developer shall submit a plot plan application for the R-q portion of the project showing the location of each proposed structure on its lot in compliance with the requirements for development in the R-q zone. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost. ~3. All mitigation measures recommended in EIR No. 230 shall be implemented. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. STAFFRPT\VTM231~43 8 It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. [~60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: q6. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Park and Recreation Department. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public 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 City Engineer. Northshire Circle, Yew Wood Place, Linda Court, Stage Court, Wakeene Circle, Wyandotte Street, Rudy Court, Janda Court, Paola Court, Faber Court, Topeka Court, Gatehead Court, Majestic Court, Regents Hill, Vandamere Court, Esser Court, Mortroy Circle, Hill Street, Pampa Court, Fiji Way, Suva Lane, Stanko Circle, Meade Circle, Osio Circle, Jolene Circle, Derant Circle, Drennon Court, Sparks Court, Dupont Circle, Swoboda Court, Aden Circle, Tiempo Circle, John Way, Trestle Circle, Drennon Circle, Hussar Court, Trini Court, San Juan Court, Jolle Court, San Jose Court, Pliance Way, "Y" Street, G G G Circle; Cinnamon Lane, Atchison Drive, Bigh Court, Paraguay Drive, Brsil Lane, Whistle Court, Cherokee Way, Wristle Court, Peppermint Lane, Rainmaker Avenue, Tonga Way, Sam Way, Soko Court, Soko Circle, Corddua Circle, F F Circle, Munich Circle, Peru Lane, and Berlin Way shall be improved with rio feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 10~, Section A (~0'/60'). STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 9 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Swartz Way, Lima Street, Crowne Hill Drive, Castle Way, Trestle Street, and Royal Crest Place shall be improved with ~Jt feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated ri9ht-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (~'/66'). Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a ~ dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (6q'/88'). Butterfield Stage Road shall be improved with ~3 feet of half street improvement plus one 12~ lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 55' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (86'/110'). In the event that Royal Crest Place, Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and Crowne Hill Drive are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the required improvements. The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and Crowne Hill Drive and so noted on the final map. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. ao Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Sewer and domestic water systems. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. STAFF R PT\ VTM2 31 !~3 10 60. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2q~' x 36~ mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 61. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 62. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. $3. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating I~Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. ~' A drainage easement or a letter of "permission to accept drainage" shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map. 65. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 66. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 67. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. 68. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of .the City-maintained road right-of- way. 69. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. ST AFFRPT\ VTM231~3 11 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 70. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be approved by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 71. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 72. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~ days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9q of the State Standard Specifications. 73. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION: 75. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with a curb separation of [tq' or more. For internal streets with a curb separation of qO' or less, only a signing plan shall be required. Traffic signal plans shall be designed by a registered Civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer for intersections of Butterfield Stage Road at Royal Crest Place and Butterfield Stage Road at Crowne Hill Drive. These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. 76. When the Tract Map is phased, a minimum of 2 points of all weather vehicular ingress and egress, with a 28' minimum width, shall be required for each phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. STAFFR PT\VTM231 ~43 12 77. Sight distance calculations shall be required for each proposed intersection, and shall conform with the CalTrans sight distance standards. 78. In the event the Rancho Villages Assessment District No. 159 does not fully improve Butterfield State Road from Rancho California Road to SR79 South, Royal Crest Place from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to Butterfield Stage Road, and Pauba Road from Via Del Monte to Butterfield Stage Road, then the Developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for the amount over the developer's pro rata percentage of the design and construction costs of: a) Signing and striping plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield State Road from Rancho California Road to SR79 South, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to Butterfield Stage Road, Royal Crest Place from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, and Pauba Road from Via Del Monte to Butterfield Stage Road. b) Traffic signal plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the ultimate signal locations at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho California Road; Butterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road; Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road; Butterfield Stage Road and SR79 South. c) Traffic signal interconnect plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road. d) The raised medians on Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road and shall include 250~ of left turn storage capacity with 120' of approach transition for the intersections with Royal Crest Place, Crowne Hill Drive and De Portola Road. e) The striping plan for Pauba Road to include a left turn lane for Crowne Hill Drive. 79. A school zone signing and striping plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the school site within this project. This will be separate from the street improvement plans and will cover any and all streets necessary to provide the appropriate signing and striping. 80. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 81. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 13 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 82. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 83. 8/4. 85. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan when warranted but not later than issuance of occupancy for the final phase. All school zone signing and striping shall be installed per the approved school zone signing and striping plan prior to occupancy of the school site. All traffic signal interconnects along Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road shall be installed per the approved plan. STAFFRPT\VTM231/43 1/4 s==/AGR17333 RECEIVED JUL 2 6 t990 Recording requested by, and When recorded mail to: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attn= City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITY FEE This Agreement is made this day of by and between the City of Temecula ("City") and ("Developer"). RECITALS A. Developer is the owner of real property (the "Property") in the City of Temecula described as follows= Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference to traffic and the demand for other B. Developer proposes to develop the Property pursuant (the "Project"). C. City has determined that the Project rill impact public f~cilities vithin the Recording of this AgrNeent i· fie txiipt pursu·nt to 8overn.ent Co4e Section 6103 ·· it is recorded for the benefit of the City of Tllecul·, · public egency. -1- .~ff/~GR17333 City as identified in the for I~l~gaT~¥e ~cla~a?,on! the Project. These impacts must be mitigated by payment of a fee for additional road and public facility construction, which fee shall be identified as set forth hereinafter. D. The City proposes to impose traffic and public facility fees upon new developments within the City in order to construct additional transportation and public facility improvements to serve and benefit new developments, including the Project. These fees shall be known as the "Temecula City-wide Public Facility Fee Program" or "Public Facility Fee." E. Condition No. of the Project requires that Developer execute this Agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. F. In order for Developer to obtain building permits without payment of the Public Facility Fee, and so that development of Project may proceed in a timely manner, City and Developer have determined to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 66007. G. The term "public facility# shall refer to municipal facilities such as city hall, police stations, community centers, theaters, parks and similar public infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Public Facility Fee: (a) The City Council will establish the amount of the Public Facility Fee at some time in the future. The Fee will -2- sff/AGR17333 be based upon the square footage of each development, the vehicle trips generated by each development, or similar measure(s). The Public Facility Fee also shall establish the specific improve- ments to be constructed and their cost, the benefit assessment area and the method by which the fair share, pro-rata obligations of each property are to be established based on impact on traffic and demand for public facilities. (b) Developer shall pay the Public Facility Fee on each building at such time it receives its certificate of occupancy or final inspection, which ever occurs first. (c) The Council also may establish an Interim Public Facility Fee to be followed by a Final Public Facility Fee. If only the Interim Public Facility Fee has been established at the time the Developer seeks issuance of its certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first, then Developer shall pay the Interim Fee prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first. ~ater, when the Final Public Facility Fee is established, the Developer will be reimbursed for any difference between the Interim and Final Fee the Interim Fee exceeds the Final Fee, and shall pay the shortfall if the Final Fee exceeds the Interim Fee. (d) If the certificate of occupancy or final inspection occurs prior to the establishment of the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee, then Developer shall pay a deposit of -3- sff/AGR17333 $10,000 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, which amount shall be a credit against the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee. (e) If either the Final or Interim Public Facility Fee is established after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the Developer shall pay the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee ten (10) days after receiving notice from the City that it has been established. (f) Notwithstanding the above, Developer shall provide City with written notification of the opening of any escrow for the sale of the Project and shall provide in the escrow instructions that if the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee has been established, 'the Fee shall be paid to the City from the sale proceeds in escrow prior to distributing the proceeds to Developer/seller. (g) City shall record a release of this Agreement upon payment of all Public Facility Fees owing and shall provide Developer with a copy of such release. 2. Use of Public Facility Fee: ' The Public Facility Fee collected pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only to construct City-wide traffic and public facility improvements, which improvements are deemed to be of benefit to Project, and for expenses incidental thereto. There is a reasonable relationship between the Project and the Public Facility Fee in that the Project will impact traffic and -4- sff/AGR17333 existing public facilities, and consequently, will require expansion of the City-wide street and highway system, and public facilities in order to meet the added demand resulting from the Project. The amount of the Public Facility Fee to be collected from Project represents the cost of facilities necessary to meet the incremental increase in traffic and demand for public facilities resulting from the Project. 3. Information Provided: Developer shall provide to City, upon City's request therefor, any and all information regarding access to the Project, traffic flow, trip.generation factors and such other information as is reasonably necessary to establish the Public Pacility Fee. 4. Security for Public Facility Fee: (a) Concurrent with the .execution of this Agreement, Developer shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, in an amount equal to the total Public Facility Fee for the Project..The amount of security may be increased upon City's r~uest should there be an increase in the amount of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of security also may be reduced upon Developer's payment of Public Facility Fees outstanding. -5- No letter of credit is required if neither the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee has been established as of the date of execution of this Agreement. (b) As an alternative to collecting the fee from the letter of credit, if the Developer fails to pay the Public Facility Fee within thirty (30) days of the date demand is made, the City may assess a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount owing and make said Fee, inclusive of penalty, a lien upon the described real property by recording a notice that said Fee is due under the terms of this Agreement with the County Recorder of Riverside County. The notice shall state the fact that said Fee, inclusive of penalty, is due under the terms of this Agreement and shall state the amount, together with the fact that it is unpaid and draws interest on the Fee and penalty at the rate set forth at CalifOrnia Revenue & Taxation Section 19269 until paid. (c) The City may as an alternative to the lien procedure set forth above, bring legal action to collect the Public Facility Fee due. The Developer agrees that if legal action by the City is necessary to collect the Fee the De%eloper agrees to pay the City a reasonable sum as attorney's fees and court costs, together with penalty and interest determined according to Paragraph 4(b) of this Agreement. -6- sff/AGR17333 5. Agreement Runs With Land: This Agreement pertains to and runs with the Property. This Agreement binds the successors in interest of each of the parties. 6. Waiver: By execution of this Agreement, Developer waives any right to protest the provisions of Condition No. of the Project, this Agreement, the formation of any Public Facility fee district, or the process, levy, confirmation, collection, or reasonableness of any Public Facility fee for this Project. 7. Binding Agreement: This Agreement shall be binding upon Developer, Developer's successors and assigns. 8. Amendment/No Continuing Waiver: This Agreement may be modified or amended only in writing, signed by both ~arties. This Agreement contains the full and complete understanding of the parties and supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements or representations. A waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement by either party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver thereof. g. Attorneys' Fees: Should either party determine that it is necessary to file a legal action to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in that litigation shall be -7- sff/AGR17333 entitled to its reasonable costs, including but not limited to attorneys' fees. 10. Notice: Notice shall be deemed given under this Agreement when in writing and deposited in the United States mail, first- class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: City: Developer: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: City Clerk 11. Miscellaneous Provisions (a) If any provision of this Agreement is adjudged invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected. (b) If there is more than one (1) signer of this Agreement as Developer,'their obligations are joint and several. IN WITNESS WHF-REOF, the parties or. their duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date set out above. CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPER By: David S. Dixon City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Scott F. Field City Attorney -8- sff/AGR17333 Form of Condition: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improve- ments and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. In imposing this condition, the City finds as follows: 1. The fee collected will be used for City-wide road and public facility improvements. 2. The road and public facility improvements (~r portions thereof) to be financed will serve the project by providing access, reducing congestion, and providing adequate public facilities, such as, but not limited to, City Hall, police station, fire station, community center and parks. 3. There is a need for such road and public facility improvements for the project as the project will generate traffic --i-- sff/AGR17333 onto the roads to be improved and demand for additional public facilities. 4. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the road and public facility improvements in that the amount of the fee is no more than the amount of benefit to be received by each unit from access to and use of the road and public facility improvements. -ii- PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF August 22, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 I2TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: TRACT 23143 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2½") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum .fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. RE: TR 23143 Page 2 All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist 1-mac NOV 21 '90 10:31AM CITY OF TEM£CWLA P.E/E TEMECUI. A COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl. Vesting Tentative Tract No, 2314J, Revlaed Be,Jed on 1,054 units, tl~e Ouimby requirement of 5 acres/1000 population is 13.7 developed, active recreation acres, Credit given for aiI private recreation areas shall not exceed 5.2 acres. Therefore, tl~e total Quimby requirement shall be 8.5 acres. The 11 acre private park developed in Phase I shall have recreation areas open and accessible to the public. The. 6 acre I:ublic, active recreation park shall be tied into the assessment irrproven,ents and must 0e constructed during Phase II of the development. Certificates pt occupancy for Phase !I may not be given until this park is completed and dedicated to the TCSD. The 4 acre I~ark shall be dad into Phase Ill and developed with the con- struct~on of [he school site. The flood channel adjacent to the park site shell be mitigated and fenced for user pro'cection. The to*.al development agreement fees required for 1,054 units is $4,711,380. Development agreement fees shall be paid before issuance of building Dermits. Credit shall be given to the developer for amenities installed in the parks not covered by the Quimby requirement. The amount of credit shall be determined by the TCSD. r~r..t.,',v~.u 5F.P 2 -5 19.90 Riverside County Service Area JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho Cotifornia Roacl, Suite 405 - Temecula, CA 92390 (7~4) 699-0235 Fax: (7~,] 699-4.3q0 ['ATE: TO: FEOM: %I'BJ E(;I: ~eptember 21, 1990 .Ccott Wt'ight - Planning Department Cit?-xof Temecula .W~.~> /.~ Jea:~ine R. Overson - CSA 143 Director ~-'~'~ ~ ~ ~'-~ Fract 23143 ~ Co,~mlenLs: Please contact CSA 143 office if annexed o~ intend to annex fo~' ICSD services. Upon c,,mpletio~z of the following items the TCSD will consequently' take over maintenance £rom tile developer of lettered or numbered lots only (not an ,~.a~ement) for tile above t~'act: CSA 143 Landscaping Standards Requirements. 2. Process ~or Dedication. Review and approval of all legal documents by Riverside County Counsel, Building Services, (or appropriate City personnel) and Iemecula Community Service District Board. NOV 26 '90 :R:~2 ~IVERSiD~ CO. FLOOD ?a~:in~ T~a:t A'.aan;{ad qo. 1 '.lurr~,~ta Cr~el¢/Te:~e~uia Valley Ar.~a .,.~ ~raina:j~ ~ees have been a~op:-',~ O~ ~i~e Boar~. Draln~Ce ~ees ~bJIl b~.J pai~ as ~t forth under the provi- ~ioa.s of the ":-:u~. and 5e~ulu:io~s for A.l.aiai3tration kr~.~ Drai~,~ Pinna" am~ndej July 3, a, Drain~e feeo s~al! be pal.'] t~ .~- filin~I for r-:}cOt'd Of th'3 subdivi~i3n final parcel zap i~ waive~, ~r::ina~e fee~ ~uit'Jin5 Dtrec%or a~ the %t'.:1~ >f [~uan~a of a Zrad- c~!, whL~"~:~r ~ay b~ first 3b~:~i~e:J after the NOV ~6 ,.c~ 12:44 R"'/ER~ZD£ CO, FLOOD DI$"'RZC" p.4x~ a~ 'a ;~.r~ o~ th~ f~Z~nS ~3r r~ord Of th~ l~n.~ ,~ivision wh~re co~ruet~on actlvity ,us olnc.: Mar ~5, 1951: (c) ~.~ ,sradln~ per~,~lt or build£n~ permit obtained. con,~l~io?,~ offsltd. If stor.a runoff is divertad or -~,.~,.On of the flaal map. snoui,J be :cncre~a l~ned. i.w~iet~iy followih~ rough ~r~dln~ bo preven: .J~po:L~,lon f~cilitio~. Developsertl of this proparty should offsite construction ~nd gr~din$. of way snoul~ be aontai~d wl~hln drainage ea~emer;t~ shown on the final map. A noG~ a:~ould be a~de.J to t,~e final map sea:in&, "Drainage ea~sment~ shall ~e kop: free of buildinss and ab~&ructions~. publicl~ dedica~.-d drainaBe easements obtained from P.5/5 ~DV 25 'gO ._.44 R]VER~SDE CO. FLOOD DISTRSCT -3- 10. ll. m~ a~on~ wtch ~,~pport~n,~ hydrolo~:~ an~ :~ydr~ull: and .~pproval prior' ~o re~orJ~ton of the fln;;l Grading ~la~ shoui~ b= cppr~ve~ prior to grading pwr.~i~ .~ r~i~t~r,.,J o,,ginoer ,',rdS'~ s~ Seal this of£i~ a~ 714/737-2333. Very truly yourd, cc; .tanohO P~c ~. £t¢ .,, ,, },,A Stl!j.r:A J9:I,~ :... I~ECEIVEB OCl- 1 l~ounty of Riverside ~O: CITY OF TEMECULA DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 ATTN: SCOTT WRIGHT FROM: RENEE DAETWILER, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALth. LIST III RE: CHANGE OF ZONE 5535 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed this Change of Zone 5535 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. GEN. FORM 4. ~Re~ ECEIVED $EP 2 11S20 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE /DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH F'AC$ ~ (714) ~§8-4~ l~eDtember 11. 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA 431~0 Business Park Drive. Suite 200 Temecula. CA 92390 AT/N: Scott Wriaht RE: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23143: RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 121. PAGES 50-57. BOOK 127, PAGES 7-14, AND BOOK 127 PAGES 15-21 RESPECTIVELY ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. (1092 LOTS) Dear Gentlemen: The Department of Publ[c Health has reviewed Vestlno Tentative Tract Map No. 23143. and recommend that: A water system shall be Installed accordzna to plans and speczflcatzon as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water svstem shall be submitted in trzsllcate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, alona with the orlulnal draw~nc to the County Surveyor. The Prints shall show the ~nternal D1De d~ameter. location of valves and fire hydrants: P~Pe and lolnt speciflcat~ons. and the size of the main at the .~unctlon of the new system to the exlstzn~ svstem. The plans shall comply ~n all respects with Dry. 5. Part 1. Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Tltle 22, Chapter 16. and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be slyned by a re~stered engineer and water company wxth the followln~ certzflcat~on: "I certify that the desl~n of the water system in Ve~tln~ Tentative Tract MaD 23143, ls in accordance with the water system expansion Plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service. storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract. City of Temecula Paae Two- ATTN: Scott Wriaht September 11, 1990 This certification does not constitute a auarantee that it will $UDD1V water to such Tract mad at any Specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose" This certification shall be slaned by a responsible official of the water This subdivision has a statement from Rancho California Water District aGreeinc to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrancements are completed with the $ubd~vlder. It will be necessary for financial arrancements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This subdivision 1s within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed accordInc to plans and sDeclf~catlons as approved bv the D1strlct the County Surveyor and the ~ealth Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, alone with the Orl~xnal drawlno. to the County sur';e¥or. The Prints shall show the internal D1De diameter. location of manholes, complete profiles, D1De and .]o~nt specifications and the size of the sewers at the 3unction of the new system to the exxstlnc svstem. A sintie plat ~nd~catlno locatlon of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portlon of the sewage plans and.water l~nes shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be si~ned by a registered enclneer and the sewer district wlth the followin~ certlficatlon: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract MaD No. ~3143 1s in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern MunlclD&! Water District and that the waste d~sDosal system 1s adequate at this time to treat 'the anticipated wastes from the proposed parcel maD. City of Temecula Paae 3 ATTN: Scott Wrlaht September 11. 1990 It w~11 be nece~sarv for f~nanclal arran~ement~ to be completeIv finalized DrlOr to recordation of the f~nal maD. Sl'ncerelV. Sam Mart~'ez. En-'~rI~onmental Health Speczallst IV SM:dr Board of Directors: James A. Darby President Jeffrey L. Minkler $r. VLce President Ralph Daily Doug Kulberg Jon A. Lundin T. C. Rowe Richard D. Steffey Officers: John F. Hennigar General Manager Phillip L Forbes Director of Finance- Treasurer Thomas R. McAliester Director of Operattons & Maintenance Edward P. Lemons Director of E ngineering Linda M. Fregoso District Secretary McCormick & Ki~lm~n Legal Counsel August 9, 1989 Riverside County Planning Departmen~/"S;;~ 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor ''.:~c2%',~.;:.. Riverside, California 92501-3657 ""~'.~,'~. Subject: Water Availability Reference: Revised Vesting Tract 23143 Change of Zone 5535 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Sites for additional water production facilities may be required within the proposed development depending upon the level of increased demand created by the proposal. If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon Civil Engineer F011/jkw259f R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C T 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0615 #ZO/I/eg ~F,~ J&nu~ry Z7. 1988 Riverside County Plinntng Department 4080 Lemon Street. gth Floor Riverside, California 92601 SUBJECT: VESTTO TRACT 23143 (Ron Goldman) The 0tstrtct ts respondlng to )q)ur request for connents on the subject proJKt(s) ~lltl~ to t~ p~vtston of vlter and sewr Sl~tCe. The t~ems The s~b3ect project: X tn order starton. Provtde for the new 11ft starton and 1~ r~qutred. The pregoseal 1t¢t $tatton t$ it Teeecull Creek on the west stde ! ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 230 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 and Change of Zone No. 1181~. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. ~ has 66 fewer residential lots than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231113 Amended No. ~ will involve approximately ~, 092,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, representing an 8% increase in earth movement on the site over the amount of cut and fill resulting from Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231113 Amended No. 3. It is unlikely that the additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential significant impacts regarding drainage, slope stability, and non-renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 151611 of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential lots and increasing passive and active recreational open space, the revised project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. By revising the street layout to restrict direct access from collector streets, the revised map will reduce the potential for traffic hazards to human beings. STAFFRPT\VTM231113 Sp\ zONE ¢Z 6 .C7 zONE DE ZO&IIVG AREA MAP V~CINIT¥ N.T.$. MAP PROJECI~ SITE PL~N~N~ COI,~SS[ON ~[NUTES DECEHBER 17,~'E~JO COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND amended his motion Condition No. 40 to state hours of opel · to 11:00 P.M., seconded by CHA~ from 5:00 CHINIAEFF. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: , Fahey, Ford, Iland, Chiniaeff NOES: : None 3. PARCEL MAP 25686 3.1 This continued to 1990 eting of January 7, 4. PLOT NO. 179 This item was continued to the meeting of Januar~ 1990. 5. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 23143 AMENDED NO. 4/CHANGE OF ZONE 5535 AND 6. VESTING TRACT 23143 AMENDED NO. 3, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME 5.1 Proposal for a 1,026 lot subdivision with a change of zone from R-1 to R-4-6000 and from R-1 to R-4-5000 for 534 lots. 6.1 Proposal for extension of time for a 1,092 lot subdivision. Project is located south of Pauba Road, East of Butterfield Stage Road. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that after discussions with the City Attorney it was recommended and agreed that there would be no action taken at this time on the Development Agreement; however, it would be brought back at a later date. COMMISSION FORD stepped down on these items due to a potential for conflict of interest. SCOTT WRIGHT provided the staff report on this item. Mr. Wright advised the Commission of the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract 23143 Amended No. 4: Condition No. 11, last sentence to read, "prior to the issuance of building permits."; Condition No. 26B, last sentence to read, "45 CNEL"; Condition No. 29, delete "provided for PCMN121790 -6- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 the payment of parks and recreation fees" and replace with "satisfied Quimby Act requirements"; and Condition No. 35, delete "exterior of all buildings" and replace with "all buildings in common open areas." CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the City Attorney about the approval and status of the old map. He asked if the approval of a revised tentative map approved by the City Council automatically void the old map. JOHN CAVANAUGH suggested the Planning Director address this questions. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff wanted to see the applicant develop the revised map. He said that the problem is with the ordinance, in that before approving the revised map, you have to approve the extension of time. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested the alternative of denying the extension and submitting a new application. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the ordinance reads that under the old map, the Commission cannot entertain the revised map without approving the extension. He added that the revised map cannot be a substanially new map. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if they were legally exposed approving a map that appeared to be substanially different. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked why this was not entertained as a new map. GARY THORNHILL stated that the changes made were in direct response to the Planning Department concerns to get a better project and included more open spaces, better circulation, and the general design of the project. He added that the project still presents the same buffer space, but less units, and staff feels comfortable with the improvements. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt the change in lot sizes changed the complexion of the project itself. He asked staff who was proposed to maintain the large slopes on the smaller lots, which he felt could present an erosion problem. He added that he would like staff to look at a comparison of the two tracts. PCMN121790 -7- 12/21/90 PLi~NN~N~ COI~ISSION MINUTES DECEHBER ~7, 1990 SCOTTWRIGHT indicated that the individual property owners would be responsible for maintaining the slopes. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. ERNIE EGGER, Ranpac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, clarified that what the applicant and staff were requesting at this time was an extension of the old map and then approval of the revised map. He added that they have been working hard to improve the design characteristics of the project and have utilized lush landscaping and substantial open spaces to provide a pleasing environment within the community. He stated that they had made extensive efforts to provide park spaces which he stated exceeded the Quimby requirements. He indicated that the buffer strip along the North side of the project ranged from a minimum of 100 feet to 300 feet and they have made extensive efforts to reduce the number of intersections connecting to Pauba Road, to minimize disturbance of the rural communities to the North. Mr. Egger also advised that where practical, the Conditions of Approval facilitate maintenance of the slopes by the Homeowners Association or the CSA. The Conditions also require the developer to construct full landscaping and irrigation on slopes in excess of three feet in height. Mr. Egger advised that the 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots were actual pad size and not the overall lot size. These lots have large slopes and are substanially larger in overall lot size. Mr. Egger questioned if the City Attorney could research Ordinance 460 which only facilitates a i year time extension, and determine whether a 2 year time extension could be granted. Mr. Egger expressed a concern for the proposed yet undetermined fees and their ability to contest those fees. Mr. Egger concurred with the conditions set forth in the staff report; however, suggested that the last sentence of Condition 24 D on page 4 be deleted. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the unit sizes on the 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots. SHARON SLOCUM, Taylor & Woodrow, stated that the architectural guidelines represented two product types: PCMN121790 -8- 12/21/90 PLi~NING COMHISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 a 1,700 square foot unit on the 5,000 square foot lot and a 2,100 square foot unit on the 6,000 square foot lot. WALT SWICKLA, 33480 Pauba Road, Temecula, president of the Pauba Ranchos Homeowners Association, stated that a representative from Taylor & Woodrow had brought the original map to one of their meetings. He stated that as a minimum five acre lot community they had reservations about the lot sizes and the safety of the roads. He indicated that they were private roads and the speeds were unenforceable. He stated that they are concerned with the park sites not providing parking areas, the proposed street light plan and he expressed a interest in seeing the lots along Pauba Road remain 2 1/2 acre parcels. He stated that he felt the project should be presented as an entirely new map and all of the HOA's reservations addressed. CRAIG BEAGLE, 34385 Cooperman, Temecula, stated he was against the project and he felt that the traffic impacts will be unsurmountable. He added that he would like to see the area remain rural. PAT MCMILLIAN, 42200 Kellybrook, Temecula, asked if any consideration had been given to the existing land strip and the air corridor over the right corner of thier original map. FRANK HAMERSLEY, 41999 Via Lamonte, Temecula, expressed a concern for the road improvements being completed by the developer due to the traffic that will be generated by the project. He stated that they proposed that they would develop half the road, and the Pauba homeowners could utilize that half of the road while they improved the other side; however, they have not done any of those improvements. NICK SAVALA, 33150 Pauba Road, Temecula, expressed a concern for the drainage plans for this project due to the impacts could have on his property. He also expressed a concern for the traffic that will be generated from this project. ERNIE EGGER stated that the maintenance of Pauba Road is on the General Plan as a public road and would be maintained by public funds and constructed to urban standards. The lots that front Pauba Road are a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The parking for the park space along Pauba is proposed to be off street. He added that the delays in the Assessment District improvements were PCMN121790 -9- 12/21/90 PLaNNiNG COHM[SSION HINUTES DECEHBER L7, ~990 not anticipated; however, the program is still there and the improvements should be completed sometime in the near future. He also commented that all of the drainage from this project will drain from the West to the Southwest and do not anticipate affecting any of the surrounding residences. He added that in discussions with the Airport Land Use Commission the private airport did not propose any problems to this project. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF reviewed a letter from the Airport Land Use Commission indicating that the proposed development did not indicate it was in the location of any airport influence area. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the indication in the staff report the requirement for the developer to sign off any related noise problems. G]tRY THORNHILL stated that this could be accomplished with a Navagation Easement or a White Report for each homeowner. WALT SWICKLA advised that the airport was not under the regulation of the Riverside County Airport Committee. It is a private air strip. He stated that you have a 45 degree from the beginning to the end of the landing strip and certain type houses cannot be built in that area. You must abide by FAA standards, and not build in that area. He added that the houses along Pauba Road are not part of the Assessment District and since it is going to be a major thorougfare and their side of the road will need to be maintained. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that in looking into the definition of a revised map with the City Attorney they agree that the project can be handled as a revised map. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if they approved the revised map would that start the expiration for the tentative map. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that when you approve the revised map it does not change the time limit on the original map, even though it voids the approval of the original map it does not extend the time of that map. PCMN121790 -10- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the approval for the development affecting the surrounding homeowners being able to utilize the air field. GARY THORNHILL concurred with his comments. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked for a response to the lighting issues and the road extension that would not be improved by the Assessment District. GARY THORNHILL stated that the lighting would be the standard low sodium lighting utilized throughout the city. He added that there was no question that the surrounding residents would be affected somewhat by the increase in lighting. Gary Thornhill advised the Commission again that Staff did not want to see the original project developed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the park facilities should have been included on the plans. GARY THORNHILL stated that this will be something that the developer will work out with the Parks and Recreation Department and Commission. ERNIE EGGER provided a conceptual plan of the park site. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern with the compatibility of the two maps, the transition of the 5 acre parcels from the North side of Pauba to the South side of Pauba, traffic impacts on the lower density area and the adjacent lot being developed as a 7200 square foot lot tract. GARY THORNHILL advised that the adjacent parcel was zoned for 2 1/2 acre minimum. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF added that he would like to see a bigger buffer along Pauba Road and would like the maintenance of the slopes addressed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked for clarification of the Commission's options for approving or denying this project. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that if they were to choose to deny the extension of time, once the original map expired the revised map would also expire. PCMN121790 -11- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 JOHN CAVANAUGH added that the revised map should be entertained as an original map. The Commission is limited to reasons for denying, which is based primarily on health and safety reasons, as a basis for denial. He added that the Commission could present their concerns to the City Council and let them put it back to the staff or the Commission could deny this, or you could approve the extension of time and continue the revised map. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested that the Commission approve the extension of time as well as the revised map with some added conditions as follows: look at a minimum landscape buffer of 200 to 300 feet along Pauba Road or larger lots along Pauba Road; have staff work out an inspection program for maintenance of the large slopes; and, look at phasing the street improvements. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 8:10 P.M. and recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution 90-(next) approving Extension of Time for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143, continuing Amendment No. 4 to allow staff to address the issues relating to the airport, lighting, increase in the size of the buffer lots and maintenance of the large slopes, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified by staff. The motion failed due to lack of a second. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to recommend that the City Council approve a waiver of the requirement of Ordinance 460, Section 3.8 (c), adopt the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 230, adopt Resolution 90-(next) approving Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 and Change of Zone No. 5535 and adopt the Resolution 90-(next) approving the extension of time for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified by staff and recommend that the City Council has the Planning Department staff work with the applicant to address the Commission's concerns regarding reducing the lighting of the development, the airport impact on the project, modifying the buffering along Pauba Road to a minimum width of 200 to 300 feet or larger lot sizes and develop a method of maintaining the interior slopes possibly through the CC&R's. COMMISSIONER FAHEY indicated a hesitation to second the motion because she understood the concerns of the PCMN121790 -12- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 Commission to be only a recommendation to the City Council and not additional Conditions of Approval. COMMISSIONER HOAGL~ND amended his motion to include the reduction in lighting, Airport Land Use condition, the widening of the buffer zone or an increase in lot size along Pauba Road and the wording of a Condition by staff for the maintenance of the interior slopes in the CC&R's, as additional Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Ford ~HAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a ten minute recess at 8:25 P.M. metreconvened at 8:35 P.M. 7. PLOT~LAH NO. 34 kND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 250! CHANG~ ZONE NO. 6 AND NO. 7 7.1 Pro to construct one seven-story building contai %g 102,243 square feet; one foot one 7,872 square foot ; and one four level ~rking structure cont 134,933 square feet on 5.51 ~reas; and g~ maximum height limitation ~ined in the Standards for the I-P (Indust: 1 Park) he on this site from 50 to 91 feet; and amE No. 348, Section 10.4 (b) to increase the permitted with the I-P zone, above 75 feet t¢ 05 feet. Located on the Southwest side of Ridge Park ~pproximately seventy feet east of its intersecti with cho California Road. OLIVER the report on this item. He adv of the following ~ions to the Conditi of Approval: Condition , te read "su and approved by the ; No. 12 deleted; Condition No. "or deleted, condition to read "Prior ~e sale )f any structure"; and add a Condition No. 69 read "Prior to the issuance of building permits Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be approved". 1790 -13- 12/2 ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 230 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report I EIR) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 3 and Change of Zone No. 4814. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 has 66 fewer residential lots than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 will involve approximately 4,092,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, representing an 8% increase in earth movement on the site over the amount of cut and fill resulting from Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 3. It is unlikely that the additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential significant impacts regarding drainage, slope stability, and non-renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential lots and increasing passive and active recreational open space, the revised project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. By revising the street layout to restrict direct actress from collector streets, the revised map will reduce the potential for traffic hazards to human beings. STAFFR PT\VTM23143 '1 - ' L'I STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 17. 1990 Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Extension of Time Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution approving an Extension of Time for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING zONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Taylor Woodrow Homes Ranpac Engineering Corporation To subdivide a ~59 acre site into 1,026 single family residential parcels, 68 open space lots including 25.5 acres of parks, a 10.2 acre school site, and a 112 acre remainder parcel in the R-A-2 1/2 and R- A-5 zone. ~outh of Pauba Road and east of Butterfield Stage Road. R-1, R-5, R-A-2 1/2, and R-A-5 North: South: East: West: R-A (Residential Agricultural) R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) R-A (Residential Agricultural) Specific Plan no. 219, 2-5 Dwelling Units Per Acre Not requested in conjunction with the Extension of Time. Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant and Single Family Residential Vacant Vacant Vacant STAFFRPT\VTM231~3. A 1 PROJECT STATISTICS: No. of Acres: No. of Residential Lots: Minimum Lot Size: No. of Open Space Lots: Acreage of Parks: Acreage of School Site: Remainder Parcel: /459 acres 1,026 lots 7,200 sq. ft. (/492 parcels ) 6,000 sq. ft. ( 28/4 parcels) 5,000 sq. ft. ( 250 parcels ) 68 lots 25.5 acres 10.2 acres 112 acres BACKGROUND: On August 16, 1988, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231/43 Amended No. 3, a subdivision with 1,092 single family residential lots, 8 open space lots, and an 11.0 acre park, and Change of Zone No. /481~ from R-A-5, Residential Agricultural with a minimum lot size of 5 acres, to R-1, Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, R-A-2 1/2 on a portion of the remainder parcel, and R-5, Open Area Combining zone (open space and park areas), Certified EIR No. 230, and adopted DeveloperCs Agreement No. 26. On July 7, 1989, the applicant submitted to the County Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ in conjunction with Change of Zone No. 5535 requesting a change from R-1 to R-/4- 6,000, Planned Residential with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for 28/4 lots, and from R-1 to R-~- 5,000 for 250 lots. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ and Change of Zone No. 5535 were transmitted to the City on May ~, 1990 On July 12, 1990, the applicant submitted a request for an Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231/43 to the City in order to prevent the expiration of the approval before the.application for the map revision and Change of Zone No. 5535 could be processed. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231/43 Amended No. ~ will contain fewer lots than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231/43 Amended No. 3, additional park space, and a 10.2 acre school site. STAFFRPT\VTM231/~3. A 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests an Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3, a subdivision of ~59 acres which originally included 1,092 single family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, 8 open space lots, an 11.0 acre park, and a remainder parcel of approximately 128 acres. The Extension of Time is requested in order to enable the City to process Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231[~3 Amended No. ~ and Change of Zone No. 5535. ANALYSIS: Reason for the Extension Request The applicant has revised the Tentative map and requests on Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 in order to enable the City to process Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 231~3 Amended No. q/Change of Zone No. 5535 before the original approval expires. The expiration date was August 16, 1990. The request for an Extension of Time was submitted to the City on July 12, 1990. ~The Time Extension and Revised Map will extend the approval of the Tentative Tract Map to August 16, 1991 with two additional Extension of Time requests available to extend the map an additional two years. Extension of Time To Be Applied to Revised Map The Extension of Time shall be applied to Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ which shall be extended through August 16, 1991. The Extension of Time shall not apply to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 which includes a number of lots taking direct access from a collector street which will carry a substantial volume of traffic. The original map could result in traffic hazards which are unacceptable .to City Staff. Staff recommends approval of an Extension of Time only in conjunction with and applied to approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map no. 231~3 Amended No. ~. GENERAL PLAN AND STAFFRPT\VTM231/~3. A 3 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: The proposed density of 3.1 residential units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan designation of 2-~ units per acre. The Southwest Area Plan lists the R-l, R-t~, and R-5 zones among the zones consistent with the land use designation of 2-q dwelling units per acre. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report | El R ) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231t~3 Amended No. 3 and Change of Zone No. Lt81t~. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231t~3 Amended No. ~ has 66 fewer residential lots than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 and, therefore will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 involw, d approximately 3,800,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ will involve approximately ~,092,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The 8% increase in earth movement on the site is unlikely to result in any increase in significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval will mitigate any potential significant impacts regarding drainage, slope stability, or non-renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to CEQA Section 1516t~, an addendum to EIR No. 230 has been pr&pared (See Attachment 3) providing minor changes to make EIR No. 230 applicable to the revised map and to document that the map revision will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. FINDINGS: Extension of Time for Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 231t~3 Amended No. ~ The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-~ units per acre. STAFFRPT\VTM231t~3. A ~4 The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed portions of the project, which includes the smaller lots, abuts the R-1 zone south of the site and Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 dwelling units per acre west of the site. The lots abutting the R-A zone north of the site are substantially larger than the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone {11,000 square feet or more) and a large open space area provides a buffer 150-300 feet deep along the north side of the site. Future development of the remainder portion on the east side of the site will conform to R-A-2 1/2 acre and R-A-5 acre zoning to ensure compatibility with the R-A zone to the east. The lot design and internal street layout are acceptable to the City Planning and Engineering Departments. All lots conform to the standards of their respective zones, and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road, and seven (7) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General .Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. STA FFR PT\VTM231~3. A 5 o e 10. 11. 12. 13. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. q and Change of Zone No. 5535 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 3q8 and ~60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The proposed project includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 15.3 acres of private parks which will include some facilities open to the public The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\VTM231a3. A 6 ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following recommendation to the City Council: ADOPT Resolution 90- recommending Approval of the First Extension of Time for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231~3 Amended No. L[ through August 16, 1991 based on the analysis and findings contained in this report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SW: ks Attachments: e 3. 5. Resolution Conditions of Approval Letter of Agreement to Extend Processing Time Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 230 Exhibits: Vicinity map Revised Vesting Tentative Map STAFFRPT\VTM231~3. A 7 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 231q,3 AMENDED NO, q. TO SUBDIVIDE A ~59 ACRE PARCEL INTO 1,026 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 68 OPEN SPACE LOTS, A SCHOOL SITE, AND A REMAINDER PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD AND EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 926-760-001 THROUGH 005 AND 926-770-001 THROUGH 003. WHEREAS, Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., filed an Extension of Time request for Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zonin9, Plannin9 and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Tract Map Extension on December 17, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, .at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Tentative Tract Map Extension; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty ~30) months following incorporation. During that 30-menth period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. { 2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STAFFRPT\VTM231~3. A 1 (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 6S360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: la) There is reasonable probability that Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proRosal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. lb) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. STAFFRPT\VTM231z~3. A 2 The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. ~60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the proposed land division or 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 land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that altepnate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. STAFFR PT\VTM231/~3. A 3 (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-/4 units per acre. b) The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed R-/4 portions of the project, which includes the smaller lots, abuts the R-1 zone south of the site and Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 dwelling units per acre west of the site. The lots abutting the R-A zone north of the site are substantially larger than the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone 111,000 square feet or more) and a large open space area provides a buffer 150-300 feet deep along the north side of the site. Future development of the remainder portion on the east side of the site will conform to R-A-2 1/2 acre and R-A-5 acre zoning to ensure compatibility with the R-A zone to the east. c) The lot design and internal street layout are acceptable to the City Planning and Engineering Departments. All lots conform to the standards of their respective zones, and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. d) Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. e) Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road, and seven {7) access. points to the site are shown on the map. f) There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the STAFFRPT\VTM231z~3. A /4 g) h) j) k) I) m) Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. t~ and Change of Zone No. 5535 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 3t~8 and q60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The proposed project includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 15.3 acres of private parks which will include some facilities open to the public The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STA FFR PT\VTM231t~3. A 5 E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. t~ will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendum to EIR No. 230 is hereby adopted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves an Extension of Time for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ for the subdivision of a ztS9 acre parcel into 1,026 single family lots and 68 open space lots located south of Pauba Road and east of Butterfield Stage Road and known as Assessoris Parcel No. 926-760-001 through 005 and 926-770-001 through 003 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED· APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 199 . DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the~ day of , 199 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\VTM231~43. A 6 APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read. understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for the First Extension of Time for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~43 Amended No. ~. DATED: By Name Title STAFFRPT\VTM231a3. A 7 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. [~ Project Description: 1,026 Lot Sinqle Family Subdivision with 68 Open Space Lots Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-760-001 thru 005 926-770-001throuqh003 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance t~60, Schedule A, 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. This conditionally approved revised tentative map will expire on August 16, 1991, unless extended as provided by Ordinance Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance t~60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer.- Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. e Easements, when required for roadway slopes, 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 and recorded as directed by t.he City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. A maintenance district or homeowners' association shall be established for maintenance of Open Space Lots 1027-1082, 1087-1090, and 1095. The developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district or the homeowners' association. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 1083- 1086. Open SpaceJCommon Area and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one-half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. Ce Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots or as approved by the City Engineer. All slopes over three {3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval outlined in the Temecula Community Service District's transmittal dated November 21, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Service Area 1L~3 letter dated September 21, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 11, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated February 22, 1988, a copy of which is attached. If the project. lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance ~60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated August 22, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District~s transmittal dated August 9, 1989, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. STAFFRPT\VTM231~43 2 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated January 27, 1988, a copy of which is attached. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1 and R-q zones. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "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 Outdoor Lighting Policy. be El R No. 230 was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: I1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. STAFFRPT\VTM231~43 3 Ce de All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. ~l'he plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungradad natural terrain and exceeding ten {10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: STAFFRPT\VTM231a3 ~ 25. 26. The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain, The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae be No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project. boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to ~S Ldn. Ce All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 5 27. 28. 29. de Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. ee All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. fe Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. g. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Ce Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 6~3 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the Community Services District which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. ~60. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 6 30. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~633, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66q99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. 31. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66L~62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. 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. 32. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 33. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit or Developer's Agreement. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 35. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 7 36. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CCSR~s which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC~,R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 37. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. 38. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CCSR's. 39. The applicant shall submit a new tentative tract application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22~30 to reflect the new boundary created by Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~. Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ and Change of Zone No. 5535 shall be subject to the terms of the Development Agreement. Prior to recordation, the developer shall submit a plot plan application for the R-~ portion of the project showing the location of each proposed structure on its lot in compliance with the requirements for development in the R-~ zone. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost. ~3. All mitigation measures recommended in EIR No. 230 shall be implemented. Enqineerincl Deloartment The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. STAFFRPT\VTM23143 8 It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: tt6. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District: Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department: Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Park and Recreation Department. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public 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 City Engineer. Northshire Circle, Yew Wood Place, Linda Court, Stage Court, Wakeene Circle, Wyandotte Street, Rudy Court, Janda Court, Paola Court, Faber Court, Topeka Court, Gatehead Court, Majestic Court, Regents Hill, Vandamere Court, Esser Court, Mortroy Circle. Hill Street, Pampa Court, Fiji Way, Suva Lane, Stanko Circle, Meade Circle, Oslo Circle, Jolene Circle, Derant Circle, Drennon Court, Sparks Court, Dupont Circle, Swoboda Court, Aden Circle, Tiempo Circle, John Way, Trestle Circle, Drennon Circle, Hussar Court, Trini Court, San Juan Court, Jolle Court, San Jose Court, Pliance Way, "Y" Street, G G G Circle: Cinnamon Lane, Atchison Drive, Bigh Court, Paraguay Drive, Brsil Lane, Whistle Court, Cherokee Way, Wristle Court, Peppermint Lane, Rainmaker Avenue, Tonga Way, Sam Way, Soko Court, Soko Circle, Corddua Circle, F F Circle, Munich Circle, Peru Lane, and Berlin Way shall be improved with qO feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 10q, Section A ( ~o'/60' ). STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 9 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Swartz Way, Lima Street, Crowne Hill Drive, Castle Way, Trestle Street, and Royal Crest Place shall be improved with ~ feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A (44'/66'). Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a ~' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 (64'/88'). Butterfield Stage Road shall be improved with 43 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane. or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 55' dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No, 100 (86'/110'), In the event that Royal Crest Place, Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and Crowne Hill Drive are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the required improvements. The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and Crowne Hill Drive and so noted on the final map. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. ae Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Sewer and domestic water systems. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. STA FFR PT\ VTM23143 10 60. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 61. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 62. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 63. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements 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." A drainage easement or a letter of "'permission to accept drainage'" shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map. 65. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 66. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 67. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. 68. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 69. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. STAFFR PT\VTM23143 11 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 70. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be approved by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 71. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 72. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than lq days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9~ of the State Standard Specifications. 73. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project., including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with a curb separation of q~' or more. For internal streets with a curb separation of or less, only a signing plan shall be required. 75. Traffic signal plans shall be designed by a registered Civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer for intersections of Butterfield Stage Road at Royal Crest Place and Butterfield Stage Road at Crowne Hill Drive. These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. 76. When the Tract Map is phased, a minimum of 2 poi.nts of all weather vehicular ingress and egress, with a 28' minimum width, shall be required for each phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\VTM231/~3 12 77. Sight distance calculations shall be required for each proposed intersection, and shall conform with the CalTrans sight distance standards. 78. In the event the Rancho Villages Assessment District No. 159 does not fully improve Butterfield State Road from Rancho California Road to SR79 South, Royal Crest Place from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to Butterfield Stage Road, and Pauba Road from Via Del Monte to Butterfield Stage Road, then the Developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for the amount over the developer's pro rata percentage of the design and construction costs of: a) Signing and striping plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield State Road from Rancho California Road to SR79 South, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to Butterfield Stage Road, Royal Crest Place from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, and Pauba Road from Via Del Monte to Butterfield Stage Road. b) Traffic signal plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the ultimate signal locations at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho California Road; Butterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road; 'Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road; Butterfield Stage Road and SR79 South. c) Traffic signal interconnect plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road. d) The raised medians on Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road and shall include 250' of left turn storage capacity with 120' of approach transition for the intersections with Royal Crest Place, Crowne Hill Drive and De Portola Road. e) The striping plan for Pauba Road to include a left turn lane for Crowne Hill Drive. 79. A school zone signing and striping plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the school site within this project. This will be separate from the street improvement plans and will cover any and all streets necessary to provide the appropriate signing and striping. 80. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 81. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 13 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 82. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 83. 85. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan when warranted but not later than issuance of occupancy for the final phase. All school zone signing and striping shall be installed per the approved school zone signing and striping plan prior to occupancy of the school site. All traffic signal interconnects along Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road shall be installed per the approved plan. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 1~ RANPAC £NGIN£I~RING CORPORATION October 18, 1990 Mr. Scott Wright, Senior Planner City of Temecula 43172 Business Center Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Crowne Hill. Project, Revised Tentative Tract No. 23143 and Time Extension Dear Scott: The purpose of this letter is two-fold: first it shall serve to confirm the City's agreement upon a 90-day extension for the processing of the time extension for the above-referenced subdivision, commencing on October 15, 1990, and ending on January 13, 1991; and secondly, a work schedule is set forth below by which we can complete processing of the revised map and time extension within the established time frame. To summarize, City staff was uncomfortable in proceeding with the extension request because the originally approved vesting map does not meet current standards. The revised map at present contains minor design problems which must be addressed before this iteration becomes acceptable to Staff. Consistent with my suggestion, we agreed that we can modify and process the revised map concurrently with the time extension request to give the Planning Commission and City Council the proper comfor~ level that the design to be carried forward is consistent with today's expectations. Processing and action upon both applications (extension and revised map) will be accomplished during the agreed upon 90-day period. Following necessary period: is a schedule of actions which will allow the tasks to be accomplished within the prescribed Mr. Scott Wright October 18, 1990 Page Two O O O Map Revision (by Ranpac) Meeting with TVUSD Preliminary Traffic Review (by John Kain) Revised Map Submitted for City Staff Review Meeting with City Staff October 12 to October 21 October 18 October 21 to October 25 October 31 November 5 (Tentative date) o Submit Final Map Revisions November 13 to Tentative Map (by Ranpac) o Submit Revised Traffic Study November 13 (by John Kain) o Submit Addendum to EIR November 13 (by Ranpac) Development Review Committee Meeting Prepare Staff Reports November 22 (or Special Meeting) November 22 to December 10 o December 3 Planning Commission Legal Notification o Planning Commission Hearing December 17 o City Council Legal Notification December 21 o City Council Hearing January 8 We genuinely appreciate the spirit of cooperation demonstrated by City Staff in assisting us to process this project in a timely manner and to develop a logical course of action which Mr. Scott Wright October 18, 1990 Page Three permits applicable concerns to be addressed. We would appreciate written documentation for our clientts files and ours relative to acceptance of the 90-day extension. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to call us at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, RANPAC ENGINEERING CORPORATION Director of Planning EAE: vhm cc: Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula Tim Setlet, City of Temecula Kirk Williams, City of Temecula Doug Stewart, City of Temecula Richard Pope, Taylor Woodrow Sharon Slocum, Taylor Woodrow John Kain, Kahn-Kain Associates Mayor ~,on Parks Mayor Pro Tern Karel F. Lindemans October 25, 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Tcmecula, California 92390 (714) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 Councilmembers Patricia H. Birdsall Peg Moore J. Sal Mu~oz Mr. Ernest Egger Ranpac Engineering Corporation 27[P47 Enterprise Circle West Temecula, CA 92390 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No. 23143, Crowne Hill Dear Mr. Egger: This is to confirm that the Planning Staff agrees to a 90 day extension for processing the Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 231t~3. As stated in your letter of October 18, 1990, it is our understanding that the extension of time and the map revision for the subject tract will proceed concurrently to the Planning Commission and to the City Council. If you have any questions, please call me at {71~) 69~-6~00. Sincerely, Scott Wright Associate Planner · Gary Thornhill Planning Director SW/CT: ks cc: Taylor Woodrow Homes PLA NN I N C\L0~ ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 230 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report I EIR) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 and Change of Zone No. ~81t~. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ has 66 fewer residential lots than Vesting-Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ will involve approximately ~,092,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, representing an 8% increase in earth movement on the site over the amount of cut and fill resulting from Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3. It is unlikely that the additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential significant impacts regarding drainage, slope stability, and non-renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 1516~ of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or · substantially ~ncreased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential lots and increasing passive and active recreational open space, the revised project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. By revising the street layout to restrict direct access from collector streets, the revised map will reduce the potential for traffic hazards to human beings. STAFFRPT\VTM231a3 VICINITY N.T.S. MAP PROJECI' SITE 'i !~11 ! . ,Jlltl- ~: { ~lj!!J!: l:i: iilijJ hi 'l} J~ i" l'l J 114" , ii ilJ ' STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 17, 1990 Case No.: Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. [~ and Change of Zone No. 5535 Prepared By: Scott Wright Recommendation: 1. Approve a waiver of the requirement of Ordinance ~60, Section 3.8(c) for those lots with depth greater than 2.5 times the lot width; Adopt the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 230; Adopt the Development Agreement; Adopt Resolution 90- approving Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ and Change of Zone No. 5535; APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Taylor Woodrow Homes REPRESENTATIVE: Ranpac Engineering Corporation PROPOSAL: To subdivide a q59 acre site into 1,026 single family residential lots, 68 open space lots including 25.5 acres of parks, a 10.2 acre school site, and a 112 acre remainder parcel in the R-A-2 1/2 and R-A-5 zone; and to change the Zone from R-1 to R-~ on portions of the site encompassing 53~ proposed residential lots, from R-1 to R-5 on ~.3 acres of additional park space, from R-A-5 to R-5 on a 6 acre proposed park site, from R-A-S to R-5 on a proposed q. 2 acre park site, and from R-A-5 and R- A-2 1/2 to R-1 on the portion of the school site formerly in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22~30. LOCATION: South of Pauba Road and east of Butterfield Stage Road. EXISTING ZONING: R-1 {One-Family Dwelling) and R-5 {Open Area Combining Developments ) Zone-Residential STAFFRPT\VTM231~13 1 SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: North: South: East: West: R-A ( ResidentialAgricultural ) R-1 ( One-Family Dwellin9) R-A ( ResidentialAgricultural } Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 DU/AC R-l, R-t~, and R-5 Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant and Single Family Residential Vacant Vacant Vacant No. of Acres: ~59 acres No. of R-1 Lots: L~92 lots No. of R-~ Lots: 53q lots No. of R-5 Lots: 68 lots Acreage of Parks: 25.5 acres Acreage of School Site: 10.2 acres Acreage of Remainder Parcel: 112 acres On August 16, 1988 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. 3, a subdivision with 1,092 single family residential lots and 8 open space lots, and Change of Zone No. ~81t~ from R-A-5, Residential Agricultural with a minimum lot size of 5 acres, to R-l, Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, and R-5, Open Area Combining Zone ~open space and park areas), Certified EI R 230, and adopted Developer's Agreement No. 26. On July 7, 1989, the applicant submitted to the County Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 in conjunction 'with Change of Zone No. 5535. The revised map comprised 1,070 residential lots and 35 open space lots including ~.3 more acres devoted to park' space than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. 3 showed. Change of Zone 5535 requested a change from R-1 to R-~- 6,000, Planned Residential with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for 286 lots, from R-1 to R-q- 5,000 for 2~8 lots, and from R-1 to R-5 for ~.3 acres. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. ~ was reviewed by the County Land Development Committee on August 3, 1989, STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: November 11, 1989, December 28, 1989, and March 1, 1990. The case was continued at the meeting of March 1, 1990 pending clarification of issues regarding the size and stability of slopes. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 and Change of Zone No. 5535 were transmitted to the City on May ~, 1990. On July 12, 1990, the applicant submitted a request for an Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 to the City in order to prevent the expiration of the approval before the application for the map revision and Change of Zone No. 5535 could be processed. Subsequent to preliminary review by the Development Review Committee, the City Transportation Engineer determined that projected volume of traffic on Royal Crest Place warranted a street of collector width and the proposed lots taking access from Royal Crest Place were inappropriate due to possible traffic safety hazards. The Transportation Engineer requested that the map be redesigned to eliminate direct access to any lots from Royal Crest Place and other collector streets. The applicant agreed to redesign the map in order to address the concerns of City Staff. The redesigned map included 10.2 acres for park use and part of a 10.2 acre school site that were formerly part of the applicant's adjacent tract, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22~30, also approved on August 16, 1988. The project is a 1,096 lot subdivision of q59 acres, including 1,026 residential lots, 68 open space lots, a 10.2 acre school site, and a 112 acre remainder parcel. A Change of Zone from R-1 to R-~ is requested for a portion of the site comprising 53q lots, from R-1 to R-S on ~.3 acres, from R-A-5 to R-5 on 6 acres, from R-A-5 to R-S on ~. 2 acres, and from R-A-S and R-A-2 1/2 to R-1 on the portion of the school site formerly in Vesting Tentative Tract No. 22U30. 28~ lots will have a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, and 250 lots will have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The project also includes 25.5 acres of park space, 10.2 acres of which will be dedicated as public parks, and a 10.2 acre school site. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 3 ANALYSIS: Impact of Chanqe of Zone No. 5535 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 included 1,092 residential lots conforming to R-1 standards. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~/Change of Zone No. 5535 comprises 1,026 residential lots, including 286 lots zoned R-a with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and 250 lots zoned R-q with a minimum lot size of S,000 square feet. The revised map contains ~.3 more acres of park space than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. 3, and 66 fewer residential lots. Many of the proposed R-q lots are much larger than the minimum lot size, but contain large unbuildable sloped areas. The proposed R-~ portions of the site abut the R-1 zone to the south and Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 dwelling units per acre west of the site. Some of the smaller R-q lots are separated from Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 DU/AC west of the site by a landscape slope 20-30 feet deep along Butterfield Stage Road. The R-1 lots on the south side of the site are equal or greater in size than the R-1 lots south of the site. The R-1 lots on the northerly portion of the site are separated from the R-A-5 acre lots north of the site by open space areas 150 to 300 feet deep. Bioloclical Impacts The project site consists of sage scrub brush and grassland. The site has been previously degraded by cattle grazing, and the extent of native plant and animal habitation is consequently minimal. The site has been identified by the County General Plan as potential habitat for three sensitive species, the San Diego Horned Lizard, the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, and the San Diego Ceanothus. A biological survey of the site in May, 1986, by Tierra Madre Consultants found no indication of the presence of these species. The biologists concluded that their presence was unlikely due to the previous disturbance of the site and that no mitigation measures were necessary. Payment of Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees will be required as a Condition of Approval. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 ~ Drainaqe Smaller drainage channels will be eliminated as a result of the project, but natural drainage patterns will generally be retained. The Conditions of Approval provided by the City Engineering Department require all lots to drain toward the adjacent street or to appropriate outlets, submittal of a hydrology study, installation of all drainage facilities as required by the City Engineer, and payment of area drainage plan fees prior to recordation of any maps. Conditions of Approval from the County Flood Control District require storm runoff to be returned to existing off-site flow conditions, provision of an easement or letter of permission to accept drainage if runoff to adjacent properties is diverted or concentrated, and coordination of the project with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed and runoff is not diverted from one watershed to another. All slopes with a vertical height of 25 feet or more will have terrace drains every 25 feet of vertical height as shown on the map. ' Gradinq Grading of the site will involve approximately [[,092,680 cubic yards of cut and fill. There will be no significant import or export of soil. The tentative map indicates some slopes in excess of 30 feet in height, most of which reflect the natural topography. Engineering Department Conditions of Approval require the submittal of a soils report addressing soils stability. Fossil and Archaeoloclical Resources A records check and a field survey revealed no indication of archaeological resources on the site. Fossil resources are known to be common to the area. A qualified paleontologist shall be required to monitor the grading of the site and supervise the recovery, cataloguing, and curation of any fossil remains uncovered during grading. Site Access and Interior Traffic Circulation Assessment District 159 will provide for the STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 5 improvement of Pauba Road on the north side of the site and Butterfield Stage Road on the west side of the site. Adequate site access is provided at seven points by collector streets with 66 feet of dedicated right-of-way. One point of access is on the north side of the site, two on the south, two on the east, and two on the west. Except for the two access points on the south side of the site, all collector streets have restricted access, and lots take access from local streets rather than collector streets. A total of nine lots take access from the two collector streets providing site access from the south. The addendum to the traffic study for the subject tract states that the through traffic generated by the tract south of the site will be negligible, and that the majority of the traffic generated by the neighboring tract will utilize the main access points on the south of said tract along De Portola Road. Most traffic from the subject tract will utilize Crowne Hill Drive and Butterfield Stage Road to leave the site rather than using the two collectors on the south side of the site. Therefore, the nine lots taking access from collector streets are unlikely to result in unusual traffic hazards. The City Transportation Engineer has commented that each of the on-site roadways can adequately accommodate the projected traffic volumes with the proposed lane geometrics. Traffic Generation The project will generate approximately 10,~480 trip ends per day. The traffic impacts are consistent with the traffic impacts of the previously approved version of the subdivision as delineated in the traffic study. The City Transportation Engineer reviewed the addendum to the original traffic study and commented that no highway improvements or special off-site .street improvements not already planned in conjunction with Assessment District 159 are required to accommodate the proposed project except for left turn lanes on Pauba Road at Crowne Hill Drive and on Butterfield Stage Road at Royal Crest Place and Crowne Hill Drive. The City Transportation Engineer accepts the findings and mitigation measures as presented in the revised traffic analysis. STAFFR PT\VTM231/43 6 Water and Sewer Availability The Rancho California Water District has issued a letter stating that water service will be available to the subject property upon completion of financial arrangements between the District and the property owner, The property shall be connected to the sewers of the Eastern Municipal Water District in a manner consistent with the District's sewer expansion plans and subject to the requirements of the District, Public Service Impact Mitiqations Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer is required to pay a fee of '$~00.00 per lot/unit to the County Fire Department as mitigation for fire protection impacts. A fee of $100.00 per lot must be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits as mitigation for the increased demand for public library services. The project has set aside a 10.2 acre site for use as a school. The Temecula Valley Unified School District has indicated that the site is acceptable. Park Space Parkland credit not to exceed 5.2 acres will be given toward the 15.5 acres of private recreation areas within the project. The 11 acre private park shall have recreation areas open and accessible to the public. A 6 acre park and a q.2 acre park will be dedicated for public use. In addition to Quimby ACt requirements, $~, 711,380 in development agreement fees shall be paid before issuance of building permits. The project includes a 3 acre private park and two passive open space areas encompassing 0.9 acre and 0.q acre respectively. If the project is phased, the development of the parks shall be tied to the development of the phases as provided in the Conditions of Approval of the Temecula Community Services District. STAFFRPT\VTM231~13 7 R-~ Zone Requirements Development in the R-~ zone requires recordation of a subdivision map and approval of a development plan. The development plan is required to show the location of each proposed structure on its parcel, the location of recreation and open areas, the location and height of walls, fences, and landscaping and plans and elevations of typical structures. The map shows the location of all recreation and open space areas on the site. The architectural/landscape design guidelines show community theme walls, wrought iron/rock pilaster fences, rock walls, typical interior lot wood fencing, landscape slope treatment, and typical floor plans and architectural renderings. The developer shall submit a plot plan application prior to recordation showing the location of each structure on its parcel. Lot Size and Dimensions The minimum lot size and dimensions are 7,200 square feet, 60 feet in width, and 100 feet of depth in the R-1 zone and 3,600 square feet, q0 feet in width, and 80 feet in depth in the R-~ zone. All proposed lots conform to the minimum area and dimension requirements of their respective zones. The R-~ lots will conform to or exceed minimum lot areas of 6,000 square feet or 5,000 square feet. Many of the proposed R-~ lots are substantially larger than these minimum lot areas due to large sloped areas at the rear of the parcels. The usable building pad areas are of adequate size. A total of 105 lots do not comply with Ordinance ~60, Section 3.8(c) which stipulates that lots of less than 18,000 square feet shall not have a depth greater than 2 1/2 times the width {See Attachment ~). A significant portibn of the depth of said lots is unbuildable slopes. The actual building pad of the lots complies with Section 3.8{c). Therefore a waiver of the required depth to width ratio is requested for these lots. Boundary Chanqe Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231t~3 Amended No. t~ includes a ~.2 acre park site, a 6.0 acre park site, and part of a 10.2 acre school site STAFFRPT\VTM231~43 8 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: located in areas which were formerly included in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22~30 which was approved in conjunction with Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 in 1988. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ thereby changes the original boundary between VTTM 231t~3 Amended No. 3 and VTTM 22~30. Therefore it will not be possible to approve Revised VTTM 231~3 Amended No. ~ and approve an extension of time for VTTM 22~30. It shall be a Condition of Approval that the applicant shall submit a new tentative subdivision application for the remainder parcel of Revised VTTM 231[t3 Amended No. ~ reflecting the revised boundary with the remainder parcel. The proposed density of 3.1 residential units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan designation of 2-~ units per acre. The Southwest Area Plan lists the R-1, R-it, and R-5 zones among the zones consistent with the land use designation of 2-~ dwelling units per acre. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report {EIR) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 and Change of Zone No. ~81~. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ has 66 fewer residential lots than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 and, therefore will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3 involved approximately 3,800,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. q will involve approximately ~, 092,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. The 8% increase in earth movement on the site is unlikely to result in any increase in significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval will mitigate any potential significant impacts regarding drainage, slope stability, or non-renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 9 FINDINGS: Pursuant to CEQA Section 15164, an addendum to EIR No. 230 has been prepared (See Attachment 3) providing minor changes to make EI R No. 230 applicable to the revised map and to document that the map revision will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. Revised Vestincl Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-4 units per acre. e The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed R-4 portions of the project, which includes the smaller lots, abuts the R-1 zone south of the site and Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 dwelling units per acre west of the site. The lots abutting the R-A zone north of the site are substantially larger than the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone (11,000 square feet or more) and a large open space area provides a buffer 150-300 feet deep along the north side of the site. Future development of the remainder portion on the east side of the site will conform to R-A-2 1/2 acre and R-A-5 acre zoning to ensure compatibility with the R-A zone to the east. The lot design and internal street layout are acceptable to the City Planning and Engineering Departments. All lots conform to the standards of their respective zones, and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. STAFFRPT\VTM231/~3 10 10. 11. Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road, and seven (7) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ and Change of Zone No. 5535 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. The project meets the requirements of Ordinance 3#41 and q60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The proposed project includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 15.3 acres of private parks which will include some facilities open to the public STAFFRPT\VTM2311~3 11 12. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. 13. These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Chanqe of Zone No. 5535 The proposed R-l, R-~, and R-5 zoning is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation of 2-~ dwelling units per acre. All proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot width, depth, and area requirements in the appropriate zone. All proposed lots have adequate building pad area and will be able to accommodate structures and meet setback requirements. The proposed R-~ portions of the project are compatible with the adjacent R-1 zone Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 dwelling units per acre, and SWAP density of 2-~ dwelling units per acre. The proposed zone change will not result in any significant impacts to the environment in that the revised. map will have 66 fewer residential lots than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3. The proposed zone change is reasonable and beneficial in that the proposed R-~ lots will have an aYeracje lot size substantially greater than the minimum lot size and will be compatible with the adjacent R-1 lots. e There is reasonable probability that the proposed zone change will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\VTM231a3 12 There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposal is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: SW: ks Attachments: 2. 3. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: APPROVAL of a waiver of the requirement of Ordinance 460, Section 3.8{c) for those lots with a depth greater than 2.5 times the lot width; ADOPTION of the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 230; and, ADOPTION of the Developer's Agreement; and ADOPT Resolution 90- recommending approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 and Change of Zone No. 5535 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Resolution Conditions of Approval Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 230 List Of Lots For Which Waiver From Ordinance 460, Section 3.8~c) Is Requested Exhibits: Vicinity Map Zoning Map Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map Change of Zone Map Fee Checklist STAFFRPT\VTM231113 13 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23143 AMENDED NO. 4 AND CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5535 TO SUBDIVIDE A 459 ACRE PARCEL INTO 1,026 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 68 OPEN SPACE LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD AND EAST OF BUTTERFI ELD STAGE ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-760-001 THROUGH 005, AND 926-770-001 THROUGH OO3. WHEREAS, Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. filed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 and Change of Zone No. 5535 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Change of Zone on December 17, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. STAFFRPT\VTM23143 1 (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. lb) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Change of Zone are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: ia) There is reasonable probability that Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 and Change of Zone No. 5535 will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFF R PT\VTM23143 2 (b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. L[60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site of the proposed land division. is physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. g! That the design of the proposed land division or 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 land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 3 easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. {2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. ~ a} The proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation. The proposed density of 3.1 units per acre is within the range of the SWAP designation of 2-q units per acre. b) The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved projects. The proposed R-~ portions of the project, which includes the smaller lots, abuts the R-1 zone south of the site and Specific Plan No. 219, 2-5 dwelling units per acre west of the site. The lots abutting the R-A zone north of the site are substantially larger than the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size in the R-1 zone (11,000 square feet or more) and a large open space area provides a buffer 150-300 feet deep along the north side of the site. Future development of the remainder portion on the east side of the site will conform to R-A-2 1/2 acre and R-A-5 acre zoning to ensure compatibility with the R-A zone to the east. c) The lot design and internal street layout are acceptable to the City Planning and Engineering Departments. All lots conform to the standards of their respective zones, and proposed street alignments are adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. d) Adequate public street access will be provided to every lot. The legal owner of record has offered to make all required dedications. STAFFRPT\VTM231~43 ~ e) f) g) h) k) Staff finds that site access will be adequate. Assessment District 159 will provide for street improvements on Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road, and seven {7) access points to the site are shown on the map. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, in that the proposed density is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation, and the revised map is compatible with surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the vicinity, and approved subdivisions. It is unlikely that the proposed revised tentative map will constitute a substantial detriment to the future General Plan if the proposed subdivision is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and approved subdivisions are all residential. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. q and Change of Zone No. 5535 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. The proposed project makes adequate provision for future passive or natural solar heating opportunities in that all proposed parcels have adequate southern exposure. The prbject meets the requirements of Ordinance 3~8 and ~60 in that all lots conform to the minimum size and dimension requirements of the zoning code and abut upon dedicated street. The proposed project includes adequate dedication for public parks in that it provides for 10.2 acres of public parks and 15.3 acres of private parks which will include some facilities open to the public STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 5 I) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. m) These findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. { 3) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Change of Zone makes the following findings, to wit: Chanqe of Zone No. 5535 a) The proposed R-l, R-4, and R-5 zoning is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan land use designation of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. b) All proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot width, depth, and area requirements in the appropriate zone. c) All proposed lots have adequate building pad area and will be able to accommodate structures and meet setback requirements. d) The proposed R-4 portions of the project are compatible with the adjacent R-1 zone Specific Plan-No. 219, 2-5 dwelling units per acre, and SWAP density of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. e) The proposed zone change will not result in any significant impacts to the environment in that the revised map will have 66 fewer residential lots than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143. f) The proposed zone change is reasonable and beneficial in that the proposed R-4 lots will have an average lot size substantially greater than the minimum lot size and will be compatible with the adjacent R-1 lots. STA FFR PT\ VTM23143 6 g) There is reasonable probability that the proposed zone change will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. h) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposal is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Change of Zone are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified El R No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231t~3 Amended No. ~ and Change of Zone No. 5535 will not result in any new or substantially increased environmental impacts. An addendum to EIR No. 230 is hereby adopted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of 'Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231tt3 Amended No. L~ and Change of Zone No. 5535 for the subdivision of a 332 acre parcel into 1,026 single family residential lots and 68 open space lots located south of Pauba Road and east of Butterfield State Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 926-760-001 through 005 and 926-770-001 through 003 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 199 . DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 7 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 ~ day of , 199 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231L[3 Amended No. t~ and Change of Zone No. 5535. DATED: By · Name Title STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. q Project Description: 1,026 Lot Sinqle Family Subdivision with 68 Open Space Lots Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-760-001 thru 005 926-770-001throuqh003 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~60, Schedule A, 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. This conditionally approved revised tentative map will expire on August 16, 1991, unless extended as provided by Ordinance t~60. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a City maintained road. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, 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 and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. J A maintenance district or homeowners~ association shall be established for maintenance of Open Space Lots 1027-1082, 1087-1090, and 1095. The developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the district or the homeowners' association. STAFFRPT\VTM231a3 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. A Homeowners Association shall be established for maintenance of Lots 1083- 1086. Open Space/Common Area and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association. A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall: Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of one'half the slope height. b. Be contour-graded to blend with existing natural contours. Ce Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots or as approved by the City Engineer. All slopes over three {3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City Development Code. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval outlined in the Temecula Community Service Districtms transmittal dated November 21, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Service Area 1~3 letter dated September 21, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 11, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control Districtms letter dated February 22, 1988, a copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.2S of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance ~60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire intprovement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated August 22, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated August 9, 1989, a copy of which is attached. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. STAFFRPT\VTM231/43 2 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated January 27, 1988, a copy of which is attached. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1 and R-Lt zones. be Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. ae The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "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 Outdoor Lighting-Policy. EIR No. 230 was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ll) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: ae Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity. STAFFRPT\VTM231tt3 3 de ee ge ho ke All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berling, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked, If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. 0 Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour- graded incorporating the following grading techniques: STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 [1 25. 26. The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars {$100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plal~s to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to mS Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. STA FFR PT\VTM231 ~43 5 27. 28. 29. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. ee All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant I Class A ) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. 9. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the' acoustical study where applicable. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the Community Services District which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. q60. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. STA FFR PT\VTM231 ~3 6 30. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officer, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officer, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Parcel Map No. 24633, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66~99.37. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim. action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action. or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense. the subdivider shall not. thereafter, be responsible to defend. indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. 31. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire any required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66~62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. 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. 32. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provided. Telephone, cable TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. 33. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer or his assignee must conform to the park district Quimby Ordinance, unless waived to time of issuance of a building permit or Developer's Agreement. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements: 35. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCSR's) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC~,R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roeds, and exterior of all buildings. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 7 36. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CCF, R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 37. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either { 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or {2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association, owning the common areas and facilities. 38. 39. Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided for in the CCSR's. The applicant shall submit a new tentative tract application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 22q30 to reflect the new boundary created by Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q3 Amended No. ~. Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231~3 Amended No. q and Change of Zone No. 5535 shall be subject to the terms of the Development Agreement. ql. Prior to recordation, the developer shall submit a plot plan application for the R-q portion of the project showing the location of each proposed structure on its lot in compliance with the requirements for development in the R-~ zone. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost. q3. All mitigation measures recommended in EIR No. 230 shall be implemented. Enqineerinq Del~artment The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 8 It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. ~60. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: q6. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Park and Recreation Department. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public 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 City Engineer. Northshire Circle, Yew Wood Place, Linda Court, Stage Court, Wakeene Circle, Wyandotte Street, Rudy Court, Janda Court, Paola Court, Faber Court, Topeka Court. Gatehead Court, Majestic Court. Regents Hill, Vandamere Court, Esser Court, Monroy Circle, Hill Street, Pampa Court, Fiji Way, Suva Lane, Stanko Circle, Meade Circle, Oslo Circle, Jolene Circle, Derant Circle, Drennon Court, Sparks Court, Dupont Circle. Swoboda Court, Aden Circle, Tiempo Circle, John Way, Trestle Circle, Drennon Circle, Hussar Court, Trini Court, San Juan Court, Jolle Court, San Jose Court, Pliance Way, "Y" Street, G G G Circle; Cinnamon Lane, Atchison Drive, Bigh Court, Paraguay Drive. Brsil Lane, Whistle Court, Cherokee Way, Wristle Court, Peppermint Lane, Rainmaker Avenue, Tonga Way, Sam Way, Soko Court, Soko Circle, Corddua Circle, F F Circle, Munich Circle. Peru Lane, and Berlin Way shall be improved with ~0 feet. of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 10~, Section A (~0'/60'). STA FFR PT\VTM231 !~3 9 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Swartz Way, Lima Street, Crowne Hill Drive, Castle Way, Trestle Street, and Royal Crest Place shall be improved with ~Pt feet of asphalt concrete pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A ( q~' / 66' ). Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 102 { 6~'/88' ). Butterfield Stage Road shall be improved with 43 feet of half street improvement plus one 12' lane, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within a 55~ dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 (86'/110'). In the event that Royal Crest Place, Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and Crowne Hill Drive are not constructed by Assessment District 159 prior to final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the required improvements. The improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Pauba Road, Butterfield Stage Road. and Crowne Hill Drive and so noted on the final map. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Sewer and domestic water systems. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. t~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 10 60. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2¥I x 35" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 61. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 62. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 63. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements 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." A drainage easement or a letter of "permission to accept drainage" shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the recordation of the final map. 65. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 66. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 67. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. 68. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside o( the City-maintained road right-of- way. 69. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. STAFFRPT\VTM231a3 11 PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 70. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be approved by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 71. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter,. A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 72. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~ days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9~ of the State Standard Specifications. 73. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for all internal streets with a curb separation of ~J~' or more. For internal streets with a curb separation of or less, only a signing plan shall be required. 75. Traffic signal plans shall be designed by a registered Civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer for intersections of Butterfield Stage Road at Royal Crest Place and Butterfield Stage Road at Crowne Hill Drive. These plans shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal. 76. When the Tract Map is phased, a minimum of 2 points of all weather vehicular ingress and egress, with a 28' minimum width, shall be required for each phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\VTM2311~3 12 77. Sight distance calculations shall be required for each proposed intersection, and shall conform with the CalTrans sight distance standards. 78. In the event the Rancho Villages Assessment District No. 159 does not fully improve Butterfield State Road from Rancho California Road to SR79 South, Royal Crest Place from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to Butterfield Stage Road, and Pauba Road from Via Del Monte to Butterfield Stage Road, then the Developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for the amount over the developer's pro rata percentage of the design and construction costs of: a) Signing and striping plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield State Road from Rancho California Road to SR79 South, Crowne Hill Drive from Pauba Road to Butterfield Stage Road, Royal Crest Place from Butterfield Stage Road to Crowne Hill Drive, and Pauba Road from Via Del Monte to Butterfield Stage Road. b) Traffic signal plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the ultimate signal locations at Butterfield Stage Road and Rancho California Road; Butterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road; Butterfield Stage Road and De Portola Road; Butterfield Stage Road and SR79 South. ~c) Traffic signal interconnect plans prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road. d) The raised medians on Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road and shall include 250~ of left turn storage capacity with 120~ of approach transition for the intersections with Royal Crest Place, Crowne Hill Drive and De Portola Road. e) The striping plan for Pauba Road to include a left turn lane for Crowne Hill Drive. 79. A school zone signing and striping plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for the school site within this project. This will be separate from the street improvement plans and will cover any and all streets necessary to provide the appropriate signing and striping. 80. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 81. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer. STAFFRPT\VTM23143 13 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 82. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. 83. 85. All traffic signals shall be installed and operational per the special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan when warranted but not later than issuance of occupancy for the final phase. All school zone signing and striping shall be installed per the approved school zone signing and striping plan prior to occupancy of the school site. All traffic signal interconnects along Butterfield Stage Road from Pauba Road to De Portola Road shall be installed per the approved plan. STAFFRPT\VTM231a3 1~ sff/AGR3.7333 RECEIVED JUL 2 $ 1990 Recording requested by, and When recorded mail to: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITY FEE This Agreement is made this day of by and between the City of Temecula ("City") and ("Developer"). ~CITA~S A. Developer is the owner of real property (the "Property") in the City of Temecula described as follows: to traffic and the demand for Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference B. Developer proposes to develop the Property pursuant (the 'Project"). IT~TiTIve Up ~ plOT plln IMTIflClTI~J C. City has determined that the Project will impact other public facilities within the Recording of this Agreement is fee exert pursuint to Goremight ~ SIcti~ 6103 is it is reco~G~d for tile benefit of the City of Teaccull, s public Igeficy. -1- sff/AGR17333 City as identified in the for ~k I~Nega~ ~ ve the Project. These impacts must be mitigated by payment of a fee for additional road and public facility construction, which fee shall be identified as set forth hereinafter. D. The City proposes to impose traffic and public facility fees upon new developments within the City in order to construct additional transportation and public facility improvements to serve and benefit new developments, including .the Project. These fees shall be known as the "Temecula City-wide Public Facility Fee Program" or "Public Facility Fee." E. Condition No. of the Project requires that Developer execute this Agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. F. In order for Developer to obtain building permits without payment of the Public Facility Fee, and so that development of Project may proceed in a timely manner, City and Developer have determined to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 66007. G. The term 'public facility" shall refer to municipal facilities such as city hall, police stations, community centers, theaters, parks and similar public infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Public Facility Fee: (a) The City Council will establish the amount of the Public Facility Fee at some time in the future. The Fee will -2- sff/AGRl?333 be based upon the square footage of each development, the vehicle trips generated by each development, or similar measure(s). The Public Facility Fee also shall establish the specific improve- ments to be constructed and their cost, the benefit assessment area and the method by which the fair share, pro-rata obligations of each property are to be established based on impact on traffic and demand for public facilities. (b) Developer shall pay the Public Facility Fee on each building at such time it receives its certificate of occupancy or final inspection, which ever occurs first. (c) The Council also may establish an Interim Public Facility Fee to be followed by a Final Public Facility Fee. If only the Interim Public Facility Fee has been established at the time the Developer seeks issuance of its certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first, then Developer shall pay the Interim Fee prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs first. Later, ehen the Final Public Facility Fee is established, the Developer will be reimbursed for any difference between the Interim and Final Fee if the Interim Fee exceeds the Final Fee, and shall pay the shortfall if the Final Fee exceeds the Interim Fee. (d) If the certificate of occupancy or final inspection occurs prior to the establishment of the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee, then Developer shall pay a deposit of sff/AGR17333 $10,000 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, which amount shall be a credit against the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee. (e) If either the Final or Interim Public Facility Fee is established after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, the Developer shall pay the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee ten (10) days after receiving notice from the City that it has been established. (f) Notwithstanding the above, Developer shall provide City with written notification of the opening of any escrow for the sale of the Project and shall provide in the escrow instructions that if the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee has been established, 'the Fee shall be paid to the City from the sale proceeds in escrow prior to distributing the proceeds to Developer/seller. (g) City shall record a release of this Agreement upon payment-of all Public Facility Fees owing and shall provide Developer with a copy of such release. 2. Use of Public Facility Fee: ' The Public Facility Fee collected pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only to construct City-wide traffic and public facility improvements, which improvements are deemed to be of benefit to Project, and for expenses incidental thereto. There is a reasonable relationship between the Project and the Public Facility Fee in that the Project will impact traffic and -4- sff/AGR17333 existing public facilities, and consequently, will require expansion of the City-wide street and highway system, and public facilities in order to meet the added demand resulting from the Project. The amount of the Public Facility Fee to be collected from Project represents the cost of facilities necessary to meet the incremental increase in traffic and demand for public facilities resulting from the Project. 3. Information Provided: Developer shall provide to City, upon City's request therefor, any and all information regarding access to the Project, traffic flow, trip.generation factors and such other information as is reasonably necessary to establish the Public Facility Fee. 4. Security for Public Facility Fee: (a) Concurrent with the .execution of this Agreement, Developer shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, in an amount equal to the total Public Facility Fee for the Project. The amount of security may be increased upon City's request should there be an increase in the amount of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of security also may be reduced upon Developer's payment of Public Facility Fees outstanding. -5- No letter of credit is required if neither the Interim or Final Public Facility Fee has been established as of the date of execution of this Agreement. (b) As an alternative to collecting the fee from the letter of credit, if the Developer fails to pay the Public Facility Fee within thirty (30) days of the date demand is made, the City may assess a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount owing and make said Fee, inclusive of penalty, a lien upon the described real property by recording a notice that said Fee is due under the terms of this Agreement with the County Recorder of Riverside County. The notice shall state the fact that said Fee, inclusive of penalty, is due under the terms of this Agreement and shall state the amount, together with the fact that it is unpaid and draws interest on the Fee and penalty at the rate set forth at CalifOrnia Revenue & Taxation Section 19269 until paid. (c) The City may as an alternative to the lien procedure set forth above, bring legal action to collect the Public Facility Pee due. The Developer agrees that if legal action by the City is necessary to collect the Fee the De%eloper agrees to pay the City a reasonable ~um as attorney's fees and court costs, together with penalty and interest determined according to Paragraph 4(b) of this Agreement. -6- sff/AGR17333 5. Agreement Runs With Land: This Agreement pertains to and runs with the Property. This Agreement binds the successors in interest of each of the parties. Waiver: By execution of this Agreement, Developer waives any right to protest the provisions of Condition No. of the Project, this Agreement, the formation of any Public Facility fee district, or the process, levy, confirmation, collection, or reasonableness of any Public Facility fee for this Project. 7. Binding Agreement: This Agreement shall be binding upon Developer, Developer's successors and assigns. 8. Amendment/No Continuing Waiver: This Agreement may be modified or amended only in writing, signed by both parties. This Agreement contains the full and complete understanding of the parties and supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements or representations. A waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement by either party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver thereof. 9. Attorneys' Fees: Should either party determine that it is necessary to file a legal action to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in that litigation shall be -7- sff/AGR17333 entitled to its reasonable costs, including but not limited to attorneys' fees. 10. Notice: Notice shall be deemed given under this Agreement when in writing and deposited in the United States mail, first- class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: City: Developer: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Attn: City Clerk 11. Miscellaneous Provisions (a) If any provision of this Agreement is adjudged invalid, the remaining provisions shall not be affected. (b) If there is more than one (1) signer of this Agreement as Developer, their obligations are joint and several. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties or. their duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date set out above. CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPER By: By: David S. Dixon City Manager APPROVEDAS TO FORM: By: By: Scott F. Field City Attorney -8- sff/AGR17333 Form of Condition: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improve- ments and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. In imposing this condition, the City finds as follows: 1. The fee collected will be used for City-wide road and public facility improvements. 2. The road and public facility improvements (~r portions thereof) to be financed will serve the project by providing access, reducing congestion, and providing adequate public facilities, such as, but not limited to., City Hall, police station, fire station, community center and parks. 3. There is a need for such road and public facility improvements for the project as the project will generate traffic --i-- sff/AGR17333 onto the roads to be improved and demand for additional public facilities. 4. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the road and public facility improvements in that the amount of the fee is no more than the amount of benefit to be received by each unit from access to and use of the road and public facility improvements. -ii- RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GI.EN J. NEWMAN FIRE .CHIEF PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342.8886 August 22, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: TRACT 23143 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2½") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall' conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. · MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riversid~ County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. RE: TR 23143 Page 2 All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist r~nac MOV ~1 '90 10:31~I CITY OF TEM5CULA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONDITIONS OF APPRO VAZ Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143, Revised o L~esed on 1,054 units, tt~e Quimby requirement of 5 acres/1000 population is 13.7 developed, active recreation acres, Credit given for al; private recreation areas shall not exceed 5,2 acres. Therefore, tMe Total Quimby requirement shall be 8.5 acres. The 11 acre private park developed in Phase ! shall have recreation areas open a~.d accessible to the public. The. 6 acre I:ublic, active recreation park shall be tied into the assessment ir~proven~ents and must Oe constructed during Phase II of the development, CertificaTes ot occupancy for Phase II may not be given until this park is completed and dedicated to the TCSD. The 4 acre I~ark shall be fled into Phase III and developed with the con- struct~on of the school site. The flood channel adjacent to the park site shall be mitigated ancl fenced for user pro'[action. The to:al development agreement fees required for 1,054 units is $4,711,380. Development agreement fees shall be paid before issuance of buiiding r~ermits. Credit shall be given to the developer for amenities installed in the parks not covered by the Quimby' requirement. The amount of credit shall be determined by the TCSD. ?~' FOR 9~ I~c. UEI~v'ED ¢" ,:,cP 2 5 19,90 Riverside County Service Area 143 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road. Suite ~05 - Temecula, CA 92390 [7'~4) 69g-0235 Fax: [7'M] 699-4.39C] PATE: TO: FROM: September' 21, 1990 Scott Wright - Planning Department Cit~f~ Iemecula ~) ~ Jea,.lLne R. Overson - CSA 143 Director ~~-'~"- ~--- '~'-~g~'~- tract 23 143 Comments: Please contact CSA 143 office if annexed or intend to annex fou ICSD services. Upon completion of the following items the ICSD will consem~entiv take over maintenance from tim developer of lettered or numbered lots Only (not an easeme,at) for the above tt'act: l. CSA 143 Landscaping Standards Requirements. 2. Process for Dedication. 3. Review and approval of all legal documents by Riverside County Counsel, Building Services, (or appropriate City personnel) and Iemecula Community Service District Board. NOV ~6 '90 L~:dg ~Iv[~SiD~ CO. FLOOD DIStrICt ~.~,~ '?.>:~:-'.:ive Trmo~. 2314~ i~ u propoaal ~o =,~bJivLde approxi:=a%~.ly '.lurrZ,~t-a Cr~elc/Te'.~eouia ValLey Ar.~a Drainage Plat, for whlca ~raina:je fees have been a~op:-~d ~y ~he Boar3. Ar~.~ Drair,~,~e Pinna", am,am,Je.j July 3, 19'{4: as ~arS of :he fll~n~ far r-?cord o~ tho ~ubdivisios: ,~,t the option of :h~ land divider, apon £ilinc n re- quired affidavit reques:inC 4~forment of the ~ayme~t of f~.~, :.~e dr:~tnale f~es s~al! be pai.J :o the c~!, whio'-~av~r ~lay b~ first Ob~,~ine:J after %he recordir~..l of the ~,-'-.'~ -2- aa a >.rtot' ~h~- filln~ £ar rD~or,~ of th.~ :'~n~ .:,:,p or parc~ msS, or ~e~ore ree~iving a ualvep sinc..~ ~sy ~6, 19~1: obc~lne4. (b) ~rz.~Inl 3r s~ru~ure3 have been conJi~ion: offslt~. If S~or~l runoff t;le affected proparty owner. I copy Of ~ral~a:le ~s~.le~t S~l'3,Jld ~e ~Jb:~i~Led ~o the Di~ri,~t should b~ :artcrete lined. ~er.~o~rs~ remain un~b~Cruo~ad and 3tor~wsC~r~ are not diverted rroa o~e w~ter~hed to another. Th&S may req,JLr~ tl~e construct/on of temporaey dr.aina&e facttitles or of fSlic eo,~st?uct/on ~n~ &tad in&. shown on the final map. A noG~ maou/d be aOde.J to c4e final map sCa~;tn&, "Drainage easa~ents shall be kep: free of buiLdin~s and obstructions". dedicatod dratna&e easements obtained from property owner(s). T~e recordation of th~ ~tnal -3- 10. 11. .~iP aionZ ~i~h supp~rtim~ hydroloqi~ an~ ~ydrauli~ cal- gr~Cin~ p~r,ai~s. A re~i~tsre,] e~ineer ,",~uSL Si~:'~, O.~l this of~ic~ at Very truly yours, Chief cc: .ganohO Pacific En~lne:rins 3en lot Civil ~_¢m~s~ 0c~- ~ ~ounty of Riverside 70: CITY OF TEMECULA DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 ATTN: SCOTT WRIGHT RE: CHANGE OF ZONE 5535 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed this Change of Zone 5535 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. GEN, FOR.X! 4. IRe~. RECEIVED SEP 2 ! COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE /DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH L~eptember 11. 1990 .3[TY 0E TEMECULA 431.50 Bus~ness Park Drive. Suite 200 Temecuia. CA 92:390 AT/N: Scott Wrzaht RE: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23143: RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 121. PAGES 50-57. BOOK 127, PAGES 7-14, AND BOOK 127 PAGES 15-21 RESPECTIVELY ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. (1092 LOTS) Dear Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Vestino Tentative Tract MaD No. 23143. and recommend that: A water svstem shall be installed accordina to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent ~rlnts of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch eGuals 200 feet. alono with the or~alnal drawing to the County Surveyor. The Prints shall show the internal Pipe diameter. location of valves and f~re hydrants: pipe and .!olnt specifications. and the size of the main at the 3unction of the new system to the existino svstem. The plans shall comPlV in all respects with Dlv. 5. Part 1. Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safetv Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, 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 enqlneer and water company with the followlna certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23143, i$ in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water D~strlct and that the water service, storage and dlstrlbutlon system will be adequate to provide water service to such Tract. City of Temecula Paae Two ATTN: Scott Wriaht September 11. 1990 Thl~ certification does not constitute a auarantee that ~t will supply water to such Tract mad at any ~DeclflC quantities, flows or pressures for f~re protection or any other purpose". Th~s certification shall be szoned by a responsible offzclal of the water Th~ subdivision ha~ a statement from Rancho California Water D~str~ct aaree~n~ to serve domestic water to each and every lot ~n the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the ~ubdzv~der. It will be necessary for f~nanclal a~ranGements to be made prior to the recordation of the f~nal maD. Th~s subdivision ~$ w~thln the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the D~strlct. The sewer svstem shall be ~nstalled accord~n~ to plans and specifications as approved bv the Dl~trlct. the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted ~n triplicate. along with the orl~lnal drawlno. to the County survevor, The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location of manholes. complete profiles. p~pe and .joint specifications and the s~ze of the sewers at the .]unct~on of the new system to the exlst~n~ system. A s~n~le plat ~ndlcatlna location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portlon of the sewaae plans and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a reqlstered engineer and the sewer d~strlct wlth the followlnq certlflcatlon: "I certify that the deslgn of the sewer svstem in Tract Map No. 23143 ~$ ~n accordance with the sewer system exmanslon plans of the Eastern Municipal Water Dlstrict and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed parcel maD. City of Temecula Paae 3 ATTN: Scott Wright September 11. 1990 It wzll be necessary for financial arranaement~ to be comDletelv finalized Drlor to recordatlon of the final maD. ~zncerelv Sam Marti%n'ez. En-X;'I~onmental Health Speczal~$t IV SM:dr Board of Directors: James A. Darby President Jeffrey L. Minkler St. Vice President Ralph Daily Doug Kulberg Jon A. Lundin T. C. Rowe Richard D. Steffey Officers: John F. Hennigar General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance- Treasurer Thomas R. McAliester Director of Operanons & Maintenance Edward P. Lemons Director of Engineering Linda M. Fregomo District Secretary McCormick & Kidman Legal Counsel August 9, 1989 if Riverside County Planning Departm~n~'~;% 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor "' Riverside, California 92501-3657 ".-. '~ Subject: Water Availability Reference: Revised Vesting Tract 23143 Change of Zone 5535 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Sites for additional water production facilities may be required within the proposed development depending upon the level of increased demand created by the proposal. If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon Civil Engineer F011/jkw259f R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C T 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0615 tZO/l/eg · ?anuary 27, 1988 Riverside C:oun'~y Planning Oepa~uent 4080 Lemon Street. ~h Floor Rtve~stde, C:ll?¢orn~a gZS01 CZm~ ¢ G,11m &mm D. S,,m SUB)EL'T: VESTEO TRACT 23143 (lion Golclman) The Dtstrtct ts ~sponc!Ing to ~our request for c~ments ~ the sub~ec~ chec~d ~1~ a~ly ~ ~fs p~J~t. ~vt~. The Is not wtthtn EIM)'s: I,,ater serYtce ,, gus~ b~ m~nexed to thts Dtstrtct's· Imp'rovement Dtstrtct No. tn o~de~ to be ellgtb~e to r~celve domestt¢ Nitmr/sanitary slw~ X Idtl1 be t~qutrld to consteer the foTlmrlng fietittles: a. ) ~r Service ex+.e~ded ~bb.)a ~e Se~vtce Onstte and oCf$tte graytry severs regionally p,u~0%i,~ I?fL s~a~,ton. Provtde for the new 11ft starton and for I? tmClUtred. The ~ro~osed 11ft statlon ts at Testacull Creek on the ws~, s~de ! % - unto Off~ lm MI ·Heme,. Cdiremh 12343 · Talephoto t~l,t ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 230 The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 230 in conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 3 and Change of Zone No. ~81~. The EIR included mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. ~ has 66 fewer residential' lots than Vesting. Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 and therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment and to public services and utilities. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231t~3 Amended No. ~ will involve approximately Lt,092,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, representing an 8% increase in earth movement on the site over the amount of cut and fill resulting from Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 3. It is unlikely that the additional amount of earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential significant impacts regarding drainage, slope stability, and non-renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance. Pursuant to Section 1516t~ of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed Change of Zone and Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would require important revisions to the EIR due to new significant impacts, and that no new information has arisen which would indicate that the project will have significant effects not previously discussed or underestimated, or that alternatives or mitigation measures not previously considered would substantially reduce any significant impacts. By reducing the number of residential lots and increasing passive and active recreational open space, the revised project will reduce the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services. By revising the street layout to restrict direct access from collector streets,' the revised map will reduce the potential for traffic hazards to human beings. STAFFRPT\VTM231~3 ATTACHMENT List Of Lots For Which Waiver From Ordinance 460, Section 3.8(c) Is Requested: 100-111 200-208 222-231 233-231 233-237 258-263 265-268 341-346 391-395 398 399 410-414 436-438 478 481-486 502-515 551-553 664-675 916 917 STAFFRPT\VTM23143 9 4814 CZ209 $p zONE. · I ZOIWNG AREA MAP VICINITY N.T.$. MAP PtrtOJECT SITE CASE NO.: CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 231#3 Amended No. ~ The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation {Quimby) Public Facility ( Traffic Mitigation ) Public Facility { Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility { Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 28 Condition No. 12 Condition No. 73 Condition No. 78.b, c. Condition No. 26.a. Condition No. 16 Condition No. 15 STAFFRPT\VTM231a3 10 ITEM NO. 19 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICAZR TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: C/TY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Planning Department January 8, 1991 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143/Change of Zone No. 5535 RECOMMENDATION: Continue to the meeting of January 22, 1991. ITEM NO. 20 APPROVALiQ , , , TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer January 8, 1991 Community Services Funding Request Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve recommendations for the Community Services funding requests. the attached DISCUSSION: The FY 1990-91 budget included a $125,000 Council discretionary fund for social services that benefit the City. As of October 31, 1990, the balance in the discretionary fund was $117,800. The Council appointed Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall and Councilmember Lindemans to review the funding requests and make funding recommendations. The recommendations are included on the attachment. Following are some considerations regarding the attached requests: Requests from religious groups were not considered due to the necessary separation of church and state. 2. The requests from the Temecula Town Association and Temecula Museum will be considered as soon as Redevelopment funds are available. The City will consider the acquisition of an emergency breathing support truck to be owned by the City. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended funding from the Council discretionary fund is $48,500 leaving an unencumbered balance of $69,300. Attachment: Summary of Community Services Funding Requests ATTACHMENT A City of Temecula Community Services Funding Requests January 8, 1990 Organization Service Amount Requested Assistance Guild of Temecula Valley .TVHS Grad Nite Committee Rancho Damacitas Clothe needy school children "Sober" grad nite celebration Home for abused children/ education, renovation $ 26,155 5,OOO 7,500 Arts Council of Temecula Valley Concerts on the Green Senior program School program Advertising Endowments Arts Festival 20,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 15,000 10,000 54,000 H.E.A.R.T., Inc. '~emecula Town Assoc. Temecula Museum Old Town Temecula Merchant's Assoc. Ladies Auxiliary of R-T Vol Fire Co Temecula Valley Econ Devei Corp. Promising Christmas Cancer Patient Advocate Foundation Temecula Valley Playhouse Boys & Girls Club of Temecula Hillcrest Garden School Provide child care facilities, w/in TVUSD for abused children Expand Community Center ,and park development Rehab historic church, develop museum Various Old Town improvements Emergency Breathing Support Truck Hire director, establish office, mktg Xmas toys for needy children Cancer patient exercise therapy Obtain theater facility Youth facility Playground equipment 3,900 132,000 25,000 15,000 150,000 75,000 5,O00 11,595 25,0O0 50,000 20,000 $ 605,150 Unencumbered Social Services Budget Balance Social Services Budget Amount Approved 5,000 2,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 10,000 4,000 RDA RDA 0 Fire 0 0 0 7,500 loan 0 48,500 117,800 69,30O