Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
022691 CC Agenda
AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER- 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE FEBRUARY26. 1991 - 6:30 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-08 Resolution: No. 91-21 EXECUTIVE SESSION Closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9 to discuss litigation in the matter of Jones Intercable vs City of Temecula CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Flag Salute ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Pastor Sean Oliver, Rancho Christian Church Councilmember Moore Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks California Society of Municipal Finance Officers Award Presented by Mary Jane Henry PUBLIC COMMENTS A total'of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink 'Request To Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a 'Request To Speak' form must be filed with the 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/.eend~022881 I 02121/91 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items I - 10) Standard Ordinance Adoorion 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 Approve the minutes of February 5, 1991 as mailed. 2.2 Approve the minutes of February 12, 1991 as mailed. 3 Resolution Aoorovine the 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 Second Reading of Ordinance Amendine Cha=ter 6.10 Reqardine Solid Waste RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI. A AMENDING CHAPTER 6. 10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SOLID WASTE 2/eOettde/022691 2 02/20/91 Revised Travel Policy RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve the revised Travel Policy included as Exhibit A 6 Trainin(: and Educational Policies RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Training and Educational Policies included as Exhibit A 7 Authorize Release of Faithful Im;)rovements in Tract 20879-1 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Performance Warranty Letter of Credit for Public Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Warranty Letter of Credit for public improvements in Tract 20879-1 and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 8 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 20643 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize the release of monument bond for Tract No. 20643 and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 9 Summary Vacation of Access and Sewer Easement Dedicated on Parcel Mao No. 19145 Located generally on the west side of Ynez Road, south of Winchester Road, north of Motor Car Road. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA VACA TING A SEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENT 21~gende/O22eg 1 3 02/20191 10 City Hall Tenant Imorovement BudQet RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Amend the City Hall Tenant Improvement Budget to $487,000. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11 Aooeal of Plannin(j Commission Denial - Parcel Mao No. 25607 A two (2) lot residential subdivision located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI. A DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25607 TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS A T THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ESTERO STREET AND ORMSBY ROAD. 12 Tentative Parcel Mao 24038 A three lot subdivision located on 4.99 acres at the south side of Moreno Road, easterly of Mercedes Street. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.99 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE COMMERCIAL PARCELS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MORENO ROAD, BETWEEN MERCEDES STREET AND I- 15 AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-070-022 211gencll/O226g 1 4 02/20191 CSD MEETING - (To be held at 8:00 PM) Please see separa~ agenda COUNCIL BUSINESS 13 Consideration of Bus Shelters - Temecula Valley Transit Continued from the meeting of January 29, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Continue this matter off calendar. 14 Greenbelt Committee Reouest for DWR Fundinq RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Consider endorsing an application for an Urban Streams Restoration Grant and, if desired, adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ENDORSING AN APPLICATION FOR AN URBAN STREAMS RESTORATION GRANT. CONDITIONALL Y ACCEPTING GRANT IF OFFERED AND DESIGNA TING CONTRACT MANAGER AND FISCAL AGENT 15 Duties and Role of Boards, Commissions and Committees RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve final version of Handbook for Commissions. Boards, Committees and 16 Intearated Waste Manaaement RFP Review Committee RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Appoint two members of the City Council to serve on the Integrated Waste Management RFP Review Committee. 21agencle/O22881 5 02/20/91 17 Electricity Franchise - Southern California Edison Company 18 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL 'S INTENTION TO GRANT AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY CDBG Fundine Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve the recommendations of staff which will be transmitted under separate cover at the conclusion of the public input meetings. 19 20 Ad Hoc Assi(jnments for Council/Commission Liaison and Committees RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve Committee assignments and Council/Commission assignments. Resolution in OoDosition to Senate Bill 2557 Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Parks RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDRESSING THE IMPACTS OF SENA TE BILL 2557 (MADD Y) Liaison 2/~glndl/O226g 1 6 02/20/91 21 Re(]uest for Suooort - Veterans Day Parade Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Parks RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Discuss, and if desired, approve in concept and refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission for recommendations. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIl. REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: March 12, 1991, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 2/Igerldl/O226g 1 7 02/21/91 ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD FEBRUARY 5, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:01 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney John Cavanaugh, and City Clerk June S. Greek. Mayor Parks announced that Councilmember Mu~oz was out of state and therefore could not attend. INVOCA T/ON The invocation was given by Pastor Ron Bolt, Peoples Church of the Valley. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall. PRESENTATIONS/ PRO CLA MA TIONS Glen Newman, Riverside County Fire Chief, invited the City Council and public to see the new Aerial Truck purchased for use in the City of Temecula. Mayor Parks called a recess at 7:08 PM, to allow the Council and public to view the Fire Truck. The meeting was reconvened at 7:20 PM. PUBLIC COMMENTS Nancy Barber, 29838 Corte Castille, announced the formation of Red Cross CPR and Advanced First Aid classes to be held the third Saturday of each month at City Hall. She invited the Councilmembers, staff and citizens of the community to participate in these classes. Hi nutes\02\05\91 - 1 - 02/11/91 City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Richard Lane, 29913 Mira Loma Drive, #20, apologized to the City Council for a shortness of patience while directing traffic in the City of Temecula and stated a formal apology letter had been sent to the City Manager. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilmember Lindemarts, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-5. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks None Mu~oz NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 22, 1991 as mailed. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the months ending7 December 31. 1990. 3.1 Receive and file report. 4. City Treasurer's Report for the month endinF December 31. 1990. 4.1 Receive and file report. #inutes\O2\OS\gl -2- 02/11/gl City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 Resolution of Support- Rancho California Water District 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM COUNCIL BUSINESS Prohibition of Left Turning Movements at Target Center on Ynez Road Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, introduced the staff report. Charles X. Delgado, 30102 Corte San Luis, representing LandGrant Development Corporation, expressed his concern over the prohibition of left turning movements stating that LandGrant did not receive adequate notice of this item and requested a study of the entire area. He also requested t. hat a time limit be set so this does not become a permanent restriction. Mayor Parks stated that if LandGrant desires to install a temporary additional lane to solve the problem, this could be brought back for further consideration, but stated that the Northerly driveway needs attention immediately. City Manager Dixon reported that as soon as the street is widened with the improvements of CFD 88-12, this restriction could be lifted. He stated that the time frame of this project should be not more than 12 months. Knox Johnson, 29681 Ave Del Sol, speaking as a private citizen, asked that the Council approve the staff recommendation. He stated this intersection is dangerous and causes serious traffic problems which could be greatly alleviated by a temporary prohibition of left turns at the northerly driveway. Hinutes\02\05\91 -3- 0Z/11/91 City Council Minutes February 5. 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemarts to approve the temporary prohibition of left turns at the northerly driveway of the Target Center on Ynez Road, authorize the Engineering Department to change the traffic striping on Ynez Road, and further direct staff that should this matter not be resolved, by the widening to be completed as a part of CFD 88-12, the City Council will review it again in one year. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Mayor Parks to take Agenda Item No. 12 out of order. The motion was unanimously approved with Councilmember Mu~oz absent. 12. Solid Waste Ordinance Amendment and Resolution Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Services, introduced the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to: 12.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 6. 10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SOLID WASTE The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz #inures\02\05\91 -4- 02/11/91 City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 12.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING DAVID JONES, DBA BIG BIN, TO HAUL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS Councilmember Moore stated her opposition to this motion on the grounds that exceptions should not be made to the City's policy because it may set a precedence and not represent the best interest of the City. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Parks NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, stated that Items 7, 8, and 9 would be presented concurrently. 7. Quarterly Report - Planning7 Department Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. 8. Quarterly Report- En~7ineering Department Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, introduced the staff report. 9. Quarterly Report- Building and Safety Department Tony Elmo, Director of Building and Safety, introduced the staff report. RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:47 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 PM. Hinutes\02\05\91 -5- 02/11/91 City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 COUNCIL BUSINESS (CONT.) Items 7, 8, and 9 continued. Gary Thornhill, Doug Stewart and Tony Elmo gave a joint presentation describing a time line illustrating start to finish of a project and each department's involvement in the process. They also described the time frame involved in collection of various fees and charges. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to receive and file Items 7, 8 and 9. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks 10. Lindemans, Moore, NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz Duties and Role of Boards. Commission and Committees City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. Councilmember Birdsall expressed concern about Council direction to the Commissions and suggested appointing a Council Liaison to each Commission. City Manager Dixon stated he did not see a problem with this as long as the liaison Councilmember only voiced a personal opinion unless a Council quorum opinion was obtained. Mayor Parks expressed concern on how staff time is authorized. City Manager Dixon explained on Page 5 of the policy, staff time must be authorized by the City Council. Councilmember Moore stated the word "by" had been left out of the first paragraph on Page 7. Councilmember Birdsall requested adding a statement that continuing education be encouraged and supported for the Commissioners. Hinutes\02\05\91 -6- 02/11/91 City Council Minutes Februarv 5, 1991 City Attorney Cavanaugh stated that because the City Council is the policy making body, the functions of the Commissions are broadly set out in the Municipal Code (Ordinances and Resolutions), which can be expanded upon at any time. Councilmember Birdsall suggested including this information as an addendum to the handbook. Mayor Parks asked the Council for its opinion regarding business cards for the Commissioners. It was the general consensus of the Council that the City should provide the Commissioners with a limited number of business cards. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve in concept the rules, regulations, guidelines and policies contained in the "Handbook for Boards, Committees and Commission", with the direction to return a final draft to the Council within 30 days. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to extend the meeting until 10:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Mu~oz absent. 11. Ad Hoc As$i~7nment$ for Council/Cornrni$$ion Liaison City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. Various members of the Council voiced their desire to serve on various committees and as liaison for Commissions. City Manager Dixon stated he would like to get comments from Councilmember Mu~oz before finalizing the list. Hinutes\02\05\91 -?- 0Z/11/91 City Council Minutes February 5. 1991 13. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to finalize the list of assignments based on input given at the meeting and input to be received from Councilmember Mu~oz, with the final assignment list to be placed on the agenda of February 26, 1991 for approval. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks None Mu~oz NOES: 0 ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Creation and Establishment of a City En~Tineer/Director of Public Works City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendations as follows: 13.1 13.2 Adopt a resolution modifying the authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUIA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES Authorize the City Manager to initiate a recruitment for the position of City Engineer/Director of Public Works The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz NOES: ABSENT: Ninutes\02\05\91 -8- 0Z/11/91 City Council Minutes February 5, 1991 CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon reported that he will be placing a proposal to schedule a City Council/City Manager Strategic Planning Workshop on the agenda of 2-12-91. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIl. REPORTS Mayor Parks requested that staff review materials he provided regarding a resolution in opposition to SB-2557 (Maddy Bill) and place on the agenda of February 26, 1991. He also requested that the matter of the Urban Streams Restoration Grant be referred to staff. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at 10:27 PM to the meeting of February 12, 1991 at 7:00 PM, at the Temporary 'remecula Community Center. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Mu~oz absent. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk Minutes\02\05\91 -9- 02/11/91 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD FEBRUARY 12, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:03 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCA T/ON The invocation was given by Pastor Tim Riter, Rancho Christian Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Lindemarts. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Parks proclaimed the month of February as "PTA Month". PUBLIC FORUM Joe Seguin, 41640 Ave De La Reina, spoke in opposition to the temporary relocation of the bus yard at the Temecula Valley School District, suggesting the use of an undeveloped school site as a more appropriate temporary solution. David Ciabattoni, 41646 Ave De La Reina, spoke in opposition to the temporary relocation site of the Bus Yard, asking the City to further investigate this issue. He asked that an EIR be completed for this area. Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, stated that staff is investigating the jurisdiction of this issue and how much control the City will have. James Marpie, 19250 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, representing the Murrieta Creek Greenbelt Committee, spoke regarding a $16,000 grant for the Empire Creek Linear Park Program, which would develop a park on the Southside of Rancho California Hinutes\02\12\91 - 1 - 0Z/Z0/91 City Council Minutes February 12, 1991 Road. He expressed concern that the time may have expired for the application to be processed. Mr. Marpie asked that a model be obtained of the plans for the Murrieta Creek Project, because this project is hard to visualize yet could change the character of Temecula. He also asked that the run-off from new projects such as the Red Hawk Development be addressed before the aquifer becomes polluted. Mr. Marpie asked that the CSD consider, as a part of their master plan, a multi-use for creek beds as transportation corridors. He asked that the City begin now to reserve easements along these beds. Mayor Parks asked why the application for a grant was received so late, not allowing the City time to take action. Mr. Marpie explained that due to illness and a not very organized committee, the application was not processed as quickly as necessary. Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, stated Earl Cummings of DWP in Sacramento is handling these grants and suggested that he call to see if an extension to the deadline could be received. The Council by consensus directed Mr. Stewart to make an effort to obtain an extension. Councilmember Mu~oz reported the Riverside County Health Department is now operating at its Hazardous Waste Collection Center at the maintenance yard in Murrieta. He stated the dates and times items will be accepted are February 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, and 26, 27 and 28th, between 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM. He said to obtain further information contact Riverside County Health Department at 714-358-5055. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Lindemans stated he would be voting "no" on Item No. 6 of the Consent Calendar due to his objection to the 40-year term of the lease. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-11, with Councilmember Lindemans entering a "no" vote on Item No. 6. 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 Ninutes\02\12\91 -2- 0Z/Z0/91 City Council Minutes February 12, 1991 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 29, 1991 as mailed. Resolution Approving7 List of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Second Reading7 of Ordinance Amending City Clerk Appointing Authority 4.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 2.08.061(B), ADDING SECTION 2.08.061, AND AMENDING SECTION 2. 10.020 OF THE TEMECUI A MUNICIPAl CODE RELA TING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY CLERK Hinutes\02\12\91 -]- OZ/ZO/91 City Council Minutes February 12, 1991 Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Zoning Map in the Change of Zone Application Contained in Development Permit No. 5535 5.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5535 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A-5, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 5 ACRE MINIMUM TO R-5, OPEN AREA COMBINING ZONE ON 10.2 ACRES IN TWO PORTIONS OF PARCEL 926-760-001 FROM R-A-5 AND 4.A-2 1/2; APPROXIMA TEL Y 5 ACRES IN PORTIONS OF PARCELS 926-750-001 AND 003; FROM R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO 4-5, OPEN AREA COMBINING ZONE, ON 6.4 ACRES IN PORTIONS OF PARCELS 926-760-001 AND 004, AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 926-770-002; AND FROM R- 1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, R-4.5000 AND R-4.6000, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, MINIMUM L 0 T SIZES 5, 000 AND 6, 000 SQUARE FEET RESPEC TIVEL Y, IN PORTIONS OF PARCELS 926-760-004 AND 005, ALL OF PARCEL 926-770-002 AND A PORTION OF PARCEL 926-770-003. Old Town Temecula Museum Foundation Lease for Property Located at Sam Hicks Monument Park 6.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the lease between the Old Town Temecula Museum Foundation and the City of Temecula. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu5oz, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 7. Final Parcel Mao No. 23624 7.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 23634, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Hinutes\OZ\12\91 -4- 02/20/91 City Council Minutes February 12, 1991 8. Final Parcel Map No. 23969 8.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 23969, subject to the Conditions of Approval. 9. Resolution Authorizing Household Hazardous Waste Grant Application 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING A HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES GRANT APPLICATION 10. Support For The Temecula Valley High School Earth Club - Paper Recycling Program 10.1 Authorize the City Manager to send a letter to the Earth Club accepting their offer to pick up and recycle all City Hall white, colored and computer program and newsprint. 11. Great Temecula Rod Run 11.1 Approve the temporary road closure of Front Street between Sixth and Second Streets on February 24, 1991 and approve issuance of a Temporary Outdoor Event Permit to the Temecula Town Association. COUNCIL BUSINESS Mayor Parks stated he had received a request to consider Agenda Items No. 15 and 16 out of order. Receiving no objections, Mayor Parks moved to Agenda Item No. 15. City Attorney Field stated that Items No. 15 and 16 would be discussed concurrently. 15. Community Facilities District 88-12 Sales Tax Agreement 16. CFD 88-12 Joint Financin~l Agreements City Attorney Field introduced Max Gilliss, Transportation Consultant, Tim Serlet, City Engineer and Jim Sims, Project Engineer from J.F. Davidson to present the staff report. Minutes\0Z\1Z\91 -5- 0Z/Z0/91 City Council Minutes February 12, 1991 Max Gilliss gave a status report on the progress with Community Facilities District 88- 12. He gave an updated cost on the proposed improvements, stating that these numbers had changed due to an increase in requirements, not anticipated during earlier studies. He stated one major difference is the requirement to widen the bridges. Tim Serlet, City Engineer, stated that the engineering for this project is on schedule and introduced Jim Sims to present his report. Mr. Sims stated he is the Project Engineer on all four projects. He reported that the Design Surveys, Aerial Maping and The Environment Assessment Report, have been completed on the Ynez Corridor Project and J.F. Davidson is in the process of doing the profile design on Ynez Road and preparing a traffic study for the entire area which will encompass all four projects. He said project study reports have been completed on Winchester, Apricot and Rancho California interchanges and the package is ready to submit to CalTrans by the end of the week. He stated Engineering is currently on schedule. Mayor Parks called a break to allow changing of the video tape at 8:00 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:01 PM. Councilmember Linderoans asked if the design done by Bedford Properties was reviewed and if all the proposed improvements are needed at this time. Mr. Sims stated that the Bedford design was reviewed, however it has been determined that widening of the bridges is necessary. He stated these improvements will be sufficient for the next 20 years and that improvements designed for a shorter period of time would not be accepted by CalTrans. Mayor Parks asked about the three phases of bond sales and asked when the improvements would be completed. Mr. Sims stated that the first bond sale will be for the construction of Ynez Road and is scheduled late this year. He said it will also fund administration, engineering and the two million dollar park site. He reported the second series will fund the Apricot Overcrossing and could go to construction in late 1992. He said the widening of the bridges and the loop off-ramps should occur in 1994. Greg Erickson, 28765 Single Oak Drive, spoke in favor of proceeding with Phase One, stating that these improvements are needed and because it takes a long time for these improvements to actually be completed, the City should begin now. City Manager Dixon stated he would like the record to be clear that Phase One will include the widening of Ynez. He further advised that a Project Study Report, required by CalTrans will be submitted the end of this week. Hinutes\02\12\91 -6- 02/20/91 City Council Minutes February 12, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendations on Items 15 and 16 as follows: 15. Community Facilities District 88-12 Sales Tax Agreement 15.1 Approve the agreement entitled "Agreement Regarding Sales Tax Revenues as to Businesses Located Within the Boundaries of Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez corridor) of the County of Riverside, State of California", in substantially the form attached hereto with such changes as approved by the City Manager and City Attorney: and authorize the execution and attestation of such agreements in the final form by the Mayor and City Clerk. 16. CFD 88-12 Joint Financing Agreements 16.1 Approve the Joint Financing Agreement by and between the City and CFD NO. 88-12. 16.2 Approve the Joint Financing Agreement by and among the City, CFD No. 88-12, Eastern Municipal Water District and Tomond Property. 16.3 Approve the Joint Financing Agreement by and between the City of Temecula and Tomond Property. 16.4 Approve all three agreements in substantially the forms attached hereto with such changes and modifications as approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney; and authorize the execution and attestation of such agreements in their final forms by the Mayor and City Clerk. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Minutes\02\12\91 -?- 02/20/91 City Council Minutes RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:55 PM. following the CSD Meeting. February 12, 1991 The meeting was reconvened at 9:14 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Adoption of a Modification to the City Building Codes by Adding a Chapter for the Mitigation of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. Tony Elmo, Building Officer, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:35 PM. Having no requests to speak, Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:35 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-04 PERTAINING TO THE "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 4-K, WHICH MODIFIES THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, AS ADOPTED BY SAID CITY, BY ADDING CHAPTER 71, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF SEISMIC HAZARDS AND THE MITIGATION THEREOF AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE 8875 ET SEQ. 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 Minutes\02\12\91 -8- 02/20/91 City Council Minutes COUNCIL BUSINESS February 1 2, 1991 13. Community Development Block Grant Funds - Public Input City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. He stated that two meetings had been scheduled to assist interested organizations with submitting these forms and would be advertised in the newspaper. The meetings are scheduled for February 21st and 25th. Councilmember Mu~oz requested that a notice be posted on Pujol Street on the large yellow sign used for public hearing notices. He requested this notice be prepared in both Spanish and English. Councilmember Lindemarts requested that "The Pantry" be notified and informed that these funds are available. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemarts to receive and file the report. 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 14. City Council/City Mana~Ter Strategic Planning Workshop City Manager Dixon introduced the staff report. Councilmember Mu~oz stated his opposition to this workshop stating he felt the City was expending too much money for consulting services. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve the expenditure of funds necessary to conduct a strategic planning workshop and authorize the City Manager to arrange for accommodations and other necessary facilities. Hinutes\02\12\91 -9- 02/20/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 February 12, 1991 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks Mu~oz None City Manager Dixon requested that specific dates be set for the workshop. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to set the dates of March 8-10, 1991 for the strategic planning workshop. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to extend the meeting to 10:30 PM, The motion was unanimously carried. 17. Amendment to Disaster Relief Ordinance City Manager Dixon suggested this item be tabled to allow staff time to make further adjustments. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to refer this item back to staff for further review. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Hinutes\0Z\1Z\91 -10- 02/20/91 Citv Council Minutes February 12, 1991 CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon reported that several months ago he applied for a special grant under SB821, the Safe Highways Act, as it relates to sidewalks and bicycle trails. He stated the City has received a grant of approximately $25,000. He said that areas having no sidewalks in front of schools have been identified, and this will assist in at least two or three areas. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS City Attorney Field reported on the status of the Mello Roos. He indicated that there had been a problem at the County level concerning the letter of credit required of property owners. He stated this problem should be resolved within the month and the District funding will be going to the County Debt Advisory Committee on February :20, 1991 and hopefully to the Board of Supervisors one week later. He stated this would put bond sale at about mid March. Mr. Field requested that the Council adjourn to a closed session at 6:30 PM on February 26, 1991, to discuss the Jones Intercable Litigation. Mayor Parks called a break to change the tape at 10:15 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 10:16 PM. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mu~oz reported on the Transportation Conference he attended in Miami Beach, Florida. Councilmember Mu~oz requested that the City serve as a local point of contact for families of service men and women serving in the Middle East, with Joe Hreha acting as City Hall Liaison. Councilmember Moore requested the name of the Apricot overcrossing be reconsidered and a more appropriate selection made. Mayor Parks asked that the matter of the utility franchises be placed on the agenda in the near future. Minutes\0Z\1Z\91 -11- 02/20/91 Citv Council Minutes February 12, 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at 10:29 PM, to a meeting on February 26, 1991 at 6:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk Hinutes\02\12\91 -12- 02/Z0/~1 ITEM NO. 3 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 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 $226,124.55. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 26th day of February, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 144 t- O '~ L U rh '2', it. r L ~ u c ~ r; r.; ~6dr;r/~.i6dr.,:-,;~';4H ,4 d ,~ cJ ,j ,4d,S 6 d 6 .d4.4o3~.';~4 d ,'< :-'. ,4m_' r3 t.'3 ['-4 C"I ~ ,~ D ..4 ~ i'.') ~ ~- f'l .,-4 ~ r.I C~ 0- O C, -0 bD [.I t.') I:'.1 0' -O {*.I f"- tO l :, t.) .--' ~ o z CL x LU 0' Ld <Z LL C'I IL C' -0 bJ [~ ['1 . · · ~- · H i:~ ("l 0 , · IJJ ~ <1 ~ , . Z ~ · · Z :4 Z LL'-J ~ I .'n [~ <Z 0 Z Z ..<]2 <12 ........ C'.I LLILU -3 [!] LL[ LLI H 12L ~. Fr' ~ L~ LU[l] ~- ;,- ~. Z r-', ~ W W W t-- ZZZ~ g0 Z-~- Z O O O,~.'-Z,~ ~'q ¢q L~ LL OO li. IZ Z _~ ~ ~ LL <Z bl W hJ ~-'1 F-J · ILl W tjJ 03 O] rj') IL) ~ ~ LL h LL I:~ (O 03 ~ O O I'"'~ ~.~ O O O O C'J ~ O O · D_ O_ O_ _] CL CL CL IZ.~- Z Z Z Z Z O O. 0- C, O ,C, C, C, C, ,"', C, O C: '3' O ,'" t'.. P.r-. I'-. i'-. I'-. r-- r--. r~ I'-. ~- r.. r-- z f'4 1:'4 (-4 12,1 (-4 r4 ~0 0 C.,O 0 0,3, 0,~ 0 0',0,~, ~ ,-, ,-, C,4 C'.,C' C'.J~ ..... r_).~ (.~ ~.,~ ~ ~(.~-~,-~.~ C'.4f'-.I 0 0 0 0 C, Z LL _J ',:Z-0 -0 © CJ P.~ ('.i C, O' f'i ~' '2' t.') '2' *-4 ~ C' ~ C' .*4 r'.. ~ o*, CJ C..l o ,2, .-0 0 C, :~: 0 OO~ ££ F-I-O' I-- k- -IJ(J (.0 ~ _1/W ~ ~ OOn ~ ~ E,L EL LLI r.,3 W UO .- 0 ~ t-- ~ ~ * L) · '=, C' Z · 0 · ILl O o O t-~ C~ O W ,.' f.D '-' </2 .... T-FI-- '.' ~ z ~, ~ S ooz ,$ · -. ('! 'O ,3, -.CI gO'.~ f"4 Z,'"' ',-' '~ F- © 0 I-. C. C, 0 >- .7' LU ["I LU ~ ,.0 ,,0 I'"- I-- C' ~" ~,~' O 000 ~.-.~ ,~- T LIJ O" O"' O' T ~ W C't )- h] 03 ('-4 03 ~ / f'4 [L ~ ',~ ('t ~"- O"-- O'-. ~."-. 0 0 ©0 0 L9 Z Z Ld ~Z ."E Ld r_rj~ _1~ n ~ b- O0' rg CD t.'90 r_l ,C, C)('I .13 C"J © 0 t.') ~r U"J t<, t<, -0 -0 ,0 ,g :g ,:, 0 00J O'- rd -. Ih 0 0 [..] 0 W O F- 0 'C 0 O I~ 0 Z 0 O_ 0 EO 0 bO 0 ~' O 0 ~-, r.~ I~ J Z Cr:. £C CJ O~ ~- I~' Ld 03 .-J 0 J ~ d: t- W .c W .~ .J ~ W .c '-~ r' C.~ .C I ~ W r 0 .C x r- ,T, Z r- Q t- C] r: "- ~. ~- L.) '-- t-- "-. J~. '~. -. --.. rr'~. ~. W'~. '-. C]"- C, ,"', 0 ~ 0 ([ C, C, ,C, ,"', _ EO ~ © ~ C, C, :> ,-I _~ rJ 0 tO W 'q' W W W bJ O tO ro [0 W Z ~00 WI'- F- b_ W CCO- ~L ~: C) ,'[ C, ~ ('l Z L1 ('.l 0 ~ [E 'C' rj') _J C, 0 ,"', ~) ~ [0 ~ Ld C, n ~- ~ ~",, Z". ~"- ,'r~. ~- 0'- "- J'~. Z~. I.D '~. r~ -,-, W'. LLI W 0 W J 0 Z .,m J-- '* ~ ~ Z C'.4 0 t.':, ~C C, ~ C, ~ C' W C, 0 ':' 'C, C, 'C' ,C, ,C, 'C' 0 'C' 'C' 'C' C' '-' ,C' ~'-: Z CC CC <[ h- 0 ~.2, _1 0 r.D O] 'C, W ~ _J < Ld Ld r.o C, '..~ "-, Z ~ 0'1 Z /j] U] ~L LU ~ W ~ ~ _] ~ t-- ,-~ F- ~ ~ I ZO 0 ~ ~ J ~ q:,~ W '3' 0 ~ c, c, .--, o ~ ~ I o t.:, o c, ,el J ,c, _m 'C' Cr- 'C' O' ~ O' 'C' 13'- C' I~ 'C' rj', O- 13- ~. O- 'C' rj- ,-, O' 0 I'~ ,", 0'. cq 12- ,-', ~3 --9 ',0 -0 '~3 ',0 -13 -.0 -0 -0 -0 ~ -0 r 1,1 C'.i C, 0 ':'£, 0 'C, 0 0 C' 0 © 0 0 0 '" ~- tC ,3, '=, '~' ,,:-:,, ~ t) O0 f,) t) --, ,.~ ..0 rD ~ P..I O- I'. I]J -.0 I'-...0 ~ 0'. I~'] O-l'- r-. C, ,~, -.0 t-') ,-'4' ro t) L,~, b] ,-.E O ~-k- 0 W '~ <;" b- LL QJ Ld f.3I~ ¢J: '~-~ J _J ,-r' Fr' Ld Id J )' Og Z :> r.J ,-r.=' (,! ("I I') C, 'C' 'C' ,:, 0 'C' C' 'C' ~ ',~ d: ,:, ,3, 'C' ':=,,3' 0 '3' C' 'C' ~ "'" '3' 0 'C, C' '3' '~ 0 ~ Z '=' '3' '0' 'C'~ '3' Ld t - 0 [d ~r~ CO ~ Ld 1- j Ld ~ ~ Ill ~. 'Ld ~ [0 ~'~ ~ ('..I t.':,W 0 uJ r0 ,-, 'q ,=, o i- 0 ,:, c, ,:, ,=, o uJ ,~ L~ L~ ~.1 WO ~O'l~ ~: ~ :, m z ,:, ~ ~z ~., ,~ ,~, .:. .:, ,:, ,:, ,:, o ,:, c, ,:, ,:, o .:, c, ,:, o ,:, o o o o ,:. c. o ,:, ,:. ,:, ,:. ,: ¢_ rj I-- 17.1 ~'.1 i.~ I rJ f.) t") C' C' '3' '3' ('.1 ~ -' Z ~ EO Z '3' '3' '3' C ,'~', g] ~ ~ ~ ...4 --~ ~'] ~ ('..! ,..4 'C' '3,.,-4 ~ .4 -~ -~ - :,1 -- .. .. .. ,. .. -4] - -0 C'~ [ J fJ &l ('.J C, 0 0 ,C' Y] b3 b] t~3 b3 b3 ,0 4] -O -0 .:. :, ,:, ,~, ,:, :~: i~i! '~' 0 ,5 '~. ,:, ,5 5 ,5 ,:, ,:, .:, .;5 E ? 0 U L) 0 u C 0 u ,~O Z '% L U U fit · ? ..D 1'3 I-') 19 ("I I":, l.'3 b~. -~ -0 I: I PI f"l -O "~ ,'~ b~ ~ f'9 0 O O 'O '? C' C' O O ,.? C' O C' C, '3' O C' C' '00 '0 O C' O ,C' O C' O O ,3, O O O ':D O O 0000 'O O "- r-- ~1 O -'" ~ '~' · ".~ ('I ~: -J Z 0 ~ OZ ~.. -~ "-. ILl ~ ("1 ..~ = J IL [~' '"- ~-, Ld · ,-Z Itl ~* ~ ~ "~ 0" -O h. '- : C~ ~"~ I- t-K U) ~ I h "~,' (I [~ ¢~. ~ Ltl .-.W o '-. o c~ c~ o I o ~ ,., ~ o ~- ,~ h- Ill Ld l- ~."~ rjj I-. J I- ILl U U U ~ ~'~ ~ U LI ~-~ U I-- I-- t-- U 0 ~ ("I O' O' U) t.':, 0' O' ~ O' ~ 0 '-~ Z ~ ,,~ ~ ~ ,-~ ~', O O (rJ,, .-~ O O O © 0'0 UJ O '3. O ..T.T LI.I ~ O Id (0 rr ~ O. ~ FK ~ l- ,-~ tU ~ --' ~ 0 0 Id C' ,C' '3 b_ C, (0 ~ I- Z O W,~ [iOP- ZO 410' Jl'- J~ :~0 O('*l ("1 ~ ~ ~"" JO .JO ZO 0 0 0 '~ 0.. ~ ~ Z :3 U3 }- >- ~ O W ~- Z -.l _J F- b ) I--I") -,0 I-- -O t"'~ -'~ ~' --~ ~ O- *~ I I I I I l"', ~ 0'* ~1' O- t") / ('l (q ('-4 ('4 O' O' b? b3 O' -O -O .O D' O' O' ~ O' C. C. 0 4~ ,0 -0 -0 (I I[.I ('.1 ('l ('1 I['.1 (.I ('4 ("*~ ["1 t '4 © 0 0 0 0 ,.."2, ,0 ,0 -0 -,0 -0 -4) -0 ,,0 -0 -0 43 -0 © 0 0 C' 0 C, C' C, C' 0 C' 0 C' 0 '~ '3, © 0 © 0 0 0 < Z < © o ITEM NO. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 91-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 6.10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SOLID WASTE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. follows: Section 6.10.095 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as "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: (i) any landfill fees paid to a landfill operator; and (ii) 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." SECTION 2. Section 6.10.625 is amended to read as follows: "6.10.625 Franchise: Applicability. At such times as one or more franchises for collection covering all or part of the City are 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) Persons engaged in the business of recycling; (b) Any persons engaged in the nursery or gardening business and collecting and disposing of shrubbery, grass, tree cuttings, tree trimmings, or other agricultural debris; (c) Any person removing shrubbery, grass, tree cuttings, tree trimmings, or other agricultural debris from any property owned or occupied by the person; Ordinance No. 91-07 Page 2. (d) Persons engaged in the business of disposing of hazardous or special wastes; or, (e) Any person approved by City Council resolution to remove construction debris, provided that this provision shall expire June 30, 1993. This exemption shall not exempt any construction debris hauler from the requirement for an encroachment permit, if any. 'Construction debris' is defined as all non-hazardous waste material and rubble resulting from the construction, alteration, repair, removal or demolition of buildings or from the production or development of real property which is customarily handled and transported by means of roll-off boxes, bodies or containers." SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council Members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ~ day of , 1991. AT'rEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk 2lOrds/91-07 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 91-07 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of February, 1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of February, 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 2/Ords/91-07 ITEM NO. 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY( FINANCE OFFICe- ~~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer~ February 26, 1991 Revised Travel Policy RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Revised Travel Policy included as Exhibit A. DISCUSSION: Two minor revisions to the City Travel Policy are recommended: 1. That the mileage rate be revised to the current IRS mileage rate to simplify reporting. 2. That the policy include a provision for two (2) telephone calls home per full day of travel, not to exceed $10.00 per day. EXHIBIT A FY 90-91 ADMINISTRATIVE TRAVEL: POLICY AND PROCEDURE It is the policy of the City to reimburse City officials and designated City staff for the expenses of travel related to City business according to the statement of policy and procedures set forth below. POLICY Administrative travel is limited to the following classifications of expenditures for the benefit of the City in connection with "out-of-City" trips: A. Authorized Travelers Except for elected officials, Commissioners, and Council-appointed employees, attendance at conferences shall be limited to one representative of the City. The City Manager may authorize the attendance of additional City employees, if deemed appropriate, if travel funds are available in the department's operational budget. Any number of elected officials, Commissioners or Council- appointed employees may attend conferences provided that funds for such purposes are specifically provided for, and included within the annual departmental budget. In the absence of an annual appropriation, such travel must receive authorization in advance of expenditure by the City Council. Conference travel for employees shall be limited to department heads, assistant department heads, division heads or positions of highly technical or professional nature as designated. In all cases, specific travel expenses must be justified in the annual departmental budget and approved by the City Manager. Every effort shall be made to avoid the simultaneous absence of both the department head and the assistant department head. B. Transportation Use of air, train, taxi, private car or bus shall be selected on the basis of the least total cost to the City after all expense items are tabulated. Analysis should be made based upon travel time versus actual salary costs lost by commuting. Authorized travel time shall be based on that required by the most appropriate mode of public transportation. When the use of private automobile is approved, reimbursement shall be at the current IRS mileage rate. When City vehicles are used, a credit card can be obtained for all routine purchases of gasoline and oil. On the Travel Expense Report, the notation should state "City Vehicle Used". If any repairs are necessary, they will be reimbursed upon presentation of the necessary receipts. The use of City vehicles should be included on the Travel Expense Report at the current mileage rate allowance and then deducted as an expense paid directly by the City. When the use of public air carrier transportation is approved, travel for all personnel shall be in coach class or equivalent service. Private automobile use, to and from the airport, shall be reimbursed for all miles at the current rate as stated above. Day ITEM NO. 6 APPROVAL ~-/~~-~ CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECUI. A AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer February 26, 1991 Training and Educational Policies RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Training and Educational Policies as included in Exhibit A. DISCUSSION: The City recognizes the importance of employee development and training. This training shall be geared to both organizational improvement and individual employee development. ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A Training and Educational Policies CITY OF TEMECULA TRAINING AND EDUCATIONAL POLICIES Exhibit A TRAINING: The City recognizes the importance of employee development and training. In an effort to improve the capabilities and effectiveness of City personnel, a training program has been established. This training effort shall be geared to both organizational improvement and individual employee development. This development shall not only be the responsibility of Department Heads or supervisors, but shall be shared with employees in a total organizational effort. IN-HOUSE TRAINING: Employees who have training, knowledge or expertise in a subject area, or who have recently attended a seminar or conference in a given subject matter, may be asked to share this information with other employees. Such in-house training may be informal or formal depending upon the nature of the training and can include any variety of topics such as computers, copiers, telephones, supervisory, writing skills, etc. DEPARTMENTAL TRAINING: City departments and divisions are encouraged to offer specialized training to their employees. Such training shall be the responsibility of the Department or Division Head and may include topics such as safety, equipment operation and other training in their specific fields of responsibility. TRAINING COURSES: The City shall encourage local educational resources to offer courses and workshops at City facilities on matters in which employees of several departments may benefit. Such courses may be offered periodically in such areas as management, supervision, communications, time management, stress management, writing skills, etc. SEMINARS AND CONFERENCE: Employees may attend seminars or conferences covering current issues and areas relevant to their positions under the following conditions: Employees must submit their request on forms prescribed by the Finance Department and follow all applicable procedures. Budgeted funds must exist for all such training and any travel. In-state attendance shall require Department Head approval while out of state travel shall require the approval of the City Manager. Employees must comply with the City Travel Policy and provide necessary receipt documentation. Employees who have recently received such training must be willing to provide "in-house" training to other employees, if requested. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT: Subject to Department Head and City Manager approval, employees may attend and be reimbursed for part or all of the costs of educational and other training courses which provide a benefit to the City. The Department Head shall not recommend the reimbursement of more than $400 to an employee for training or educational expenses in any one fiscal year. Any educational or training course that is a requirement for continuation of employment or is an identified part of a job evaluation shall be paid for by the City. Any other educational or training course that is job-related shall, if prior approval for reimbursement is given by the City Manager (or designee), be reimbursed at 1/2 (50%) after successful completion. All college or other graded classes shall require a minimum grade of a "C" in order to receive such reimbursement. Books or other materials shall only be paid if some defined benefit can be shown to the City (i.e. books become part of City reference library). In general, training time during working hours shall be considered part of the job. Training after hours shall be considered voluntary, and no additional pay, overtime or compensatory time shall be given by the City, unless advanced special written approval is granted. Study time shall be considered completely voluntary. Although the City applauds employees for their efforts in pursuit of additional education, the City shall not pay for educational degrees or for education in general, but will only reimburse employees for required or job-related classes and training. No reimbursement shall occur if an educational class does not provide a benefit to the City. There is no mileage reimbursement for travel to and from educational classes. Required forms must be completed and necessary documentation (receipts and grades) must be provided, in order to receive reimbursement. Final and conclusive determinations of the reimbursement amount shall be made by the City Manager after review of the request and recommendations by the Department Head and the Human Resources Officer. TRAINING AND TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT: In accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees who are not exempt from FLSA shall receive training and travel reimbursement as provided in this Section. Time spent in attending lectures, meetings, training programs, and similar activities during work time shall be counted as time worked only if authorized in advance and in writing by the employee's Department Head. No such authorization shall be given unless the lecture, meeting, program, or other activity is directly related to improving the employee's ability to perform his or her job. Time spent in attending lectures, meetings, training programs, and similar activities shall not be counted as time worked where such attendance is outside of the employee's regular working hours, except in situations where the employee is directed by his or her Department Head to attend such lecture, meeting, training program, or similar activity. Leisure and meal times are not considered time worked unless they are part of the seminar. Time spent by an employee traveling between the employee's residence and the regular workplace is not work time and shall not be treated as hours worked. When an employee is assigned by his or her Department Head to travel outside of the City, time spent traveling between the employee's home and assigned destination shall be treated as time worked only to the extent that it exceeds the amount of time normally taken by the employee to travel between his or her residence and regular workplace. When an employee is assigned to travel outside the City, return the same day, and he or she utilizes public transportation, the time spent traveling between the employee's home and the location of the public carrier (i.e. airport, bus station, train station) shall not be treated as time worked. However, time spent traveling to a final destination via public carrier is considered time worked. Employees shall receive mileage and travel reimbursement in accordance with provisions outlined in the City's Travel Policy. EMPL 0 Y£E PORTION Name Training Agency Name of Course CITY OF TEMECULA TRAINING FUND REQUEST Position Location Course No. Units Dept. Phone Term Year Costs Involved $ How will this training help you with your job? Tuition Course Books Other TOTAL Employee Signature Date DEPARTMENT HEAD PORTION Are you requiring this employee to take this course? Yes No How valuable do you feel the course will be to the department7 Is this course job related? Yes No Possibly(explain) this course part of an employee's performance evaluation? Yes No Do you support this employee's request? Yes No Conditional(explain) Other comments or explanations: Reimbursement: Portion: Comments or Explanation: Fu11(100%) Course Only Half(50%) Books Only Reviewed by: Finance Officer Authorized by: REIMBURSEMENT Advance? Yes Course Grades? Reimbursement Amount?$ Finance Completion By How Much? Receipts7 COPY DISTRIBUTION - AFTER AUTHORIZATION White-Employee / Green-Finance / Yellow-Department / Blue-Personnel 2/2/91 None All Costs City Manager II Account Code Date ITEM NO. 7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~9 CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department ~ February 15, 1991 Authorize Release of Faithful Performance Warranty Letter of Credit for Public Improvements in Tract 20879-1 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHOR IZE the release of the Faithful Performance Warranty Letter of Credit for public improvements in Tract 20879-1, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On February 10, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Costa Construction 2380 Camino Vida Robie Carlsbad, California 92008 for the improvement of streets and the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements was a Letter of Credit issued by: Provident Federal Savings Bank as follows: Letter of Credit No. 1003 in the amount of $553,500.00 to cover street improvements. Letter of Credit No. 1003 in the amount of $96,000.00 to cover sewer improvements. Letter of Credit No. 1003 in the amount of $132,000.00 to cover water improvements. STAFFRPT\TM20879-1\mb 1 On May 25, 1989 the County Road Commissioner and County Surveyor released the Letter of Credit amounts by ninety per cent 190%1 and retained the following amounts for a one year maintained period: Streets: Water System: Sewer System: $55,350.00 $13,200.00 $ 9,6O0.00 Then one year maintenance period has run and no repairs have been required. Therefore, this it is appropriate to release this Letter of Credit. AKC:mb Attachments: Vicinity Map STAFFRPT\TM20879-1\mb 2 PROJECT ~ SITE . L w,4Y VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 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 ~ February 26, 1991 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 20643 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 20643 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On June 24, 1986, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Kaiser Development Company, A California Company For the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Insurance Company of the West On September 26, 1989, in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance 460, Section 15.1(I), the County Road Commissioner reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) maintenance period. No action was taken on the monument bond at that date as several technical requirements had not been met, STAFFRPT\TM20643\mb 1 The necessary requirements have now been satisfied. The inspection and verification process relating to the above item has been completed by the County of Riverside Transportation Department and City Staff and the Engineering Department recommends the release of the monumentation bond, Therefore, it is appropriate to exonerate this bond as follows: Bond No. 138926 in the amount of $5,600.00 to cover Survey Monumentation. AKC:mb Attachment: Location Map STAFFRPT\TM20643\mb 2 ITEM NO. 9 CITY MANAGER '~,~./ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department ~ February 26, 1991 Summary Vacation of Access and Sewer Easement Dedicated On Parcel Map No. 19145 PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 91- sewer easements generally located on the west Winchester Road, within Parcel Map No. 19145. summarily vacating access and side of Ynez Road, south of BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 65360 requires that before any planning action is taken, including a public service easement vacation, a finding of consistency with the future General Plan must be made. On February 25, 1991, the Planning commission is to adopt Resolution 91- , finding that the access/sewer easement is no longer necessary, and that the vacation is not likely to be substantially detrimental to the General Plan the City is developing if the easement vacation is found to be inconsistent with the General Plan the City adopts. DISCUSSION: This vacation has been filed in conjunction with Parcel Merger No. 1 which merged Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Parcel Map No. 19145 in order that the developer might build across existing parcel lines. Parcel Merger No. 1 was recorded on November 30, 1990 (Instrument No. 436726), creating one (1) lot. STAFF R PT\PM 19145-A 1 The existing sewer easement terminates at the 1-15 Freeway and, as such, cannot serve any adjoining properties. The access easement was dedicated to provide service to the sewer easement, as well as to provide additional access to Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 19145. The existing sewer and access easement alignment was required to provide access for a sewer line through an adjacent parcel and permit maintenance of the sewer line. With the parcel merger, no adjacent properties are affected. The parcel merger deleted adjoining lots, thus superseding the need for an easement through the adjacent properties and now places the easement within the same property. No other utility is within the easement. As stated in the Streets and Highway Code, Section 8333, a summary vacation may proceed if it is found that "The easement has been superseded by relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement." The easement is superseded by the parcel merger and relocation of the sewer improvements within the affected project boundary. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The subject vacation and the proposed access is in conformance with both previously recorded Parcel Map No. 19145 and ensuing Parcel Merger No. I and the easement has been "superseded" by the merging of three (3) separate parcels into one parcel, eliminating the need of an easement. Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 91- , finding the vacation of the existing sewer and access easement alignment, on the west side of Ynez Road, south of Winchester Road, to be consistent with the General Plan currently being developed by the City of Temecula, and will not be of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the vacation is found to be inconsistent when the General Plan is adopted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 91- finding that the summary vacation of the sewer and access easement is consistent with the General Plan presently being developed by the City of Temecula, and that there is no likelihood of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the vacation ultimately is inconsistent with the final plan adopted by the City. CH:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Vicinity Map Parcel Merger No. 1 Plat and Legal Description of Vacation Resolution STAFFRPT\PM19145-A 2 AUTO CENTEl ~ a~l. LqO,~lor ~. no $~' MEADOWVIEW $Ch - ~ - THE LA VINEYARD SERENA · ¢ILLAGEa L&. Project Site EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATE OF PARCEL MERGER NO. ~ %-.~ PARCEL PAR. 3 .~ .. 25.05 ACRES NET '~ 25, 24 ACRES G~S Fg~8.78' ~ ~MOTOR CAR ROAD ~ , PAR. ..,.~..,> ~ ~~.~. ....,- ,~, .t~~' ~ J.F. Oavid~n ~iates, Inc. Date $o' I ----5 ~. I ~'NMOTOR CAR .i.1~ ROAD J.F DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. May 29, 1990 J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. ENGIN[2EHtNG PLANNING $UIIVUYING ARCtlI[15g]UftE LAND$(;APE ARCI II]£CTURE W.O. 9011524 Revised June 18, 1990 THE ACCESS AND SEWER EASEMENT AS DEDICATED ON PARCEL MAP 19145 Those portions of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 19145 as shown by map on file in Book 119 of Parcel Maps, at pages 36 through 39 thereof, Records of Riverside County, California, described as follows: Commencing at the most Southerly corner of said Parcel 3; Thence N.25°51'15"W. along the Easterly line of said Parcel 3, a distance of 107.36 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel of land to be described; Thence continuing N.25°51'15"W. along said Easterly line, a distance of 14.91 feet; Thence N.41°53'15"E., a distance of 71.57 feet; Thence N.43°ll'14"E., a distance of 52.11 feet; Thence N.42°48'33"E., a distance of 194.53 feet; Thence N.42°50'03"E., a distance of 159.92 feet; Thence N.0~°45'49"W., a distance of 648.88 feet; Thence N.79°46'43"E., a distance of 268.02 feet to the Northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; Thence S.10°13'17"E. along said Northeasterly line, a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence S.79°46'43"W., a distance of 248.78 feet; Thence S.07°06'28"E., a distance of 172.82 feet; Thence S.08°45'49"E., a distance of 452.41 feet; Thence S 42°43'09"W. · , a distance of 491.70 feet, to the point of beginning. ~ 73,19 ,l~,lh.,f$on..?-,ude I 15 Ir'O [lc, x 34(I lrn,,,f:lll~t CA g2.~190 (11,1) (~ 7fi-7710 FAX 714.G99 1981 THE ACCESS & SEWER EASEMENT PARCEL MAP 19145 May 29, 1990 Revised June 18, 1990 Page 2 The above described easement as shown on attached Exhibit "A". LO/HAF/lb LEG:DN2 DESCRIPTION PREPARED UNDER Tile SUPERVISION OF: Homer A. Fountalne J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Date RESOLUTION NO. 91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA. VACATING A SEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENT WHEREAS· Streets and Highway Code Section 8330 et. seq. provides for a method by which the City streets may be summarily vacated; and WHEREAS, Streets and Highway Code Section 8330 provides that the City Council may summarily vacate a public service easement if the easement has been superseded by relocation and there are not other public facilities located within the easement and said circumstances apply to the easement in the present case; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds as follows: a. The City is presently owner of a sewer and access easement lying within those portions of Parcels 1,2 and 3 of Parcel Map No. 19145 as shown by map on file in book No. 119 of Parcel Maps, at pages 36 through 39 thereof, Records of Riverside County, California. This easement is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; b. Said easement is no longer necessary because adjacent lots have been incorporated into the project site; and c. Vacating the sewer and access easement will be consistent with the General Plan the City is presently developing, and there is no likelihood of substantial detriment to the General Plan the City is presently developing if vacating the easement is inconsistent with the General Plan the City adopts. SECTION 2. The easement described in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby vacated and from and after this date this Resolution is recorded the easement land owners. Resolution. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF · 1991. RON PARKS MAYOR STAFF R PT\PM 19145-A 3 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 CREEK CITY CLERK STAFF R PT\PM 19145-A 4 ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council Mr. David F. Dixon, City Manager February 19, 1990 City Hall Tenant Improvement Budget RECOMMENDATION: Amend the City Hall Tenant Improvement Budget to $487,000. DISCUSSION: The tenant improvement budget was established in the lease agreement previously approved by the City Council at the November 13, 1990 City Council Meeting. That budget was established at $405,000. Following the design of the building, the actual tenant improvements came to $580,000. For the past several weeks, Staff has been working very closely with our landlord and have further reduced construction costs to $477,000. We believe that this is as far as we can reduce considering the magnitude of the job and without jeopardizing needed improvements. Additionally, a job of this size will constantly require construction change orders; therefore, to allow the City Manager the flexibility to deal with these changes, the tenant improvement budget is requested to be established at $487,000, allowing $10,000 in flexibility. The initial budget was $14.98 per square foot. With this new budget, costs per square foot is $17.65. Average costs for industrial tenant improvements are $15.00 per square foot and the average costs for office building improvements are $21.00 per square foot. The City office tenant improvements fall in between these two estimates. The increase costs associated with the above tenant improvements can be absorbed within the current approved budget. We recommend a reallocation of $82,000 from the Geographic Information System (GIS) to tenant improvements. The GIS allocation will be rebudgeted in FY91/92 because we are not ready to begin this project now. It is recommended that we do not amortize the tenant improvement increase. Making a cash payment will eliminate the need for a lease addendum, an increase in rent, and save amortization interest charges. FISCAl,. IMPACT: is recommended. A transfer of $82,000 from Base Mapping to tenant improvements ITEM NO. 11 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department February 26. 1991 Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Parcel Map No. 25607 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Steve Jiannino ADOPT Resolution 91- denying Parcel Map No. 26507 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Parcel Map No. 25607. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Robert Paine Benesh Engineering 2 lot residential subdivision Southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street R-R (Rural Residential) North: R- R South: R- R East: R- R West: R- 1 ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) (One-Family Dwelling) Same Vacant STAFFRPT\PM25607 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: North: South: East: West: Single Family Homes Vacant Single Family Homes Single Family Residential Tract Total Acres: No. of Lots: Maximum Lot Size: Minimum Lot Size: 1.42 acres 2 lots .806 acre .614 acre BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held two public hearings for Parcel Map No. 25607. At the January 28, 1991 public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying Parcel Map No. 25607 by a 3-2 vote. The Commission's concerns regarding this project were access, subsurface sewage disposal and processing procedure. The Commission felt that access from Ynez Road via Santiago and Ormsby Roads was inappropriate due to the lack of improvements along Santiago Road. Since the four (4) lots along Estero Street were graded into eight (8) pads, the Commission indicated that a Tentative Tract Map process would have been a more appropriate application procedure for the area. A Tentative Tract application would have required increased infrastructure improvements for the proposed lot sizes, including sewer service for the creation of lots under one acre. The Planning Commission requested that the Findings be amended to reflect their discussions. Staff has amended Findings 1, 3, 4 and 6 to address the Commission's discussions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 91- denying Parcel Map No. 26507 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Parcel Map No. 25607. SJ: ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated 1-28-91 and 1-7-91 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 1-28-91 and 1-7-91 STAFFRPT\PM25607 2 [.,czc~ /~,e.,:.-: z ,'V Notice of Public Hearing, THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Parcel Map No. 25607 Robert Paine Southeast corner of Estero Street and Ormsby Road 2 lot residential subdivision consisting of 1.4 acres Negative Declaration 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 correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Steve Jiannino, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temgorary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula Tuesday. February 26. 1991. 7:00 PM NOPH\FORM RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE PARCELMAP NO. 25607 TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 PARCELS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ESTERO STREET AND ORMSBY ROAD. WHEREAS, Robert Paine filed Tentative parcel Map No. 25607 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Tentative Parcel Map on February 26, 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 Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:-- A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within 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. (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, STAFFRPT\PM25607 1 (b) 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, I 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 Parcel Map is consistent with the SWAP. However, the SWAP designation for the property that is the subject of this proposed Tentative Parcel Map (hereafter 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 Parcel Map No. 25607 proposed will not be consistent with the general plan proposal which will be studied within a reasonable time. lb) 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, D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, any subdivision may be denied if any of the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is not consistent with 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. cl That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development. ST^FFRPT\PM25607 2 d) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. e) 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 or 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 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 Council in denying the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings: a) There is a reasonable probability that this project may be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project does not propose the proper infrastructure for the proposed density with use of subsurface sewage disposal and lack of adequate paved access. b) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule G. c) 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. The project does not have appropriate off-site access and does not STAFF R PT\PM25607 3 d) e) f) g) h) provide sewer service. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, due to the fact that the site has been previously graded under County approved grading permits. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. The lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to. vehicular traffic, access is provided from Estero Street, although access through Ormsby and Santiago Roads are not currently improved. 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 within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. That said findings are supported by minutes. maps. exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2._~. The City of Temecula City Council hereby denies Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 for the subdivision of a 1.8 acre parcel into 2 parcels located at the southeast corner of Estero Street and Ormsby Road based on the above findings. DENIED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of February, 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR STAFFRPT\PM25607 4 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 26th day of February. 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COU NC I LMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK STAFFRPT\PM25607 5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 28, 1991 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 Prepared By: Steve R. Jiannino Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 91- denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Robert Paine Benesh Engineering 2 lot residential subdivision Southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street R-R ( Rural Residential) North: R- R South: R- R East: R-R West: R- 1 Same ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) (One-Family Dwelling ) Vacant North: South: East: West: Single Family Homes Vacant Single Family Homes Single Family Residential Tract Total Acres: No. of Lots: Maximum Lot Size: Minimum Lot Size: 1.42 acres 2 lots .806 acre .614 acre STAFFRPT\PM25607 1 BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 was submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department January 23. 1990. The project was transmitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department in June as an incomplete application. The project has been processed by the City through both the Pre-DRC and the Formal DRC meeting, The applicant has addressed the concerns of Staff, The project is being forwarded to the Planning commission for your consideration, The site has been previously graded and two house pads currently exist within the 1,4 acres, The Planning Commission has approved two other Parcel Maps on Estero Street. Parcel Map No, 24633 and Parcel Map No. 25538, at recent Planning Commission meetings. This project continues the established trend of 1/2 acre lots along Estero Street, Staff has conditioned this project in a similar manner as the previous two parcel maps. Parcel Map No. 25607 proposes to divide Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No, 16705 into two parcels; Parcel 1 - .806 acres Parcel 2 - .614 acres. The proposed lot sizes conform to the development standards of the R-R ( Rural Residential ) zoning for the site. The proposed 1/2 acre lots provide a transition area between R-1 (7,200 square foot lots) to the west and the larger rural lots to the south and east, Circulation: Direct access is achieved from Estero Street to Ormsby Road which connects to Santiago Road. Ormsby Road is a paved road which is in need of repair. Ormsby connects with Santiago Road which is scheduled to be a major road but is currently a dirt road or partially paved. A paved access to the tract is available through the residential tract to the west, Windsor Crest. The circulation through the residential tract is not the most appropriate since Ormsby Road is a residential collector. but it does not currently connect with a fully improved major road. Santiago Road, STAFF R PT\PM25607 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Infrastructure Water and power currently exist in the area with proposed sewage disposal being achieved by the use of septic tanks. There are concerns regarding the use of septic tanks for sewage disposal in tracts including 6 or more lots. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board currently has a memorandum of understanding with Riverside County Health that on subdivisions of land with 5 or fewer lots, the project will be reviewed by the County Health Department, which allows minimum lot sizes of 1/2 acre for septic use. On tracts consisting of 6 or more lots, the project would be reviewed by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The policy of the board requires minimum lot sizes of 1 acre for septic disposal. With Estero Street being reviewed as one project, the current proposed subdivision would not be consistent with the requirement since 6 lots are already approved along Estero Street, with 4 1/2 acre lots and 2 lots over an acre in size. Therefore, concerns exist regarding ground water quality with the approval of this project. Zonin.q The project conforms to the current zoning for the site, R-R, which allows a minimum lot size of .5 acres. The project has been conditioned to conform to the improvement standards of Ordinance No. 460, Schedule G. The subject parcel is designated as 1-2 dwelling units per acre according to the Southwest Area Plan. The proposed land division is consistent with this designation, resulting in the potential of 1.6 DU/AC. The project is maybe inconsistent with the newly developed General Plan if the infrastructure requirements for 1/2 acre lots requires sewers for sewage disposal. Due to the recommended denial, no environmental determination has been made at this time. Before an environmental determination can be made, additional studies may be needed. These studies will include: 1) a detailed traffic study to address STAFF R PT\PM25607 3 FINDINGS: the cumulative effect of increased density within the area on the existing road systems, and 2) a soils and geologic report, including detailed information on the potential for soil and groundwater contamination caused by the cumulative effects of subsurface disposal from the proposed project· There is a reasonable probability that this project may be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, The project does not propose the proper infrastructure for the proposed density with use of subsurface sewage disposal and lack of adequate paved access. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No, 460. Schedule G. 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. The project does not have appropriate off-site access and does not provide sewer service. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. due to the fact that the site has been previously graded under County approved grading permits. The design of'the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities, The lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to. vehicular traffic, access is provided from Estero Street. although access through Ormsby and Santiago Roads are not currently improved, STAFFRPT\PM25607 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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 within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution No. 91- denying Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. SJ: ks Attachments Resolution Exhibits STAFF R PT\PM25607 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PARCEL MAP NO. 25607 TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 PARCELS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORMSBY ROAD AND ESTERO STREET. WHEREAS, Robert Paine filed Parcel Map No. 25607 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel January 7 and January 28, 1991, at which time interested persons opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; Map on had an WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approval of said Parcel 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: 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. STAFFRPT\PM25607 1 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 Parcel Map 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 Planning Commission 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 Parcel Map No, 25607 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 complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, STAFFRPT\PM25607 2 D. Ill Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460. a subdivision map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made: a) That the proposed land division is not consistent with 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. e) 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 or 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 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. STAFFRPT\PM25607 3 (2) The Planning Commission in denying Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that this project may be inconsistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project does not propose the proper infrastructure for the proposed density with use of subsurface sewage disposal and lack of adequate paved access. b) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule G. c) 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. The project does not have appropriate off-site access and does not provide sewer service. d) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, due to the fact that the site has been previously graded under County approved grading permits. e) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. The lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. f) All lots have access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Estero Street, although access through Ormsby and Santiago Roads are not currently improved. STAFFRPT\PM25607 4 g) h) 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 within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere with any easements. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 1991. 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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PM25607 5 .i ! R-I ZONING CASE CZ 911 LA pRItdAVE:R..~ V R -R R-R LOCATION CASE SP 180 DU/AC GARITA ,,~ L, sP --J -~-~-~.,~:~_~,? ~ ,, COMMUNITY PARK ~ tt ~ ~ - STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 7, 1991 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 Prepared By: Steve R. Jiannino Recommendation: Adopt Negative Declaration and Adopt Resolution 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Robert Paine Benesh Engineering 2 lot residential subdivision Southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street R-R ~Rural Residential) North: R- R South: R-R East: R- R West: R- 1 ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential) { One-Family Dwelling) Same Vacant North: South: East: West: Single Family Homes Vacant Single Family Homes Single Family Residential Tract Total Acres: No. of Lots: Maximum Lot Size: Minimum Lot Size: 1.~2 acres 2 lots .806 acre .61~ acre STAFF R PT\PM25607 1 BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: The application for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 was submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department January 23, 1990. The project was transmitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department in June as an incomplete application. The project has been processed by the City through both the Pre-DRC and the Formal DRC meeting. The applicant has addressed the concerns of Staff. The project is being forwarded to the Planning commission for your consideration. The site has been graded with two existing house pads. The Planning Commission has approved two other Parcel Maps on Estero Street, Parcel Map No. 2~633 and Parcel Map No. 25538, at recent Planning Commission meetings. This project continues the established trend of 1/2 acre lots along Estero Street. Staff has conditioned this project in a similar manner as the previous two parcel maps. Parcel Map No. 25607 proposes to divide Parcel ~ of' Parcel Map No. 16705 into two parcels; Parcel 1 - .806 acres Parcel 2 - .61~ acres. The proposed lot sizes conform to the development standards of the R-R { Rural Residential) zoning for the site. The proposed 1/2 acre lots provide a transition area between R-1 { 7,200 square foot lots) to the west and the larger rural lots to the south and east. Circulation: Access to the project will be from Estero Road which is paved and connects to the Windsor Crest Development which connects to Pauba Road or from Ormsby which is paved but contains pot holes and connects to Santiago which is only partially paved. Zoninq The project conforms to the current zoning for the site, R-R, which allows a minimum lot size of .5 acres. The project has been conditioned to conform to the improvement standards of Ordinance No. q60, Schedule G. STAFF R PT\PM25607 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: The subject parcel is designated as 1-2 dwelling units per acre according to the Southwest Area Plan. The proposed land division is consistent with this designation, resulting in the potential of 1.6 DU/AC. It is anticipated that the proposed land division, as conditioned, will be consistent with the City~s forthcoming General Plan as a transitional land use between the approximate 0.25 acre lots and the surrounding larger parcels. An initial study has been completed for the project and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the proposal, 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 Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that this' project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project is consistent with the surrounding current residential development. There is not 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 is of a small scale and is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. 460, Schedule G. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. The project has access to public roads and already has two graded house pads. e The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or STAFF R PT\PM25607 substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. e The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. The lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. e All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Estero Street. 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 within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere. with any easements. 10. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: SJ :ks Attachments Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 25607; and Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Resolution Conditions of Approval Initial Study Exhibits STAFFRPT\PM25607 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 25607 TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1; ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 PARCELS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORMSBY ROAD AND ESTERO STREET. WHEREAS, Robert Paine filed Parcel Map No. 25607 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on January 7, 1991, 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 approval of said Parcel 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: 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. STAFFRPT\PM25607 1 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 Parcel Map 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 Planning Commission 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 Parcel Map No. 25607 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 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: STAFFRPT\PM25607 2 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 Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: 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 Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. STAFF R PT\PM25607 3 b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time. The project is consistent with the surrounding current residential development. There is not 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 is of a small scale and is consistent with surrounding development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law. The project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. ~60, Schedule G. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density. The project has access to public roads and already has two graded hous6 pads. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. The lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure. All lots have acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated rights-of-way which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic, access is provided from Estero Street. 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 within the proposed project as conditioned. The project will not interfere STAFF R PT\PM25607 ~ with any easements. j) The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. k) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. project will Declaration, An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel Map No. 25607 for the subdivision of a 1 .~ acre parcel into 2 parcels located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foreg6ing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PM25607 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: 25607 Project Description: 2 Lot Residential Subdivision Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-070-011 Planni 1. e nq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule G, 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 tentative map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 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. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 9, 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 April 6, 1990, 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 STAFFRPT\PM25607 1 e 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 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 November 19, 1990, 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, 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-R zone. 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 I 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. 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. STAFFRPT\PM25607 2 16. 17. 18. 19. 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. 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. Co 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. de Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten I10) feet. e. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. 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 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 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. 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 pt.-wired in the residence. STAFFRPT\PM25607 3 20. 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. 21. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Parks and Recreation 22. TCSD Conditions: Upon request of a building permit for construction of a residential structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four years a predetermined Quimby Act fee to be used for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes in the amount equal to the fair market value of .01295* acres shall be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such permit as authorized by Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 as amended through Ordinance No. 460.93. * Plus 20% for offsite improvements En.clineerinq 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. 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. 23. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 24. 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: 25. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District: Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau: Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and Parks and Recreation Departmen. t. STAFF R PT\PM25607 L~ 26. Ormsby Road shall be improved with 22 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 (L1~'/66'). 27. Estero Street shall be improved with full street improvements within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 105. Section B (36'/60') with concrete curb and gutter, The developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City for the construction of Estero Street east of Ormsby Road, Parcels 1. 2. and 3 of Parcel Map No. 16705 shall be required to reimburse the developer for the cost of design and construction of Estero Street within their frontage prior to any permit issuance or prior to any subdivision approval. 28. 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, drive approaches, street lights, signing, and striping. b. Domestic water systems. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 32. 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. 33. A drainage easement shall be provided across Parcel 1 for the benefit of Parcel 2. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 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. STAFF R PT\ PM25607 5 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 35. Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights. 36. 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 OF THE FINAL MAP: 37. A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Estero Street and Ormsby Road and shall be shown on the street improvement plans, 38. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 39. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. STAFFR PT\PM25607 6 RlVER31DE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN OOOIIiI-I,'~ON wrTH CALIFORNIA OEPAFITMENT O~ FORESTRY AN:~ II!RE PRGTE~?ION ~ovember ~9~ ~990 TO: ATTO: liE: C:TY 0r T~ECL']dL ?LAENIN~ DEPA~.~£t;T PA~C£L ~AP 25607 PLANNING & ENGINEERING (?t4) 275-4777 V1th res;let tO t~e condttlonl o! approval for the above refereecat land division, in accordsoct with Riveratie County 0tdtnancel ·M/or recognized [/rs protection PROTECT:ON Schedule "G" firs ;rocactio~. Au approved standard ~t:e b~drent (6"x*"x2~") 330 feet iron i ~ire hydci~C. Minimum ~ire Slow shall be 1000 G?M for 2 houri duration &C 20 PSI. 'L'~e applicanc/doviLope~ shall provide written certification from the appropriate vace~ company that the ~aqu~rsd f~ra hydrants are etcher sx~stin~ or chat ~n&ncial arrangemania hive ~sen made Ca provide them. The requtre~ vicar eyetim, 2ne~u~£ng fire by&ranCe, ahall be installed and ·ccepcad placed OR an ~nd~v*dual lot. the ~vere~da County Five Oeplrt~nC, · ~&sh sum of $~00.00 per lot/unit eo m~t~$e~on ~or g~re p~otect~on ~m~acts. Plannlns and Bastnet=in ~A!~OND H. IL~OIS C~ia~ ~re Oeparement Planner ~lchael E. Gray, Deputy FtEi Department Plannee K£NNE'TH I.. E:DWARD$ 4~HIEIr Ir NGINI~EI~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 April 6, 1990 1995 MARKET STREET P.O. 80X 1033 TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015 FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 Sung Key Ma Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Parcel Map 25607 This is a request to divide 1.42 acres into two lots; the smaller lot would be .52 acres net. The property is located in the Ran- cho California area on Ormsby Road between Santiago and Pauba Roads. .The topography of this area consists of rolling hills with the swales subject to occasional flash flooding. Extensive develop- ment is occurring in the region with new grading and building adjoining this project. Following are the District's recommendations: Local runoff in Estero Street should be directed to out- let into Ormsby Road. Curb and gutters or AC berms shall be installed along the adjacent roadbeds and should provide protection against offsite runoff. 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 via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda- tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to the Subdivision section of this office at 714/787-2884. c: Benesh Engineering enior Civil Engineer DHT:mcy ,RECEIVED '.NOV 1 6 19911 I,rNVI~0HHEII'I'AL iII'-'AL'I'Ii SEI{VICES DiVISlOIl 3636 UNiVE[tSi'I'Y AVIrNUI~. ' 11iVEI~SlDI"-, CA ~2503 S Cl tlEDULI"- WAIVER REQUEST? DEP.-'~RT~fENT OF HEALTH HAS REVI~'W_-.D TH'~ MAP DESCRIBED ABOVE. ANY'QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS T~IISIiI~AL. CONTACT (714) 707-0543. /~COl'f>iENDATIONS AR~ AS FOLLOWS: ' I F 'iIllfft[:: f3 The EnvironmenLal HealLh Serv~cos,Dxvislon (E}'iSD; I~as rev~owod "a~',s;'ni!ity rnpmrt chall h~ sub~nztLed for fevzew and approval b'/ :T::','ii'cnm~ntnl Health Service: D~vis~on. sll~ll include a~ld addros~ ll%o Tl'le proposed cuLs and/or Fills zz'~ Lho areas o£ 2. 'i'1)o sowaoo svsLom a[~d zL" s 100% e:<~)a~slo~ area. · .' placed in n&Lural undisLurbe.tt sol I . '. roforozlco to Lho olovatzon of tl~o disposal --:Ain~ with regard to tho conclusions and rocommondat.~o~,~ sot ~c:ic cnginoor's o,timatO by moro tl~an twu I oct. add~tl,>~,al ~,,~)o~ t~ .' J:.u~ :-ed. A copy of' the' final aradino plan. on a sca)o not, si,,~]ler Llla~J ..r.::i:v. um with detailod subsurfmco sewaoo dJ:~o=al data Lo li,cJ,J,Jo -::'::~:-::!oa, shall be submitted l'or re, view a~d auproval , -'J.', :;:~?U'!'~ ~il{!;C'I'Ut{ Oi¢ :-;.'.:_'i'll I;'OR ENVIR014HEHTAL ;'...'..i_'i: I . CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Robert Paine e Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 6563 Via Arboles Anaheim, CA 92808 1213) 633-0161 e Date of Environmental Assessment: November 19, 1990 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 6. Location of Proposal: Southeast Corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street Environmental Impacts Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ae Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X be Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Ce Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X ee Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\PM25607 1 Yes Maybe No e e 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? ge 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? The creation of objectionable odors? 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? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? fe Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PM25607 2 Yes Maybe No he 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 waves3 Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ae 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? de 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)? be 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 STA FFR PT\PM25607 3 Yes Maybe No e e 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 Glare. 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? 'b. 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 STAFFRPT\PM25607 ~ Yes Maybe No 15. 16. be Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Co Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? de Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 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? de Parks or other recreational facilities? 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 STAFF R PT\PM25607 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: 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. ae 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? de Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X STAFF R PT\PM25607 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. ) Ce 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 STAFF R PT\PM25607 7 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1 .a,c,d e,f,g. 1 .b. 2.a,b,c. 3.a-i. ~.a,b,c, d. 6.a,b. 9.a,b. 10.a,b. 11. 12. 13.a,b,c, d,e,f. No~ The site has previously been graded under an approved County grading permit. Yes. Houses will be erected on the existing graded pads. The building construction cannot take place without proper permits. Any mitigation necessary will be part of the building permit process. No. The grading has been completed on the project no major air emissions are anticipated. No. The project has already been graded and no drainage course exist on site. No. The project has been previously graded no further impacts will occur. No. The project site has been graded under previous permits. Yes. The area is shown as Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat. The project will mitigate impact by payment of the appropriate fees. No. Only temporary construction noise impacts are anticipated. Construction activity will only occur for a limited time and be during the hours of 6a.m. - 7 p.m. Maybe. Street lights and residential lights will be required, but they will have to conform to required standards. No. The proposed project conforms to the planned land use of the area. No. Only one residential unit is proposed no substantial impacts should occur to Natural Resources. No. Only a single family residence is proposed. No. The project conforms to the zoning for the site and area development. No. Only one additional housing unit will be constructed. No. Proper transportation facilities are provided for to the site. STAFF R PT\PM25607 8 l~.a,b,c, d,e. 1~4.f. 15.a,b. 16.a,b,c, e,f. 16.d. 17.a,b. 18. 19. 20.a,b. 20.c,d. 21 .a,b,d. 21 .c. Yes. The project adds to the cumulative impacts on City facilities and resources. Mitigation will be achieved by payment of appropriate fees. Maybe. See lt~ a-e. No. Only one single family residence is being proposed. No. No major utility extensions will be required. Yes. Septic tanks are proposed for project. Septic disposal must be approved by the Riverside County Health Department. Soil percolation test must be completed and shown as adequate prior to recordation. No. No health hazards were apparent or proposed on site. No. The project conforms to the area development. No. The project is not located in a proposed recreational, open space area. Maybe. The project is within possible prehistoric areas if excavatio~ occurs a qualified Paleontologist or Archaeologist must be on site. No. No cultural or religious potential was evident on site. No. The project will not have a significant impact on the area. Maybe. The project will add to accumulative impacts caused by development. Proper mitigation measures are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. STAFF R PT\PM25607 9 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 November 19, 1990 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\PM25607 10 NG COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7, 199 plan sign and that the approval shall be used withi] year of the approval date; however, the sign is a Commissioner Ford recommended that th. plans be submitted, approved and in tighter time frame, with preliminary within 30 and finalization in 60 days. JOHN extensi¢ advised that the ordinanc~ provided for provisions for variances. CHAIRMAN [NIAEFF opened the public ~ at 7:00 P.M. MIKE WILSON, representing called upon to permit had been discovered the Railroad Street applicant, state Lstall the sign sued and aft4 had not MSI, that when they were were unsure if the ] the sign, in place. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF that staff go back to applicant had been appr. also stated that the 1 intersection should he felt it was imperative plan and see what the for in the way of signage and cape improvements for that leted. GARY THORNHILL that did not expect that the specific plan de .t with tem signage; however, the permanent e and Lping should have be delineated plan, and findings could be brought the Commission. COMMISSI¢ open, seco FAHEY moved to continue January 28, 1991 and leave allow staff to investigate the by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. No. 3 to the public hearing )ecific plan, : 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, leff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 5. PARCEL MAP 25607 5.1 Proposal for a 2 lot residential subdivision. Applicant Robert Paine, property located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. PCMIN1/07/91 -5- 1/14/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUkRY 7, 1991 MIKE BENESH, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, Benesh Engineering, representing the applicant, clarified that there was an 18 foot grade difference between the proposed lot and the lot owned by the Power's who had submitted a letter of complaint regarding the sub-division of this lot. The Commission as a whole expressed a concern for the continued sub-division of the lots in this area and of what appeared to be an avoidance of the State Sub-Division Map Act, as well as the impacts on traffic circulation, etc. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the impact that additional houses in this particular area, in a cumlative fashion, will have on the area as a whole. Assistant City Attorney JOHN CAVANAUGH recommended that in the event that the Commission wished to deny this particular parcel map, it was recommended that the matter be continued so that they could elaborate on the findings to support the denial. COMMISSIONER FAHEY'S motion failed due to lack of a second. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 25607 to the meeting of January 28, 1991, to bring forth findings to support the denial based upon what the Commission feels is a continuous abandonment of the State Map Act, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6.--~-DkRCEL MAP 25686 CHAIRMAN and turned the gavel down due to a conflict of in COMMISSIONER FORD 6.1 Proposal to warehouse building to a 2 unit for ownershi . Applicant gement Services, project 43550 Business Park Drive. PCMIN1/07/91 -6- 1/14/91 DRAFT PL~TNZNG COI~ZSSZON ~ZNUTES J~NUARY 28, ~99: flooding of the Vail School grounds which lies just beyond the Lake Village Lake _ e~ a4~i~ed thc rcsidont~ tSat-the l~n~ wore 'ng a~ _~spacc at ~.is--~ime was pri, property and we~a trcspass~.~ t~e a!~ advise, residents that this developmen~ Pauba would not be im~ The Pauba Road, Wildlife~and the COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND at 8:50 P.M. and Tentative Tract Map No concerns expressed seconded by ~xpressed a conce] ~ts from the speed control on of Fish and of ect. Co~--rrzoL close the public hearing ~ange of Zone 5631 and Vesting PARCEL MAP 25607 3.1 the%9~ol~i2&t ion and the ~esidents, COMMISSIONER asked tha~L~9~f dress the following issues as site diff.;w~n~e~a Pauba Road, effects of ~the Sports Park, andscaping, existing e ement~ and the quality of wa~ will flow into the drain. HOA~L~ amended his motion to .ude this dir to staff with the second's concurrence~ AYES: 3 CO~ISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagla~d NOES: 1 CO~ISSIONERS: Fahey ABSTAIN:i CO~ISSIONERS: Chiniaeff Proposal for a two lot residential subdivision. Located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street· STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for the impact the increased density would have on traffic. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he felt that this was a blatant attempt to avoid the sub-division map act. PCMIN1/28/91 -9- 1/30/91 DRAFT PL~qlqlNG CONVISSION ~INUTES ~ANU2%RY 28, ~99L COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the Assistant City Attorney had reviewed the findings for denial of this Parcel Map. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the Commission had the ability to make a decision on an environmental basis. He added that traffic circulation concerns was an environmental concern. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. MIKE BENESH, Benesh Engineering, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant cannot understand why he cannot do what another applicant was allowed to do in a previous request to the Commission for a subdivision. He added that the grading of the lots had been approved and permited by the County. Mr. Benesh also indicated the applicant's willingness to do the improvements to Ormsby Road. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 9:10 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 91-¢next) denying Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff iONER HOAGLAND moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 P.M. The next ~r Commission to be Elementary School, meeting of the City of Monday, February 4, 1991, 6:00 Mira Loma Drive, Temecu Vail e g Secretary PCMIN1/28/91 -10- Chai 1/30/91 ITEM NO. 12 APPROVALt~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~, TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department February 26. 1991 Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Mark Rhoades ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No, 24038 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Motel 6 Operating L.P. Massaro and Welsh Subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 commercial parcels. Southerly side of Moreno Road. adjacent to Motel 6, C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) North: C-1/C-P {General Commercial) South: R-3 (General Residential) Park East: I - 15 Freeway West: R-3 ( General Residential ) N/A Parcel 1 - Motel 6 Parcel 2 - Vacant Parcel 3 - Vacant Structure STAFFRPT\PP76 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: North: Motel South: Vacant/Fire Station East: Freeway West: Park No. of Acres: Square Feet of Proposed Motel: Proposed Restaurant: No. of Proposed Parcels: 4.99 16,000 sq.ft. 4,300 sq. ft. 3 BACKGROUND: Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 is an application to subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 commercial parcels. The project area includes Motel 6 ( Parcel 1 ) and the land immediately behind and adjacent. Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 was originally considered at public hearing on May 22, 1990. The item was continued off calendar by the applicant, to address Staff's concerns, until such time as a plan of development was considered for the site. Since that time, Plot Plan Application No. 76 was filed with the City, and approved by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1991. Plot Plan No. 76 was approved for Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 24038 is for a 92 room motel structure. Parcel No. 3 will require additional plot plan approval when development is proposed. With the approval of Plot Plan No. 76 and reciprocal access agreements between Parcels 2 and 3, the applicant has addressed Staff's concerns regarding the parcel map. The Planning commission at the January 28, 1991 Planning Commission hearing approved Plot Plan No. 76 and recommended approval of Parcel Map No. 24038 by a 5-0 vote. The Planning Commission adopted a Negative Declaration for the Plot Plan and the Parcel Map as a project per CEQA requirements. FINDINGS: The proposed division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code. A. There is no minimum lot size in the commercial zone, and the area is STAFFRPT\PP76 2 identified by SWAP as commercial. The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City's Planning and Engineering Departments. A. The lot design facilitates parking, access, and site design. The legal owner of record has offered to make all dedications required. A. Conditions of Approval require dedication prior to final map recordation. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. A Negative Declaration is recommended and all impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels through recommended conditions of approval. An Initial Study was prepared including mitigation which will alleviate all impacts. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, based on analysis contained in the Staff Report. The surrounding area currently supports commercial projects, and is identified by SWAP as commercial. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding uses. The project as proposed provides adequate provisions for future passive or natural solar heating or cooling opportunities. STAFFRPT\PP76 3 All three (3) proposed parcels include sufficient southern exposure. That said findings are supported by minutes. maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference, Ae This Staff Report contains mapping. Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation, STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION: ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map No, 24038 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. MR:ks STAFFRPT\PP76 4 Notice of Public Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA ,k3172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Tentative Parcel Map 24038 Applicant: Leland/Sung Development Location: South side of Moreno Road, easterly of Mercedes Street Proposal: Three (3) lot commercial subdivision on 4.99 acres. Environmental Action: Negative Declaration 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 from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Mark Rhoades, City of Temecula Planning Department (714) 694-6400 PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING: Temporary Temecula Community Center 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula Tuesday. February 26. 1991 7:00 PM RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 TO SUBDIVIDE A 4.99 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 COMMERCIAL PARCELS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MORENO ROAD, BETWEEN MERCEDES STREET AND 1- 15 AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-070-022. WHEREAS, Massaro and Welsh filed Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Tentative Parcel Map on January 28, 1991, 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 Parcel Map; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Tentative Parcel Map on February 26, 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 approved said Tentative Parcel Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council 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\PP76 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. (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 Parcel Map 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 Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PP76 2 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 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 STAFFRPT\PP76 3 easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The Council in approving of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code. There is no minimum lot size in the commercial zone, and the area is identified by SWAP as commercial. b) The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City's Planning and Engineering Departments. A. The lot design facilitates parking, access, and site design. c) The legal owner of record has offered to make all dedications required. d) e) A. Conditions of Approval require dedication prior to final map recordation. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. A Negative Declaration is recommended and all impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels through recommended conditions of approval. An Initial Study was prepared including mitigation which will alleviate all impacts. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, based on analysis contained in the Staff Report. The surrounding area currently supports commercial projects, and is identified by SWAP as commercial. STAFFRPT\PP76 4 f) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Ae If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding uses. g) The project as proposed provides adequate provisions for future passive or natural solar heating or cooling opportunities. All three (3) proposed parcels include sufficient southern exposure. h) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative Parcel Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 for the subdivision of a [~.99 acre parcel into 3 commercial parcels located on the south side of Moreno Road, between Mercedes Street and 1-15 and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-070-022 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. STAFFRPT\PP76 5 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: COUNCI LMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK STAFFRPT\PP76 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: 24038 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E, 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 tentative map will expire two years after the 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. 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. 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. STAFFRPT\PP76 1 e 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following agencies shall provide written verification to the Engineering Department that all pertinent Conditions of approval and applicable regulations have been met: Planning Department Temecula Valley School District Fire District Engineer Department County Health Department Water District Flood Control District Easter Municipal Water 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. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 25, 1989, 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 November 14, 1989, 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 Grading Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated November 29, 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\PP76 2 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated October 6, 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 C-P-S { Scenic Highway Commercial ) zone. 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. 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 recommendation. 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. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. Ce 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. STAFFRPT\PP76 3 ho je ke 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. 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. 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. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 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: 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. e 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. 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. Existing pine trees adjacent to the southwesterly property line of proposed Parcel No. 3 shall remain, and shall be reflected on future proposed landscape plans. If it is proven that it is impossible to retain the existing trees, then final landscape plans shall indicate the replacement of trees which are 36" box or greater. STAFFRPT\PP76 4 22. 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. 23. 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. 24038, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. 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. 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. 25. Within forty-eight {48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Came Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). 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\PP76 5 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. 26. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 27. 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: 28. 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. CalTrans 29. Moreno Road shall be dedicated to 44' from centerline on the final map. 30. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ICC&R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCE, R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CC~,R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. be The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CCSR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. de The CC~,R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. STAFFRPT\PP76 6 ee The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CCSR's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CCSR's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. i. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots. ii. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by an association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. ess III o Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements including access between Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 as shown on Plot Plan No. 76 ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 31. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 32. 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\PP76 7 E. J G&LL AGH[RoU 0 ,UP.H. gINDR& R(~¥[LL SS#. MRA. J M FAHNI~G R.S,M~A. H.r'. HOtlY. 0V Id., kLR. H. [.R. COYN[, U.S. COUNTY oF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT September 25, 1909 of HEALTH %> / II $575 IITH STREET MALl (POST 0FFIC[ BOX 1370} · RIVE~SIO~-iC~. g2502 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4000 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 Jeff Adams RIVER~I DE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1:~: PARCEL MAP 24038: See attached leqal description. (3 Lot) Gentlemen: NE<U GilTIll iA~m4110 3r ~$EY STREET ~E3 #~IllIK 8~OAOWAY 6LYT~E. ~A 1222~ 7240 MA~GUE~T~ RivERSIDE. CA eZSO4 COnON~ 505 SOUTH BUENA VtSTA ~ONA. CA 11720 ,80 NORTH STATE ST. ~EMET, CA 12343 ,6-209 OASIS STREET ~010, CA 12201 .AKE ILlINOnE .~K[ E~SINORf. CA. t2330 ,37 NORTH 'O' STREET ~[RRIS. CA S20 kIN~[N STREET :~V[RSIO[, CA. 82507 The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 24038 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, alonq with the oriqinal drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants: pipe and 3oint specifications,!~nd 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. lUlIOOUS ~¥ERSIDE. CA Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two ATTN: Mike McCabe September 25, 19~9 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 Parcel Map 24038 is 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 parcel map. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel mad 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 ~lans must be submitted to the Cou~y_~urveyor's Office to review at least two weeks ~rior to the reguest for the recordation of the This Department has a statement from 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 financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statementS%tom the Eastern Municipal 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 manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. ~iV~{ide ~Ounfv Fl~nnino Paqe Three ATTN: Mike McCabe September 25, 1989 The plans shall be siqned by a registered encineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map 24038 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 parcel map." The ~lans must be submitted to the County SurvgyR['s Office to review at leas~ two weeks ,Rrior to the request for the recordation of the final ma~. It 'will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map, Sincerely. Environmental Health Services SM:tac Attachment E£NNL~rH L EDWARDS CHIEF ENGINEER 1995 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1033 TEI.tPHONE (714I 787-2015 FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CAI. IFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team N~~ P1 anner Re: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project .is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well 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 environmental 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 home supports.' This project is in the )I~/~£X,~ r/~e_~x/~/~./~/~, A~ea drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordanbe with the applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The Oistrtct's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements I~aveThbeeenpr°ject will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. ) / /. ~ ) / Very truly yours, JOHN H. ICASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer Paqs Three ATTN: Mike McCabe September ZS, 1989 The plans shall be signed by a registered enqineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map Z4038 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 parcel map." The ~an$ 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 ma~. ]tWill be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. Sincerely, nmental Health Specialist IV Environmental Health Services SM:tac Attachment PLA'~NING & ENGINEERING 46.20~ 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 11-29-89 ATTN:. ~E: PLANNING DEPARTMENT JEFF ADAMS PARCEL MAP 24038 - AMENDED RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided · n accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: Upgrade fire hydrants on the corner of Mercedes Street and 6th Street, and fire hydrant in cul-de-sac on 6th Street to a super fire hydrant (6x4x2~x2~). All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 December 6, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Jeff Adams County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Parcel Map 24038, Amended #1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach l' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may.not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. t~n~~restruly yours, Senior Land Use Technician /sn BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADING SECTION TO: FROM: DATE: RE: PLANNING / J.A. HOWARD MILLS November 16, 1989 LDC Parcel Map 24038 AMD #1 The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass or gound cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284- 47. Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security to be posted with the Building and Safety Department. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86, and 284-46. Thank you. October 6, 1988 (Date) Riverside County Health Department c/o Massaro Welsh lb/2 N. Waterman Av., ~ulte b San Bernardino, CA. ~24UZ Gentlemen: Re: Availability of Sanitary Sewer Service for Parcel Map 24038 We hereby advise you relative to the availabil'ity of sanitary sewer service for the above referenced proposed development as follows: The property to be occupied by the subject proposed development: /~7 Is presently located within the boundary lines of this Di'strict's Improvement Oistrict No. U-8 and is eligible to receive sanitary .sewer service, Must be annexed to this Oistrtct's Improvement District No. following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary sewer service, Must be included in a new District improvement dis-trict, assess- / / ment district or other program to be formed and implemented for the purpose of providing sanitary sewer facilities and service for the general area within which this proposed development is provided: ~) 2) located, following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary sewer service, If you have any questions or con~nents to contact this office. Very truly ~yours, .. Robert N. Spradlin The developer completes all necessary financial and other arrangements therefore, as determined by the Oistrict, with the Oistrict by April lggO ; and That no limiting conditions exist which are beyond this Oistrict's control or cannot be cost-effectively and/or reasonably satisfied by the Oistrtct, which conditions may include but.are not limited to, acts of God, regulatory agency requirements or decisions, or legal actions initiated by others. regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1991 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24038t PLOT PLAN 76 4.1 Proposal to subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 parcels and construct a 92 unit motel and convert an existing building into a restaurant. Located at Moreno Drive, adjacent to Motel 6. Continued from the meeting of December 3, 1990. MARK RHOADES provided the staff report. Mr. Rhoades advised the Commission that Conditions of Approval No. 16, No. 25 and No. 30 had been amended by staff. A copy of those amendments were provided. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public' hearing at 6:35 P.M. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, addressed some of the questions the Commission had regarding the traffic issues. Mr. Markham stated that they had met extensively with staff and the Community Services District staff to address some of the issues brought up at the December 3, 1990 meeting. Mr. Markham added that they were in concurrence with the Conditions as presented by staff. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 and Plot Plan No. 76; adopt Resolution 91-(next) recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 and adopt Resolution 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 76, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval as presented and amended by staffed, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE; SUBJECT: Dennis Chiniaeff, Planning Commission Chairman Gary Thornhill, Planning Director~~=~ January 28. 1991 Plot Plan No. 76, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 Staff requests that the Planning Commission make the following changes to the Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 76: Condition No. 16: Change to ~eflect a minimum of three (3) handicapped spaces per Ordinance 348. Condition No. 25: Delete, not required for the Motel Use. Condition No. 30: Delete from Plot Plan Conditions of Approval and add to Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 as Condition No. 21.L. MR:ks STAFFRPT\PP76 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Planning Director January 28, 1991 Plot Plan No. 76, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 This item was continued from the December 3, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning commission continued this item due to concerns regarding traffic impacts at Front Street, project visibility from Sam Hicks Monument Park, and the restaurant use on proposed Parcel No. 3. The traffic impacts have been summarized in the attached letter by the applicant's traffic engineer. Impacts to both intersections of Front Street and Moreno Drive are identified, as well as Front Street and Rancho California road. The visibility of the project from Sam Hicks Monument Park has been softened by the addition of buffer landscaping at the eastern boundary of the park. The applicant has had several meetings with City Staff, including the City~s Community Service and Planning Departments regarding the proposed landscaping within Sam Hicks Monument Park. The revised landscape plans reflect the recommendations of Staff with the placement of trees and shrubs within the park boundary. A pilaster and wrought iron wall treatment will be installed to reduce the hazard of graffiti. A minimum ten (10) foot wide planter strip will be adjacent to the wall on the park side. At least six (6) 36" box trees will be planted in the proposed park planter strip, as well as a dense line of shrubs. The park planting will be installed by the applicant, with irrigation tied in to the existing park irrigation system. A total of six (6) other 36" box trees will be planted within the park area, subject to Staff approval. The final landscaping plans for Sam Hicks Monument Park has not been developed. The final landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and the Community Services Director. Additionally, at least five (~5) trees have been added on site as visual relief. All proposed trees on site between the park and hotel will be a minimum of 2tp~ box with 25 percent being 36" box or greater. Because of the substantial increase in buffer landscaping, no changes were made to the building elevations. The proposed restaurant use on Parcel 3 has been labeled "not a part" on the current plot plan. Any future development on Parcel No. 3 will require a separate plot plan review and approval. STAFFRPT\PP76 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038, and Plot Plan No. 76; ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2q038 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and, e ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 76, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. MR: ks STAFFRPT\PP76 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNERS 3600 LIME STREET, SUITE 226 · RIVERSIDE, CA 92501. (714)274-0566 · TELEX 573439 · FAX (714)274-9220 January 18, 1991 Mr. Kirk Williams City of Temecula Transportation Dept. 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Subject: Plot Plan 76 Dear Mr. Williams: In response to traffic impact concerns recently expressed by some of the Planning Commissioners, Wilbur Smith Associates would like to offer the following summary and clarification of Plot Plan 76 Traffic Impact Analysis findings: Project Trip Generation The proposed project, which now includes only a 92-room hotel (the restaurant has been dropped from the project), would generate approximately 53 'vehicle trips (total in and out) during the morning peak hour and 58 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. This level of vehicle trip generation is very low and represents an average of approximately one vehicle entering and one vehicle exiting the project site every two minutes during the morning and evening peak hours. A number of factors would further reduce project-related traffic volumes which could be expected at off-site intersections. These include the following: o With multiple access routes serving the site. the small amount of traffic generated by the hotel would be further diluted to even smaller numbers of vehicles (at any one location). o Project trip generation stated earlier, is based on 100 percent occupancy of the hotel. Typical occupancy rates for the hotel would be less than 75 percent. ALBANY, NY · ALLIANCE. OH · BALT1MOI'~. MD · CAIr'KD, EGYPT · CHAI'&ESTON. SC · COLUMBIA. SC · COLUMBUS. OH * FALLS CHURCH, VA HONG KONG ' HOUSTON, TX · ISELIN, NJ · JACKSC)NVILLE, FL · KNOXVILLE, TN · LEXINGTON, KY *" LONDON, ENGLAND · LOS ANGELES, CA 17,"~.,! FL · MNNEAmOLIS MN · NEENAW. W: · ND~,' HAVEN, CT · ORLANDO, FL ·PHOENIX, AZ · PITTSBUPGH, PA · PORTSMOUTH, N~ · P~OVIDENCE r. O If it is assumed that the hotel would serve persons visiting Temecula for business and recreational purposes, these trips would impact area streets whether they originate from the project site or other hotel sites within Temecula and in outlying areas. The proximity of the project site to downtown business would encourage the number of %valking" trips made by hotel guests. The current CPS zoning for the site allows for a variety of fairly intensive commercial uses. The vast majority of these uses would result in vehicle trip generation levels for the site which are much higher than for the proposed hotel use. TraIflc Conditions And Project Impacts Analysis of current traffic conditions in the study area has identified a need for various improvements at the Front Street intersections with Rancho California Road and Moreno Road. It is clearly recognized by Wilbur Smith Associates that these and other more significant improvement measures will be needed in the downtown Temecula area to accommodate traffic generated by existing and expected future development. Wilbur Smith Associates analysis of project related traffic impacts (assuming development of both the hotel and restaurant) found extremely small and in some cases immeasurable off-site impacts due to the project. The current development proposal which does not include the restaurant results in project impacts which are so small that they fall at or below the lower threshold of standard traffic analysis technique sensitivities. The addition of project traffic to existing traffic flows would be far less than the typical variations in traffic from one day to the next. The conservatively estimated project traffic increases represent less the a 3 percent increase at any of the area study intersections during the more critical evening peak hour. Riverside County traffic impact study guidelines use 5 percent as the lower threshold for identifying locations which would experience significant traffic increases due to a project. Project traffic increases at the Rancho California Road/Front Street intersection and the Front Street 6th Street intersection are less than 1.5 percent. It is dear that the currently proposed hotel project would have insignificant off-site impacts and would not trigger the need for any new roadway improvements. Roadway/intersection improvements identified in the earlier traffic study are still valid since they really address existing traffic congestion problems. Analysis findings indicate that a new signal on Front Street at S. Moreno Road could be warranted at some point in the future, but well after 2 build-out of this project. The decision to signalize the intersection, however, should be based on a more detailed analysis of downtown Temecula circulation system needs and alternative system improvements. It appears, based on our study, that a low vehicle trip generator such as the proposed hotel project would fit in well with any new development and redevelopment strategies for the downtown Temecula area, which include a desire to minimize area traffic. Please feel free to call on Wilbur Smith Associates if you have any additional questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted, Wilbur Smith Associates Robert A. Davis Senior Transportation Engineer pBANNIN~ CO](l(lSS!ON MINUTES DECF,~BER 3, 1990 II II ................ ' ' 13. TENTATIVE PARCEL ](XP 24038~ PLOT PLAN 13.1 Proposal to subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 parcels and construct a 92 unit motel and convert an existing building into a restaurant located at Moreno Drive Adjacent to Motel 6. 8TEV~ JIANNINO provided the staff report on this item. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that the staff report did not indicate any additional traffic that might be generated by this project at the intersection of Moreno Road and Front Street. KIRK WILLIAMS advised that the peak hours of the motel would be off-peak hours of the traffic patterns. He ~' PCMIN12/3/90 -11- 12/7/90 PL~NTNG CONl,iI88ION HINUTES DECEMBER :~ · !990 added that they concluded the traffic generated by the motel would be distributed throughout the day and off- peak. COMMISSIONER HOAGL~ND questioned the placement of this motel/restaurant adjacent to the historical Sam Hicks Park. GARY THORNHILL stated that the department posted public hearing notices and had not received any negative response. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned truck parking. STEVE JIANNINO stated that the trucks would utilize street parking. KIRK WILLIAMS stated that they did condition the project for 165' of red curb in front of the project. GARY THORNHILL stated that it would be impossible to provide that type of parking within the project. He added that the City is looking into a City wide ordinance regarding truck parking. CHAIRMAN CHINI&EFF questioned if this project was being conditioned to install traffic signals at Moreno and Front Streets. KIRK WILLIAMS stated that the trips generated by this project will not serefly impact this intersection. DOUG STEWART added that the staff is looking at putting in a raised median at the intersection of Moreno and Front Streets to allow right-in and right-out only. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. ~OHNJOHNSON, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road Temecula, representing the applicant, addressed the staff withquestions relative to some of the Conditions of the Plot Plan. He stated that on Condition No. 1, the applicant did some minor revisions after their meetings with staff which provided them with two additional parking spaces, and therefore, they propose to increase the motel to 94 units; Condition No. 16, their request was for the deletion of one handicapped parking space in front of the restaurant to be utilized for additional drainage; PCMIN12/3/90 -12- 12/7/90 PLANlqlN~ COMMISSION NINUTE~ DgCF, MBER 3, ~990 Condition No. 21, they proposed to construct a decorative block wall withwrought iron and pilasters; and Condition No. 31, they propose that the wording be changed to require a substantial conformance when the elevations for the restaurant are proposed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the applicant would prefer that Condition No. i remain as written or to continue the item to investigate the increase. DEL CURLAN, 29847 Villa Alturez, Temecula, representing Leland/Sung Development, stated that they would prefer to go forward with the project. JIM BACARELLA, 29892 Corte Tolano, Temecula, opposed the motel/restaurant adjacent to the historical Sam Hicks Park and stated that he felt the project would have a negative impact on the traffic on Front Street. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned staff's comments to the applicant's request for the amendments to the Conditions of Approval. Gt~RY THORNHILL stated that they would prefer to see the conditions remain as written. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the possibility of increased incident of graffiti on the wall if left a solid block wall. GARY THORNHILL suggested that they could construct the wrought iron and pilaster wall with a hedge along the front between the wall and the park. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt the building was to tall for the area proposed. COMMISSIONER FORD concurred.with Commissioner Fahey, adding that he was concerned with the impact that the project would have on traffic and felt that signalization should be addressed. CNAIItM~NCHINIAEFF stated that no matter what is put here it will be located next to Sam Hicks Park. He also stated that he felt the proposed height of the building was too tall for the area and that he felt the project was going to impact traffic. He also expressed a concern for what was happening in relation to the restaurant area. PCMIN12/3/~O -13- 12/7/90 PLANNING COI~IB8ION H!NUTE8 DECF~BER $, COMMISSIONER FORD clarified that the approval for the restaurant was going to come back to the Commission at a later date. GARY THORNHILL stated that it would be coming back; however, the applicant was requesting an approval on the use, which he opposed. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that staff look at restricting parking off of Sixth Street as well. COMMISSIONER HOHGLAND questioned approving this item not to include the restaurant. GARY THORNHILL recommended that Condition 31 of the Plot Plan require that all uses submitted shall be applied for at a later date and not be part of this approval. He also recommended amending Condition No. i to delete the last four words. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked if staff could address some of the concerns presented by the Commission more clearly. G~RY THORNHILL stated that if it was the issues of compatibility, height, etc., then they were looking at a major re-design. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that if it was not sent back to staff, he would not approve it. He requested staff's guidance. STEVE JIANNINO stated that a concern of the City Council in May was approving the project with no Parcel Map. They wanted to make sure the project fit the Parcel Map. COMMISSIONER F~HEY stated that what the Commission was saying is that they did not like the way this project fit the map. · TEVE JI~NNINO stated that staff would prefer that it not be approved. JOHN CHFANHUGH advised the Commission that they could approve the plot plan and the parcel map; or, approve the parcel map and plot plan without the restaurant; or, approve the plot plan with conditions; or, just deny the whole project including the parcel map; also, they could continue it with direction to staff of what the Commission wants. PCMIN12/3/90 -14- 12/7/90 DmCmqBER 3, 1990 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. and continue this item and direct staff to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. ~OKN C~VANAUGH advised the Commission that a better solution might be to deny the project and have the applicant work with staff and then bring it back. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF called for a second to the motion. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Chairman Chiniaeff stated that he felt it was an appropriate use for the location; however, he felt that the building was to high and had a negative impact on the park. He felt it would be better to let staff work with the applicant and address those concerns rather than deny the whole project. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that although the use and location may be appropriate, there is nothing else the Commission likes about the project and the issues that need to be addressed would constitute a redesign. COMMISSIONER HO~GLAND stated that he felt the concerns that are being addressed by the Commission are beyond the applicant's ability to deal with. The traffic problems were already there, the Park was already there and he feels that the applicant has shown a great effort in conforming to the zone. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing and continue the item off calendar to allow the applicant time.to address the Commission's concerns relating to the height of the building, the additional impact on the area and park and work with staff, seconded by CHAIRMAN C~INZAEFF. G~RY THORNHILL expressed concern for the time frame involved and advised that the City Council was directing staff to charge additional fees for the additional staff time spent on redesigning the project to get the project through. Gary Thornhill advised that if it was continued, they may have to bring it back with a recommendation for action on the parcel map as well as the plot plan and the applicant work out a deposit with staff to pay for the additional time spent on this item. Gary Thornhill suggested asking the applicant to apply ~ PCMIN12/3/90 -15- 12/7/90 PL;d~NING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 for a 90 day time extension. COMMIBBIONER BLAIR withdrew her motion, and the 2nd concurred. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFP asked if the applicant was willing to apply for a 90 day extension. LARRY MARKHAM stated that they would prefer to continue the item to a determined date, but would agree to a 90 day extension. G~%RY THORNHILL stated that staff could bring it back on the second agenda for the month of January. COM]4IBSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing and re-notice and continue Tentative Parcel Map 24038, Plot Plan 76 to the second agenda in January, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed disagreement with the motion due to the substantial redesign and the increased cost to the City. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland The motion failed to carry. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to deny Tentative Parcel Map 24038 and Plot Plan 76 based on the design, height of the building, traffic concerns and proposed restaurant. The motion failed due to lack of a second. COMMISSIONER HO&~LAND moved to reconsider the motion to continue, seconded by CHAIP44AN CRINIAEFF. ~HAIRMAN CHINIAEPF called for the vote on the motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24038, Plot Plan 76 to the second agenda in January and close the public hearing. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford PCMIN12/3/90 -16- 12/7/90 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 3. 1990 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2L1038 Plot Plan No. 76 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 90- approving Plot Plan No. 76 and Parcel Map No. 2~038 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Leland/Sung Development Markham & Associates Subdivide t~.99 acres into 3 parcels, construct a 92 unit motel, and convert an existing structure into a restaurant. Southerly side of Moreno Road, adjacent to Motel 6. C-P-S North: South: East: West: Scenic Highway Commercial) C-1/C-P I General Commercial) R-3 I General Residential) Park 1-15 Freeway R-3 I General Residential ) N/A Parcel 1 - Motel 6 Parcel 2 - Vacant Parcel 3 - Vacant Structure North: Motel South: Vacant/Fire Station East: Freeway West: Park STAFFRPT\PP76 3 PROJECT STATISTICS: No. of Acres: Square Feet of Proposed Motel: Proposed Restaurant: No. of Proposed Parcels: 4.99 16,000 sq.ft. 4,300 sq. ft. 3 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 was initially reviewed by the City Council as a receive and file item in May of 1990. At that time, Staff raised concerns relative to parcel size and configuration where no plan of development existed. At the public hearing meeting for which the proposed map was subsequently scheduled, the applicant requested that the tentative parcel map be continued off calendar. This would be until such time as a Plot Plan application could be considered concurrently with the proposed parcel map. On June 21, 1990, Plot Plan 76 was submitted to the City of Temecula. Plot Plan No. 76 is an application for a 92 unit motel and an adjacent restaurant facility. After Plot Plan No. 76 was submitted, it began to be reviewed with Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038. The two projects were reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee on August 2, 1990. Revisions and corrections were resubmitted and the project was reviewed and conditioned at the Formal Development Review Committee on November 8, 1990. Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 is an application to subdivide a 4.99 acre parcel into three {3) commercial lots. A Motel 6 currently exists on proposed Parcel No. 1. The remaining two {2) parcels will be considered for separate uses under Plot Plan No. 76. Plot Plan No. 76 is an application for a 92 room Days Inn Motel, and an adjacent restaurant use. Parcel No. 3 contains an existing structure which will eventually be converted to the restaurant. The project is located at the southerly leg of Moreno Road, on the south side of the street. Adjacent to and east of the project site is the Motel 6 and Interstate 15 Freeway. South and west of the project are Sam Hicks Monument Park and a fire station. STAFFRPT\PP76 4 PLOT PLAN The proposed plot plan is for a 15,972 square foot, 92 unit motel structure and an adjacent ~, 300 square foot restaurant use. The proposed motel is fronting Moreno Road. The proposed restaurant use is behind {south) the motel and northerly of 6th Street. The restaurant will have no direct street frontage. No elevations are proposed for the restaurant at this time. The restaurant use is conditioned to return to the Planning Commission for approval of the elevations when they are proposed. Adjacent to the proposed Days Inn Motel is an existing Motel 6. The Motel 6 was approved and constructed under the auspices of Riverside County Planning Department, Parkinq and Circulation Under Ordinance 3q8, the parking requirement for a motel is one space per room, plus two 12) spaces for a resident manager. Under this requirement, the motel would be required to provide 9q parking spaces. The proposed project is providing 9q spaces which includes the three { 3) handicap spaces required by the code. The proposed restaurant use is providing 58 parking spaces. Nine {9) bicycle rack spaces are being provided in lieu of three {3) auto spaces. This is allowed by the code under Section 18.12.7{e). The maximum serving area for the proposed restaurant use would be approximately 2,~00 square feet. The floor plan for the restaurant will be reviewed by the Planning Commission with the elevations when proposed. Access for the 13roposed project site will be taken from Moreno Road and from 6th Street. A 25 foot wide easement exists from 6th Street to proposed Parcel No. 3. The two access points and parking lot circulation will serve both projects. Reciprocal parking and access will be recorded under the CCSR~s which are conditions of the project. STAFFRPT\PP76 5 The Engineering Department has conditioned this project to pay traffic mitigation fees for impacts to Rancho California Road and Front Street. The traffic report for the project was accepted by the Traffic Engineering Department. Landscapinq The proposed landscaping and shading plans excccct the requirements of Ordinance 3~8. A substantial number of trees are proposed for the site. The trees will be a minimum of 15 gallon in size. The landscaping adjacent to the freeway will be required to have a substantial number of 24" box trees. Architecture!Materials The proposed motel exterior will consist of three (3) similar stucco colors; cream, beige, and tan. Wrought iron and accent trim will be painted a mint green. The roof will consist of mission style tan concrete tile. The proposed motel will be three (3) stories high for a total of tt8~6". The maximum allowed height is 50 feet. The architecture is reminiscent of mission style with broken roof lines, varying wall projections and offset floor levels ( front elevations). The project also incorporates arches, trellis and log (timber) projections. A large porte- cochere extends across the driveway at the Moreno Road access point. The porte-cochere lends to the visual appeal of the project view from the public right-of-way by increasing the horizontal orientation of the structure. The external air conditioning units for the project will be screened by wrought iron mesh on the upper floors, arch projections on the middle floors, and landscaping on the lower floors. Project visibility from the freeway will be minimal from the southbound lanes. The only portions which may be visible are some tower elements and portions of the top floor. Motel 6 is between this project and the freeway. The project will have no visibility from the northbound lanes of 1-15. STAFFRPT\PP76 6 Currently, there are no proposed elevations for the restaurant use. Such elevations and plans, when proposed will require additional Planning Commission approval. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP The tentative parcel map is an application to subdivide q.99 acres into three {3) parcels. Parcel No. 1 will contain 2.73 net acres, Parcel No. 2 will contain 1.53 net acres, Parcel No. 3 will contain .73 acres. Parcel No. 1 is the site of the existing Motel 6. Parcel No. 2 is the site of the proposed Days Inn, with Parcel No. 3 being the site of the proposed restaurant use. There are no minimum parcel sizes in the C-P-S zone. Adequate access exists for all three ~3) parcels in question. Access to Parcel No. 3 exists under a recorded easement from 6th Street. Reciprocal access agreements between Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 will also be recorded under the project CCE, R~s. GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Zoninq Consistency The proposed site is currently zoned C-P-S {Scenic Highway Commercial). This zoning permits both of the proposed uses provided a plot plan is approved by the Planning Commission. South and east of the project lies some existing R-3 {General Residential) zoning. However, the property to the south supports an existing dedicated park and fire station. The vacant R-3 zoning to the east is not likely to support residential development because of the expanding nature of the commercial development to the south and west. North of the project is 1-15 and west of the project is C-1/C-P {General Commercial ) zoning. The proposed motel and restaurant uses are compatible with the existing C-P-S ( Scenic Highway Commercial) zoning. Southwest Area Plan Consistency The project site as identified by the SWAP, is commercial. All of the adjacent uses are also commercial, except to the east which is freeway. STAFFRPT\PP76 7 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMI NAT ION: FINDINGS: Sufficient infrastructure exists in the immediate vicinity to serve the proposed project. The project and tentative parcel map, as proposed, are in conformance with the Southwest Area Plan. Several areas of potential impact were identified in the Initial Study, including but not limited to, soil disruption, possible geologic hazards, drainage, flooding, endangered species, traffic, and public services. Soil disruption, geologic hazards, and drainage has been mitigated through the grading plan which was accepted by the Engineering Department. The proposed project site is not within a flood zone, however, it is in a fee area. The fees will be paid to County Flood Control for the future improvements within the drainage basin. Impacts to endangered species { Stephen's Kangaroo Rat), traffic, and public services will be mitigated through the payment of fees as identified in the Conditions of Approval and Initial Study. All potential impacts have been mitigated to a level of non-significance. A negative declaration is recommended for adoption. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2q038 e The proposed division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code. There is no minimum lot size in the commercial zone, and the area is identified by SWAP as commercial. The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City's Planning and Engineering Departments. A. The lot design facilitates parking, access, and site design. The legal owner of record has offered to make all dedications required. STAFFRPT\PP76 8 6e 8e A. Conditions of Approval require dedication prior to final map recordation. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. A Negative Declaration is recommended and all impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels through recommended conditions of approval. ke An Initial Study was prepared including mitigation which will alleviate all impacts. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's General Plan once adopted, based on analysis contained in the Staff Report. The surrounding area currently supports commercial projects, and is identified by SWAP as commercial. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Re If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding uses. The project as proposed provides adequate provisions for future passive or natural solar heating or cooling opportunities. Ae All three (3) proposed parcels include sufficient southern exposure. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Re This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. STAFFRPT\PP76 9 Plot Plan No. 76 There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 76 will be consistent with the City~s future adopted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 76 is a commercial project. The proposed site is designated as commercial by SWAP. 2e There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Ae If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding uses. 0 The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Re The proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in conformance with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access. and intensity of use. Re The proposed site plan and tentative parcel map are in conformance with Ordinance 3~8. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the Initial Study and Conditions of Approval. STAFFRPT\PP76 10 e 10. The project is compatible with surroundin9 land uses. ke The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. A. The project conforms to existing zoning and SWAP designations. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. A. The project will take access from Moreno Road and 6th Street. The design of the project, 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 within the proposed project. The project has a 28 foot wide drive aisle from Marino Drive to 6th Street. CCSR's will be recorded which will ensure access. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. ke This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. STAFFRPT\PP76 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2L1038, and Plot Plan No. 76; e ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and, ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 76, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. MR:ks Attachments: 2. 3. 5. 6. Resolution 91- Recommending Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2q038 Resolution 91- Approving Plot Plan No. 76 Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 76 Initial Study Exhibits STAFFRPT\PP76 12 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 TO SUBDIVIDE A ~;.99 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS AT THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF MORENO ROAD ADJACENT TO SAM HICKS PARK AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-070-022, 023 AND 024. WHEREAS, Leland/Sung Development filed Parcel Map No. 24038 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel Map on December 3, 1990 and January 28, 1991, 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 Parcel 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: 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. STAFFRPT\PP76 13 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 Parcel Map 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 Planning Commission 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 Parcel Map No. 2q038 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 complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. q60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: STAFFRPT\PP76 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 Planning Calmmission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code. There is no minimum lot size in the commercial zone, and the area is identified by SWAP as commercial. STAFFRPT\PP76 15 b) c) The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City's Planning and Engineering Departments. A. The lot design facilitates parking, access, and site design. The legal owner of record has offered to make all dedications required. d) e) f) g) A. Conditions of Approval require dedication prior to final map recordation. The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. A Negative Declaration is recommended and all impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels through recommended conditions of approval. Re An Initial Study was prepared including mitigation which will alleviate all impacts. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City~s General Plan once adopted, based on analysis contained in the Staff Report. Re The surrounding area currently supports commercial projects, and is identified by SWAP as commercial. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding uses. The project as proposed provides adequate provisions for future passive or natural solar heating or cooling opportunities. All three {3) proposed parcels include sufficient southern exposure. STAFFRPT\PP76 16 h) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. proposed is community. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map compatible with the health· safety and welfare of the SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel Map No. 24038 for the subdivision of a 4.99 acre parcel into 3 parcels located on the south side of Moreno Road adjacent to Sam Hicks Park subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\PP76 17 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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANN INC COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP76 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: 24038 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~60, Schedule E, 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 tentative map will expire two years after the 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. 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. 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. Be 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. STAFFRPT\PP76 19 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following agencies shall provide written verification to the Engineering Department that all pertinent Conditions of approval and applicable regulations have been met: Planning Department Temecula Valley School District Fire District Engineer Department County Health Department Water District Flood Control District Easter Municipal Water 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: ae Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to I 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. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated September 25, 1989, 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 November lq, 1989, 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 q60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Grading Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated November 29, 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\PP76 20 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated October 6, 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 C-P-S ( Scenic Highway Commercial ) zone. 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. 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 recommendation. 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: ae Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. be Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six {6) feet at maturity. Ce 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. STAFFRPT\PP76 21 22. de 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. ee 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. ge Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. he 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. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 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: 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. e 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Dir~-tor 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 STAFFRPT\PP76 22 representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 23. 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. 2~038, 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 Temec~i. 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. 25. Within forty-eight (~t8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars {$1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars {$1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~(d){2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar {$25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .tic). 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. 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. 26. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. STAFFRPT\PP76 23 27. 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 FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 28. 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. CalTrans 29. Moreno Road shall be dedicated to LIq' from centerline on the final map. 30. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions {CC~;R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCSR's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC~;R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC~,R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CC~,R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. be The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem .necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CCF, R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. do The CCSR's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. The CCSR's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CCSR's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC~,R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and $TAFFRPT\PP76 perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC8R~s or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. i. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots. ii. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by an association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. III · Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements including access between Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 as shown on Plot Plan No. 76 ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CCF, R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. 31. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 32. 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 ElR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in affect 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 Dev. eloper 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\PP76 25 J GAt. t. AGH[R,U.O ,MRK COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 357~ IITH STREET MA~ (POST OFFICE BOX 1S70) RIV~SIDE~U. ~Z~O2 ROWELL, B.S N.,M FANNING R.S.,M.P.A. September 25, 1989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 C. H0~.IC, 0V M., Id,P.H. R. COY#E, II.S. ?P~TY DHq~CTO4 0Jr 1~4(I&.TH ATTN: Jeff Adams RIVEf:I61DE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT E. ALT# GII~III ANIIIIIO 355 P'IdSEY STREET CA E2220 LYT~ 63 N(~ BROADWAY ~¥THE. CA 12225 &SA BLANCA 240 MARGUERITA ~VERSIDE. CA 02S04 ORONA SOUTH BUENA VISTA ORONA. CA 01720 EMIl ~0 NORTH STATE ST. El, lET. CA 02343 NOlO 6-209 OASIS STREET '~OlO, CA 02201 AKE BI. BINOIIE 0195 FRAS£R DR. 'ALII SPRIIIOB ALM SPRINGS. CA i~2262 ,ERRIt 37 NORTH 'O' STREET '~ERIIDE 0 I*INOEN STREET £RSIDE. CA. 02S07 UIIOOU! MISSION BLVD. LVERS;DE. CA BZSOi PARCEL MAP 24038: See attached legal description. Lot) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 24038 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed accordinq to plans and specification 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 mlnimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, alonq wzth the oriQinal drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal Pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants: pipe and 3oint specification$,~and the size of the main at the dunction 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. Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two ATTN: Mike McCabe September 25, 1989 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 Parcel Map 24038 is accordance with the water system e~pansion 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 parcel map. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose".This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. _7~_~_~!ans must be submit~9~_~ the County Surveyor's Office to review at least t~ weeks ~rior to the request for the rgcordation of the ~nis Department has a statement from 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 financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement~rom the Eastern Municipal 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 manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles, Paqe Three ATTN: Mike McCabe September 25, 1989 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map 24038 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 parcel map." The ~!ans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks ,~rior to the request for the recordation of the final.~. It'will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. Sincerely, Environmental Health Services IV SM:tac Attachment KENNETH L. EDWARDS CHIEF ENGINEER 1995 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 1033 TEL[PHONE (714) 787-2015 FAX NO. (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CAI. JFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. ~__~ P1 anner/('//'k~ /c/~ Re: We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project ,is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well 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 environmental 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 home supports." This project is in the H~,E.~ ~~/~/~.W/~/~/C). Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements t~aveThb~enpr°ject will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. JOHN H. ICASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46.209 OASIS STREET. SUITE 405 IND[O, 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 11-29-89 TO: ATTN:. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JEFF ADAMS RIVERSIDE COUNTY PL~NNINQ DEPARTMENT RE: PARCEL MAP 24038 - AMENDED 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: Upgrade fire hydrants on the corner of Mercedes Street and 6th Street, and fire hydrant in cul-de-sac on 6th Street to a super fire hydrant (6x4x2~x2½). All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist ml Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 December 6, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Jeff Adams County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA g2501 RE: Parcel Map 24038, Amended #1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach l' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may.not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. Ve~yptruly yours, '~~oDer~ ~lnares Senior Land Use Technician /sn BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADING SECTION TO: FROM: DATE: RE: PLANNING / J.A. HOWARD MILLS November 16, 1989 LDC Parcel Map 24038 AMD #1 The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends approval of this project if the following conditions are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Plant and irrigate fill slopes greater than or equal to 3' and/or cut slopes greater than or equal to 5' in vertical height with grass or gound cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284- 47. Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security to be posted with the Building and Safety Department. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information from Building and Safety Department grading forms: 284-120, 284-21, 284-86, and 284-46. Thank you. October 6, 1988 (Date) John M. C~ud~es, Ptesi~,., Richard C !~11~/, Vice W~ G. ~ter ~ Gi~ ~ler D. 3~ Riverside County Health Department c/o Massaro Welsh 15/Z N. Waterman Av., ~ulte b San ~ernardlno, CA. 9Z4UZ Gentlemen: Re: Availability of Sanitary Sewer Service for Parcel Map 24038 We hereby advise you relative to the availabi)ity of sanitary sewer service for the above referenced proposed development as follows: The property to be occupied by the subject proposed development: /I~3~7 Is presently located within the boundary lines of this Di'strict's Improvement District No. U-8 and is eligible to receive sanitary sewer service, / / Must be annexed to this Dtstrtct's Improvement District No. following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary sewer service, / / provided: ~) Must be included in a new District improvement dis-trict, assess- ment district or other program to be formed and implemented for the purpose of providing sanitary sewer facilities and service for the general area within which this proposed development is located, following which it will be eligible to receive sanitary sewer service, The developer completes all necessary financial and other arrangements therefore, as determined by the District, with the District by April 1990 ; and 2) That no limiting conditions exist which are beyond this District's control or cannot be cost-effectively and/or reasonably satisfied by the District, which conditions may include but.are not limited to, acts of God, regulatory agency requirements or decisions, or legal actions initiated by others. If you have any questions or con~nents regarding the foregoing, do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly ~yours, .. / Robert N. Spradlin Manager of New Business RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING OF PLOT PLAN NO. 76 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A 92 ROOM HOTEL AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF MORENO ROAD ADJACENT TO SAM HICKS PARK AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-070-022. 023 AND 02fl. WHEREAS, Leland/Sung Development filed Plot Plan No. 76 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on December 3, 1990 and January 28, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 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: (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. STAFFRPT\PP76 26 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. Ic) 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 Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: I1) 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: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 76 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) c) 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. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30{c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. STAFFRPT\PP76 27 b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. {2) The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 76 will be consistent with the Cityis future adopted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 76 is a commercial project. The proposed site is designated as commercial by SWAP. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Re If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the commercial nature of surrounding uses. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in conformance with State planning and zoning laws. d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Re The proposed site plan and tentative parcel map are in conformance with Ordinance 348. e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. STAFFRPT\PP76 28 f) g) h) i) j) Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the Initial Study and Conditions of Approval. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. A. The project conforms to existing zoning and SWAP designations. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. A. The project will take access from Moreno Road and 6th Street. The design of the project, 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 within the proposed project. The project has a 28 foot wide drive aisle from Marino Drive to 6th Street. CC~;R's will be recorded which will ensure access. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFFRPT\PP76 29 This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 76 for the operation and construction of a 92 room hotel located on the south side of Moreno Road adjacent to San Hicks Park and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 921-070-022, 023 and 024 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 1991. 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 28th day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP76 30 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 76 Project Description: Plot Plan for a 92 Room Motel and Ad|acent Restaurant Use Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 92 room hotel and adjacent restaurant use. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies; appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 76. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. e This approval shall be used within two {2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the baginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 76 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. e Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated August 20, 1990, a copy of which is attached. STAFFRPT\PP76 31 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Ri'verside County Flood Control District~s transmittal dated November lq, 1989, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 5~6 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated November 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated July 28, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the CalTrans transmittal dated August 1, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water District transmittal dated October 6, 1990, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three {3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 3~8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten 110) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty {30) inches. A minimum of 96 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3q8. 96 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~ inches of Class II base. Parking for Parcel 3 will be determined when an application for development is submitted. A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: STAFFRPT\PP76 32 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone ." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B I Color Elevations) and Exhibit C { Materials Board). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Screening Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high decorative block wall or combination landscaped earthen berm and decorative block wall shall be constructed along the project perimeter, excepting the Moreno Road frontage, and the CalTrans right-of- way which requires chain link. The required wall and/or berm shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. The wall plans shall be submitted with landscape plans, and shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits. The wall separating the hotel and Sam Hicks Monument Park shall be constructed of wrought iron and decorative block. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with decorative masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. The placement of landscaping shall conform substantially with the revised plan submitted January 15, 1990. A minimum of 12 trees shall be planted within Sam Hicks Monument Park and shall be a minimum of 36" box or greater. The shrubs indicated in the park area shall be a STAFFRPT\PP76 33 minimum of five (5) gallon, planted 36" on center. All on site trees, generally located between Sam Hicks Monument Park and the motel structure, shall be a minimum of 2q" box, with 25% being 36" box or greater. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall require final approval by the Planning Director and the Community Services Director. be The proposed landscaping buffer within Sam Hicks Monument Park shall be a minimum of ten {10) feet wide adjacent to the property line. In addition to trees and shrubs, the planter shall contain ground cover in the form of drought tolerant grass. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 9 Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the restaurant project area. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantings, wails, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Existing pine trees adjacent to the southwesterly property line of proposed Parcel No. 3 shall remain, and shall be reflected on future proposed landscape plans. If it is proven that it is impossible to retain the existing trees, then final landscape plans shall indicate the replacement of trees which are 36" box or greater. Any development proposed on Parcel 3 shall be reviewed under a separate plot plan or other appropriate permit process. STAFFRPT\PP76 3q 32. 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. 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. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 33. 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. CalTrans Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. 35. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way. Interstate Highway 15 36. The developer shall submit four (q) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. STAFFRPT\PP76 35 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: ql. 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/Nagative Declaration for the project, in the amount in affect 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 ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Moreno Road from Front Street I North ) to Front Street (South) and for 6th Street from the northeasterly terminus to Mercedes Street. r~3. Main circulation aisleway shall be designed for 28' width minimums. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. STAFFRPT\PP76 36 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the approved signing and striping plan. On-street parking shall be prohibited along the Moreno Road frontage of the project iapprox. 165 feet) by posting the proper signage along the curb as approved by the City Engineer. The exact locations and sign type shall be included in the design of the signing and striping plan. Within forty-eight (~8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars {$1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .~4~d){2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight 1~18) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711 .tic). STAFFRPT\PP76 37 Coun,y o_ r vers de DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA DATE: ATTN: Mark Rhoades vxronmental Health $pecxal~st IV Plot Plan No. 76 / 08-20-90 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 76 and has no ob.lectlons. Sanltar¥ sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to anv bUlldxno Dian submittals. the foliow~nQ items wlli be required: "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerxna aaencxes. Three complete sets of plans for the swimmina pool/spa will be submitted. in order to ensure compliance wlth the California Administrative Code. California Health and Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted. including a fixture schedule. a finish' schedule. and a plumbing schedule Xn order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. SM:dr sTATE OF GALIFO~NIA--~J~IN~, T~AN~TATION AND HOU~IN~ AOENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 8, P.O. BOX 231 BERNARDINO, CAUFC~NIA 92402 TDD (714) 3~3.,4609 'August 1, 1990 GEOI~G~ O~UKMEJIAN, Go~,~mor I REr'.!SIV D AUG- 9 1990 08-Riv-15-4.980 Your Reference: PP 76 · Planning Department City of Temecula City Hall 43172 'Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Plot Plan No. 76 located at Moreno Road and west of Front Street. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under additional comments. If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro Saoud of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384. District Development Review Engineer Att. CALTRANS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORM (Your Reference) Date <"/,;'L;r/,o z%. -/.5-- '--/. Plan checker (Co Rte PM) WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE: f~___/Construction/Demolition within present or proposed State right of ~sy should be investigated for potential b~rdous waste (asbest~s, petrochemicals, etc.) and mitigated as per requirements of regulatory agencies. [/ %~ plans are submitted, plesse conform to th~ require~mts of the attobed '~andout". This will expedite the review process and time required for Plan Although the traffic and dr~ge generated by this prOr_nc'~l do not appesr to have a significant effect on th~ state highwmy system, consideration must be given to th~ cm~zlative effect of continued develc~mat in this ares. Any messures necessary to miti~te the c~,l~tive '.~t of traffic and drainage sl-mll be provided prior to or with development of th~ ares that _m~c__-~itates them. It appesrs that tim traffic and drainage generated by Lhis proposal could have a si~%ificant effect on the state high~y system of the ares. Any .,r~.'~ures necessary to mitigate the traffic and drainage f..-"~11%is portion of state hig~y is included in the California i.~U~ter Plan of State Hig~ys }~igible for ~ficial Scenic [Mgh~ay Designation, and in the future your agency my wish to [rove tJ~is route officiMly designated as a state scemic hig~y. This portion of state highuay has been offi¢iMly designated as a state scenic hig~y, and development in t~his corridor should be cc~tible with th~ scenic hi~y concept. It is rec~i-~d dmt there is considerable public concern about noise levels adjacent to hesvily traveled highways. Land develo~mnt, 'in order to be c~tible with this co~.ern, my require spe~iM noise attenuation m~ures. Developrent of property should includ~ any necessary noise attenuation. WE REQUEST THAT THE IT~'iS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT: Normal right of way dedication to provide __half-width on the store highway. Normal street improvements to provide __ half-width on the state highway. Curb and gutter, State Standard ~ along the state highway. Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs. __radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway. A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns. ~ A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to limit physical access to the state highway. /Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway. Vehicular access to the state highway shall be.provided by existing public road connections. Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by driveways. standard Vehicular ~ shall not be provided witlzim of th~ inter~tion at Vehic,,lmr a~.ass to the state hi,may slmll be provided by a road-type connection. Vehic, dmr access conn~ctio~m shall be paved at least within the state .hi~y right of ~y. 'Access points to tim state hiy~n.ay ~mll be developed in a ~snn~r that wLll provide si-J~t distance for __ ~rph along the state bi.jmay. ~.-'"'~Landacaping along the state higTr,~Y shall be low and forgiving in nature. A left-turn lane, including any n~ce$~nry widening, shall be provided on the state at Consideration shall be given to tim pro_vision, or future provision, of sigr~li~mtion and li-~hting of the interr~ction of ~,'~,.~,'~/7/; C~//~,--,,?~,~. /'/;~,,~,/ and tJ-~ state .high~y.~Az/~F£ A tr~fic study indicating on- and off-site flow pstte~s and vO!UTeS, probable 9:q~cts, and proposed mitigation i;,~ures N~l 1 be prepared. AJequate off-street parking, which does not require backing onto the state hig~ay, shall be provide. Paridng lot shall be developed in a r. mnner that will no~ cause any v~ic-l~r ~novement conflicts, incl,,ding parking stall entr~qce and exit, witJzin of th~ entrance from the state highway. Handicap par'-~ng ~mll not be developed in the busy drivm~y entran~ area. Care shall be takan ~mn developing this property to preserve and perpetuate tJ~ existin§ drainage pattern of the ~tate high~y. Partio,lmr consideration should be given to cu,~,l-~tive increased stomn runoff to insure that a kid.my drainage probl~n is not created. /Any nec~ry noise attenuation mh~ll be provicL.~d as psrt of the develo~ant of this property. Please refer to attaci~o adoicional co~r:~nts. I,'E REQUEST: copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval. copy of any doc~v~nts providin~ additional state highly right of ~y upon recordation of the nmp. WE REQUEST T~iE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS: .any proposals to further develop this property. copy of tJ,= traffic or enviro~w~ntal study. ch~.k print of the Parc~ or Tract f.~p. check print of the Plans for any improva~nts witJzin the state hi-J~y right of ~y. d~.k print of tim C~-ading and Drainage Plans for tJzis property ~n available. HANDOUT STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Revised October 1, 1989) INTRODUCTION This "HANDOUT" is intended to provide the permittee and/or the permittee's representative(s) with a few basic guidelines for the design of typical roadway improvements and grading · proposals within the State highway right of way. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE DESIGN CRITERIA that may be used in ~he review of a specific project NOR DOES IT CONTAIN ANY TREATMENT FOR UNUSUAL SITUATIONS which call for special consideration. Additional information and design standards may be found in the latest editions of the following publications: ASHTO (Policy on Geometric Design of Highways & Streets) Obtainable from: American Accociation of State Highway and Transportation 444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 225 Washington, D.C. 20001 Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Highway Design Manual Standard Plans Standard Specifications These publications may be obtained from: Department of General Services Publications Distribution P.O. Box 1025 North Highlands, CA 95660 (916) 973-3700 IT SHOULD BE NOTED: The developer MUST OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK from: Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Permit Section 247 West Third Street San Bernardino, CA 92402 HANDOUT Page 2 of 11 II. STANDARDS ALL WORK within the State highway right of way SHALL BE TO STATE STANDARDS, the Title Sheet of the Plans shall include a General Note with such statement. III. GENERAL SUBMITTALS REOUIRED General Note Statements, Street Improvement Plans, Grading Plans, Striping & Signing Plans, Landscape & Irrigation Plans, ~lectrical Plans, and Signal Plans shall include sufficient pertinent details to provide the contractor and the State's · representative with adequate information of the proposed project. A. TITLE SHEET The Title Sheet or Cover Sheet shall have a Vicinity Map with the project site indicated, General and/or Construction Notes, Legend, Quantities, and Index of the sheets. The Vicinity Map MUST cover a minimum of two (2) miles along the State route and at least one (1) major intersection. B. GENERAL NOTE STATEMENTS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING GENERAL NOTE STATEMENTS SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. An ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED before any work may begin in or near the State right of way. ALL WORK within the State right of way SHALL CONFC~ to the latest STATE STANDARD PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS or as directed by the State's representative (Standards other than State must be pre-approved and justified). NO EQUIPMENT or MATERIALS may be stored on the State right of way. ALL disturbed areas in the State right of way MUST BE treated for erosion control (hydroseeding or equivalent, or as directed by the State's representative). The responsibility for maintaining erosion control WILL NOT be released until the seeding is well established. The CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for the COST OF CALTRANS CLEANING ANY DRAINAGE STRUCTURES/CHANNELS which have become cluttered with debris and/or silt as a result of, or caused by, the construction project. HANDOUT Page 3 of 11 ACCESS CONTROL on the freeway WILL BE MAINTAINED at all times, i.e., the work inside the State right of way MUST BE FENCED OFF with no access to the work area from the freeway. NO FREEWAY RAMPS or FREEWAY LANES MAY BE CLOSED or obstructed at ANYTIME unless specifically allowed per the encroachment permit and/or as directed by the State's representative. ALL fence relocated to facilitate the construction of this project inside the State right of way SHALL BE REPLACED WITH CL-6 FENCE as shown in the State's Standard Plans or with a block wall in accordance with acceptable local agency standards. Where Type CL-6 fence does not exist, the State right of way fence MUST BE upgraded to TYPE CL-6 FENCE, as shown in the Standard Plans. The STRUCTURAL SECTION shown within the State right of way is for ESTIMATING purposes ONLY. The actual section WILL BE designed by a Soil Engineer after native soil testing has been completed. A traffic index (TI) of shall be used in the design of the travelled way, and a TI of shall be used for the shoulder design. The laboratory reports and the design calculations SHALL BE SUBMITTED to the State's representative for APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION of the structural section. %O. ALL State drainage structures MUST first BE COMPLETELY CLEANED of debris and/or silt by the contractor PRIOR to making the connection. The contractor SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE for ensuring that any State drainage facility which is connected to or directly affected by the contractors operation SHALL BE clean and operational PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE of the permit work by the State. Adequate clean-outs and access openings SHALL BE PROVIDED in any construction within the State's right of way for future maintenance and repair work as needed. This work shall be furnished at NO COST TO the STATE. Where SURVEY MONUMENTS exist, such monuments SHALL BE PROTECTED or shall be REFERENCED and RESET pursuant to musiness and Professions Code, Sections 8700 to 8805 (Land Surveyor's Act). HANDOUT Page 4 of ll The pavement MUST BE saw-cut 2' minimum from the edge of pavement. The saw-cuts MUST BE perpendicular or parallel to the State highway centerline. ALL signing, striping and pavement markings SHALL BE in conformance with the current edition of the TRAFFIC MANUAL, published by the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the SPECIAL PROVISIONS. All pavement markings SHALL BE thermoplastic unless otherwise noted on the plans. The exact location of ALL SIGNS shall be determined in the field by the State's representative. ALL conflicting striping and pavement markings NOT SHOWN on the plans SHALL BE REMOVED from the pavement by. sandblasting by the contractor. ALL conflicting signs SHALL BE either removed or relocated by the contractor. Relocatable signs SHALL BE installed as specified on the plans or as determined in the field by the State's representative. ALL signs, roadside markers, electroliers, etc., SHALL BE PROTECTED and/or REPLACED in-kind according to the current State Standard Plans and the current Traffic Manual, at NO COST TO the STATE. C. P?,ANS All Plans shall include and distinguish the existing and proposed construction in the Plan View. Details and dimensions must be included to accurately ascertain how the proposed project will "FIT" the existing conditions. The existing centerline, bearings, distances, stationing, and any monumentation shall also be included. All dimensions and offsets shall be referenced from the centerline of the State highway at specific stations. Right of way and property lines shall also be included on the Plans. All Plans must include cross-sections. There must be Construction Notes for each item of the proposed work and must be referenced to the location on the Plans. All slopes in the State right of way shall be 2:1 or flatter. HANDOUT Page S of 11 D. STRF. ET IMPROVEMENT PTANS The Street Improvement Plans MUST BE SIGNED by a REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. The Street Improvement Plans MUST CALL OUT all existing and proposed hydrants, street lights, and power poles. ALL curb, gutter, wheelchair ramps, and driveways within the State right of way MUST BE to State Standards. The curb and gutter in the 'State right of way 'MUST BE placed over a minimum of 4" Class 2 aggregate base compacted to 95%relative compaction as per California test No. 216. ALL pavement overlays MUST begin, end, and run perpendicular or parallel to the State highway centerline. The overlay MUST BE leathered to the next lane line. We DO NOT PERMIT radius-return driveways within the State right of way unless justified by traffic volumes prior to permit issuance. A soils report and design of the section MUST BE APPROVED by this placement of the structural section. actual structural office before the All improvements between the curb and the State right of way line must include a letter "to own and maintain" the area by either the local agency or the property owner if the local agency declines (see Landscaping Plan). E. CROSS-SECTIONS Typical cross-sections must be included. Cross-sections are required for any work within the State right of way. We NEED cross-sections at 50' intervals, from 100' each side of the project limits, along the State right of way. Special sections are required where existing or proposed conditions change significantly, such as a driveway. On projects 200' or less in length, cross-sections every 25' are required with a minimum of four (4) cross- sections. HANDOUT Page 6 of 11 Fe You must furnish this office with a letter stating you will own and maintain the proposed sidewalk. Additional cross-sections at the center of culverts, drainage inlets, driveways and road connections may also be necessary. The cross-sections MUST SHOW the existing ground or pavement surface and the proposed improvement including the curb, gutter, driveway, sidewalk, thickness and limits of the overlay and any other pertinent structural section information. Cross-sections shall indicate both vertical and horizontal scales and must not be distorted by more than a factor of five (vertical - 1/5 or horizontal). Existing and proposed elevations shall be shown at grade breaks. Cross-slopes between grade breaks shall be indicated on the finish surface. Curbs, gutters, driveways and sidewalks shall also be indicated. On cross-sections, the centerlines, property lines and right of way lines shall be indicated by a vertical line and must be labeled accordingly. It is important that the cross-section stationing correspond to the stationing on the plans, and that the work indicated on the cross-sections and plans is within the same limits. PROFILES Profiles shall include the centerline, top of curb, flow- line, trim-line or edg~ of pavement profiles, as applicable. The horizontal scale should match the Plan View, and the vertical scale should be 1" - 4' or 1" = 5' (generally, 1/10 of the horizontal scale), or whatever will provide the needed detail. The Profiles should be combined into the Plan Views, using half-plan/half-profile sheets. GRADING pT.~S The Grading Plans MUST include existing and proposed contours with finished surface and flowline elevations called out at control points. HANDOUT Page 7 of 11 Cross-slope and side-slope ratios MUST BE indicated on the plans. The top and toe of the side slopes must be indicated for the proposed grading. The profile of drainage facilities SHALL BE provided, i.e., channels, pipes, ditches, etc. Hydraulic calculations must be provided for all new drainage systems calculated at 100-year storm (Q100). When a connection is to be made to an existing culvert in the State right of way, the junction structure must have a cleanout; this may be a Flood Control District design. The flow in an unlined channel shall not exceed the permissible velocity stipulated in Table 862.2 of the State Highway Design Manual. All lined channels must be constructed per Table 872.2 of the Highway Design Manual. STRIPING AND SIGNING PLAN. The Striping and Signing Plan may be shown on the Street Improvement Plans, but separate Striping and Signing Plans are preferred. ALL existing signs and striping MUST BE shown, identified, and dimensioned according to the TRAFFIC MANUAL details. ALL relocated and new signing and striping MUST BE shown, identified, and dimensioned according to the TRAFFIC MANUAL details. All existing and proposed signals and detector loops must be identified. ALLstriping, marking, and markers MUST BE shown and MUST conform to the STATE TRAFFIC MANUAL. ?~%NDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PT~NS The Landscape and Irrigation Plan MUST BE signed by a REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. You MUST furnish this office with a letter stating you will own and maintain the proposed landscaping and irriqation (unless the landscape is a replacement in- kind required by Calftans). HANDOUT Page 8 of 11 The fixed object-traffic hazard rule must be followed. The Sight Distance Rule MUST BE applied to the street or driveway to determine proper placement of landscape plantings. All landscape planting, other than required replacement of existing plants, will be covered by an "own and maintain condition" contained in the encroachment permit (or separate permit as needed). These conditions shall remain in effect for a specific time period as defined in the permit and/or Cooperative :{ighway Improvement Agreement of public agency/private party, as applicable. Je Ke ELECTRICAL PLAN Any work involving electrical lighting WILL REQUIRE a 50- scale Electrical Plan on a separate sheet. The Electrical Plan SHALL BE prepared on a reproducible film media with blue-line prints provided for the reviews. Design details such as striping, crosswalks and handicap ramps SHALL BE shown on the Electrical Plan. The use of a reproduction of an existing "As-Built" as the basis for a modification plan IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. If road work is involved, the entire package SHALL BE PROVIDED for review, i.e., Electrical Plan, Striping Plan, Landscape & Irrigation Plan, and Roadway Plan. Plans MUST show the existing system as well as the proposed system. The proposed plans MUST BE in BOLD PRINT and the existing facilities SHALL BE shown in dashed or broken lines. Wattage and mounting height of the street lights SHOULD BE specified. SIGNAL PLAN A 20-scale Electrical PlanMUST BE provided depicting the existing conditions and the proposed modifications. The Plan MUST BE AN ORIGINAL DRAWING prepared on a standard layout size sheet (22" x.36"). A reproduction of an "As- Built" Plan WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. HANDOUT Page 9 of 11 If road work is involved the entire package SHALL BE PROVIDED for review, i.e., Signal Plan, Striping Plan, Landscape & Irrigation Plan, and Roadway Plan. Design details such as striping, crosswalks and handicap ramps SHALL BE shown on the Signal Plan. Plans MUST show the existing system as well as the proposed system. The proposed plans MUST BE IN BOLD PRINT and the existing facilities SHALL BE shown in dashed or broken lines. Any work involving signals and/or lighting SHALL BE AT NO COST TO THE STATE unless prior agreements were made which shall have included all the supporting documentation, i.e., Traffic Studies, and Traffic Warrants. The accidental destruction of State facilities during construction SHALL BE replaced in-kind AT NO COST TO THE STATE. Furthermore, ANY damage resulting in signal failure SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. Loop detector placement and designations SHALL BE consistent with the attached "TYPICAL DETECTION LAYOUT". NO detector loop SHALL BE installed in the path of a driveway or other intersection. The Conductor and Pole Schedules ARE NOT MERELY GUIDES; THEY SHALL BE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. Lighting conductors SHALL NOT enter the signal controller cabinet. Luminaires SHALL BE furnished without photo-electric unit receptacles. If the luminaire housing is provided with a hole for the receptacle, the hole SHALL B£ closed in a weather-proof manner. Only one (1) lamp-type ballast SHALL BE used. Overhead clearance of utility lines MUST BE ADDRESSED. A service wiring diagram SHALL BE PROVIDED. A dual Type III PE Control SHOULD BE specified with a detail drawing. Nylon jacketed conductor~ SHALL NOT BE USED. PROVIDE a stub-out for future coordination. HANDOUT Page 10 of 11 Controller software MUST BE approved by Caltrans. Caltrans Maintenance SHALL BE NOTIFIED 24-HOURS IN ADVANCE of any detector work so that adjustments can be made to the signal controller. The intersection INTERRUPTED. lighting schedule .SHALL NOT BE SIGNAL SMUT-DOWNS SHALL BE LIMITED to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday EXCEPT holidays. NO SMUT-DOWNS SHALL OCCUR AFTER 12:00 NOON ON A FRIDAY PRECEDING A HOLIDAY. The electrical inspector SHALL BE notified 48 hours prior to performing any work that may cause damage to the existing signal system so that immediate adjustments or repairs can be made to maintain the system in operation. Traffic Operations SHALL BE notified at least 7 days in advance of the anticipated "TURN ON" of signal controller from a new signal system and/or newly added phasing on existing signal controllers for modified signal systems. L. ADDITIONAL NREDED ITFMS All plans MUST distinguish the existing and proposed construction in plan view.. Details and dimensions MUST be included to ascertain how the proposed work will"fit" existing conditions. Existing State centerline and stationing along the State route MUST be added to all plans. Please contact our Public Affairs office at (714) 383-4229 for details on how to obtain any needed maps (Right of Way, As-Builts, etc.). All dimensions and offsets MUST be referenced from the centerline of the State highway. The State right of way MUST be shown and labeled at ALL locations. There SHALL be a Construction Note for each item of work and they MUST be referenced on the plans. The plans NEED a "NORTH" arrow on each sheet. The plans MUST call out the scale used (40 or 50 scale preferred). HANDOUT Page 11 of 11 We NEED a Typical cross-section of a minimum of half- width of the State highway right of way. We NEED profiles at stations showing the centerline, top of curb, flow-line, and edge of pavement. We NEED hydraulic calculations, calculated at 100-Year Storm (Q100) Basis. The connection(s) to the State culvert(s) MUST have a cleanout at the point of connection. NO WIRE MESH may be used for concrete reinfcrcemcnt in the State right of way. Local agency (City, County, etc.) Standards will be permitted in the State right of way ONLY IF they exceed State Standards and are approved prior to permit issuance. There MUST be a minimum of a 10' wide area on the State side of the right of way fence so State vehicles can be driven along the fence for maintenance purposes. We MUST HAVE six (6) sets of PLANS Plans MUST BE 22" x 36" (maximum size) Plans MUST BE INDIVIDUALLY folded 8-1/2" x 11" You will need to submit an application to OWN AND MAINTAIN, which MUST BE in the name of the organization that will "own and maintain" the proposed system (utility, sidewalk or landscaping) when it is completed, if applicable. The following must also be submitted if applicable: Environmental Document Copy of the engineer's cost estimate Copy of the Conditions of Approval If you have technical questions, please call Raj Chharan at (714) 383-4536. If you have technical questions, please call Basem E. Muallem at (714) 383-4536. If you have technical questions, please call Bruce Gregg at (714) 383-4526. PLEASE DO NOT CALL FOR A STATUS ON YOUR PERMIT UNTIL 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER ALL PERTINENT DOCUMENTS, PLANS, INFORMATION, ETC. HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46.209 OASIS STREET, SUITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619) 342.8886 November 6, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (724) 275-/4777 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PLOT PLAN 76 With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2½x2½), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the 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." 6. Provide a six foot block wall along south and east property line. KENNETH L. EDWARDS 1995 M~RKET STREET P.O. BOX 1033 'T~I IrPHONE (714) 787-2015 FAX NO. (714) ?88-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT I~IVERSlOIt. CALIFORNIA 82502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. Planner/4~/~ /L/~ Re: -We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well 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 environmental 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 home supports.' This project is in the ~rX/~ ~/~/~~~/~ ~)/C~. Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordante with the applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The Dlstrtct's report dated is stt11 current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~aveThb~enpr°ject will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. /.7 / / .uly yours~ JOHN H. ILASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer RE: PP 76 Page 2 Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 7. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low-level Exit Signs, where exit signs are required by Section 3314 (a). 9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 10. 11. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. .12. 13. Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fire protection company for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25¢ per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. 15. Motel must meet highrise life safety standards per Riverside County Ordinance 546, Section 801. 16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. 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 LC:rmac \~\~1~111~//./COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~N BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM .~.~'. ?,~..OE"ERAL SE,V,CES AOE,CY Orange Tree Lane · Redlands, CA 92374 DR. ALLAN O. GRIESEMER '334. 792-0052 · 825-4825 · 825-4823 /'~///{1[\~'~\ Director July 28. 199u City of Temecula Development Review Committee 'lemecula Planning Department 43180 Business Park Drive ]'emecula, CA 92390 re: PALEONTOLOGIC SENSITIVITY REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to comment on nonrenewable paleonto]ogic resources within the City of Temecula. 'the museum generally reviews proposed developments on an individual basis. This review, however, will summarized cases following the August 2 agenda you forwarded in order to insure a timely response. · ~cion f~nn ~t r'u.m,bdm-) n cit.v of' Temecull palco, review p. 2 e PP 76 The parcel is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Construction excavation will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources. The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific program to mitigate impacts to paleontolo~i¢ resources. This program should include: {1} monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; {2} preparation of recovered specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; curatica of specimens into an established repository; and {4} a report of findings with complete specimen inventory. Robert E. R~,vnolds Curator, Ear:h Sciences San Bernardino County Museum Wa r October 6, 1988 Board of Directors: Richard D. Steffey President James A. Darby St. Vice President Pmlph Daily Doug Kulberg Jon A. Lundin Jeffrey L. Minklet T.C. Rowe Officers: $tan T. Mills General Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance - Treasurer Thomas R. McAliester Director of Operations & Main~nance Doriz ¥. Baker District Secretary McCormich & Kidman Legal Counsel Riverside County Division of Environmental Health Land Use Section Post Office Box 1370 Riverside, California 92502 Subject: Water Availability Reference: P.M. 24038, Lot 1 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 ~gency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Bob Lemons, P.E. Acting Director of Engineering F012A/D1005884 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Leland/Sunq Development Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2757~ Commerce Center St., 138 Temecula, CA 92390 Date of Environmental Assessment: November 8, 1990 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038! Plot Plan No. 76 6. Location of Proposal: Southeast corner of Moreno Road and Mercedes Street Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X 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 eo Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\PP76 38 Yes Maybe No 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? go 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: 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\PP76 39 Yes Maybe No ge Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? he 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? de Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: 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? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP76 ~0 Yes Maybe No m e 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. 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? 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? bw 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 STAFFRPT\PP76 /[1 Yes Maybe No 15. 16. bo 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? 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? de Parks or other recreational facilities? 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 STAFFRP'r\PP76 42 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: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard i excluding mental health) ? 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? 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 STAFFRPT\PP76 Yes Maybe N_..~o 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ae 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. ) Ce 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\PP76 qj~ I II Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth a. Air 2. Ce ee b-c. No. Although the proposed project will result in cut and fill slopes there will not be changes in the base geologic substructures. The slopes shall be manufactured and compacted per the engineer~s requirements and as a result, should not result in unstable earth conditions. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering. Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are required. Maybe. Development of the proposed project may require substantial grading; however, it will not alter the existing topography. Maybe. However, a Condition of Approval has been included which requires consultation with a licensed paleontologist who will mitigate any identified impacts. Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading, retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after grading. No. There is no body of water near the project site which could be affected by the proposed project. Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault hazard zone area according to the Riverside County General Plan Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project will address and mitigate these potential issues. Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions will occur. This impact is not considered significant since the air emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the area's air quality. No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable odors or alter the area's climate. STAFFRPT\PP76 ~5 Water 3. a,d-e. fo he Plant Life 4. a-d. Animal Life a,c. No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is approximately one-half mile away, Yes. The proposed project will affect existing drainage and runoff patterns. However, a drainage and grading plan has been accepted which mitigates potential impacts to a level of non- significance. No. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the site will offset the water absorption rate; Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the streets and channels. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of ground waters. No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply or system. Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area. To help mitigate the project~s impact, a flood mitigation charge shall be paid. No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or endangered species should be affected. New species of plants will be introduced to the site as par of the landscape requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact. The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes. No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. It is anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards, and other animals common to the area. It is highly unlikely that an endangered specie habitates the site. STAFFRPT\PP76 46 be Maybe. The proposed project is within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat fee impact area. Although the site contains no individuals of the species because of previous grading activities, the project will be required to pay fees in accordance with Ordinance 663. Noise a. Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise sensitive. No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project. Liqht and Glare Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor {LPSV) lights to help avoid interference with the Mr. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow". The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project. Land Use e No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for General Commercial. The surrounding land uses are also General Commercial. Natural Resources 9. a-b. No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural resource. Risk of Upset 10. a. Maybe. If the operating tenant uses any hazardous materials in their operation, a list of hazardous substances and disposal plan would be submitted to the City. be No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and Police Department. Population 11. No. The proposed hotel/restaurant building will generate some jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area's population. STAFFRPT\PP76 q7 Housinq 12. No. The proposed hotel and restaurant will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing. T ran sportation ! C i rcu l ation 13. a,c. Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the project may add an incremental impact to the Rancho California Road/1-15 Interchange which is currently operating at capacity during peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee. be Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the use. The project will need lt~9 parking spaces and 9 bicycle racks. The proposed plan illustrates spaces. de Maybe. The proposed project will improve a portion of Moreno Road which loops around and connect to Front Street. However, the Engineering Department has included Conditions of Approval with traffic mitigation measures. ee No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic. Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Public Services lq. a,b,c,e. *Yes. The proposed hotel and restaurant use will require public services in the areas of police, fire, schools, maintenance of roads, and public facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing need for services over the long term. d,f. No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these public services. Enerqy 15. a-b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. STAFFRPT\PP76 ~8 Utilities 16. a-f. No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems. Human Health 17. a-b. Maybe. If hazardous substances are used on site, then that may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous materials will be used at the site, a plan for their use and disposal will be submitted to the City. Aesthetics 18. No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are consistent in architectural materials as the surrounding buildings. Recreation 19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses. Cultural Resources 20. a-d. No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict sacred uses. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 21. a-d. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural environment, have long term environmental impacts or have considerable cumulative impacts. STAFFRPT\PP76 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\PP76 50 EXHIBITS STAFFRPT\PP76 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 2qO38 Plot Plan No. 76 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 IADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. T.P.M. 2~t038 P.P. 76 32 Condition No. Condition No. 31 ql Condition No. 30 Condition No. Condition No. 14 9 Condition No. 13 37 STAFFRPT\PP76 52 Rencho California .o ~RIV£R$1D£ 37 MI. SUN C;T¥ t5 M~ TEMECULA QUADRANGLE CALIFORNIA 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) · ~o~O C 730000 FEET 4~ 117'07'30" .~. . 33*30' 480 000 FEET G~f 27'30" ! PM 2405B !' R-R C-P-S -, I EXISTING ZONING 180~ 13 SP. 180 · TI£RRA VISTA ~, ~ .R-I OPERATING LP-'dOHN BEENE App: MOTEL 6 _~&~_,~3J.v.V¥.~A.99 AC. INTO 5 LOTS ~t~ 15 FREEWAY VARIABLE ,~t RANCHO CALIF RD.~ARTERIAL i I I I PM 24 058 · LAND USE 1 ' App: MOTEL 6 OPERATING LP- JOHN BEENE LOC4T~O~~L MAP Use: DIVIDE 4.99 AC. INTO $ LOTS Area: TEMECULA , IstSup.Dist. Sec. IZ T. SS.,R. 3W. A~,,,sor$ Bk. 921 Pg. 07 ,u~,c .~.~ -- Circulation 15 FREEWAY VARIABLE , ~ ~,~ EIm~ent RANCHO CALIFRD. ARTERIAL I10 I:kl Bk. I~. 56A Date 01/Z Z/90 Drawn By TEK/TE,~. / · CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Tentative Tract Map No. 2qO38 Plot Plan No. 76 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. T.P.M. 24038 P.P. 76 32 Condition No. Condition No. 31 41 Condition No. 30 Condition No. Condition No. 14 9 Condition No. 13 37 STAFFRPT\PP76 7 ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager/City Attorney February 26, 1991 Bus Shelters - Temecula Valley Transit PREPARED B~ City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: Continue this matter off calendar. BACKGROUND: At the January 29, 1991 meeting, the City Council considered the proposal made by Mr. Tom Mindeola to erect bus shelters within the City. At that meeting a number of concerns were expressed by the City Council and the Council's direction to the applicant was to present a business plan to staff and to work with staff to resolve the areas of concern expressed at that meeting. At the present time, Mr. Mindeola of Temecula Valley Transit has not met with staff and has not provided the City with a business plan. It is therefore our recommendation that this matter be continued off calendar until staff has had the opportunity to review the business plan and meet with the principals of Temecula Valley Transit to satisfactorily address the City Council's concerns. ITEM NO. 14 APPROVAL CITY A T7'ORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager February 26, 1991 Considerat/on of Urban Streams Restorat/on Grant PREPARED BY: City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Consider endorsing an application for an Urban Streams Restoration Grant and, if desired, adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUI A ENDORSING AN APPLICATION FOR AN URBAN STREAMS RESTORATION GRANT, CONDITIONALL Y ACCEPTING GRANT IF OFFERED AND DESIGNA TING CONTRACT MANAGER AND FISCAL AGENT BACKGROUND: The staff is still working with DWR and Mr. James Marpie and the Greenbelt Committee to resolve several matters related to the submission of the grant application. The completed agenda report will be sent to you under separate cover. BACKGROUND: JSG ITEM NO. 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk February 26, 1991 Duties and Role of Boards, Commissions and Committees RECOMMENDATION: Approve the final version of the Handbook for Boards, Committees and Commissions and Direct the City Clerk to distribute copies to all of the City's Commission members. BACKGROUND: At the February 5, 1991 meeting of the City Council, the first draft of a handbook for use by the City's Boards, Committees and Commissions was presented for Council review. A number of suggestions were made at that meeting and they have been incorporated in the version which is attached. Staff recommends that this handbook be approved and distributed to all commissioners. THE CITY OF TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA HANDBOOK FOR BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS ¥~ TE THE COMMI$SlONER'S ROLE AND AUTHORITY City Committees, Commissions and Boards have a primary role - to encourage increased public input and citizen participation in the determination of City policies and procedures. City Committees/Commissions/Boards are not involved in the administration or operation of City departments. Committee/Commission/Board members may not direct administrative staff to initiate programs, conduct major studies, or establish official policy without the approval of the City Council. However, City staff members are available to provide general staff assistance to Committees/Commissions/Boards. Despite Committees, Commissions, and Boards differing tasks, all share some basic responsibilities. Members need to stay informed on subjects of interest to their specific Committee/Commission/Board. The City Council of the City of Temecula encourages and provides opportunities for continuing education to assist the members of City Commissions in the conduct of their duties. Conscientious attendance is also a fundamental responsibility, as irregular attendance lessens one's ability to study all aspects of items under consideration. RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CITIZEN MEMBERS It is not appropriate for individual members to present their personal views or recommendations as representing the Committee/Commission/Board unless such body has voted to approve such action. Members expressing views not approved by the majority of a Committee should indicate their opinions are viewed as "private citizens." Individual opinions must be identified as such. Public statements should not include promises that may be construed to be binding on the Committee, City Council or City staff. When making a public statement, members should indicate that Committee actions are recommendations and that final action will be taken by the City Council. Committee member may be selected on the basis of representing defined groups; however, each member should represent the overall "public good" and not an exclusive group or special interest. GUIDELINES FOR CITIZEN MEMBERS Work to establish a good relationship with other committee members. The success or failure of committee efforts may be dependent upon the degree of cooperation evident among the individual members of the body. Each member should keep in mind these important points: # Show respect for another's viewpoint. Allow others adequate time to fully present their views before making comments. Be open and honest. Make new members welcome and help them become acquainted with their duties. Strive to minimize political action among members. I. ROLE. AUTHORITY AND STAFFING OF COMMISSIONS The City Council is empowered to establish commissions and to appoint members to assist the Council in the conduct of City business. Members usually represent a cross- section of the community and are prohibited from being a salaried employee of the City. The primary role of any City Commission is to review and make recommendations to the City Council on matters within their scope of responsibility and to promote increased public input and citizen participation in the determination of City policies and program implementation. The specific role of City Commissions is basically to serve as a citizens' advisory arm of the City Council, focusing attention on specific program areas of the City. The City Council may authorize certain "commissions" to take final actions in prescribed areas, for example the Planning Commission is authorized to grant final approval of certain projects and is required to provide a recommendation to the City Council on other projects. In addition, staff may bring various projects to a commission for their review before taking that matter to the City Council for final approval. On specific matters referred to it by the City Council; boards, committees and commissions serve a principal reviewing body of the City. All decisions, however, are subject to call up and review bY the City Council. Commissioners should represent the general interest of the City as a whole and not specific program areas and their special interest groups. Appointments and Removals Chapter 2.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Commissions -- General Provisions~ provides that appointments are by a four-fifths (4/5ths) majority of the City Council and removal of an appointee is by a majority vote of the City Council. Rules of Procedure/By-Laws Rules of procedure or by-laws for the proper conduct of business should be adopted. Orqanization and Officers As set forth in the by-laws, there shall be an annual election of a chairperson and vice- chairperson. The position of chairperson and vice-chairperson should be rotated among members on an annual basis. The Chairperson The Chairperson is the key to the entire group process. The Chairperson must balance being strong enough to make certain the meeting is conducted in an orderly fashion ~ Temecula Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 90-02) and democratic enough to use the power and authority of the position wisely. The Chairperson's ability to handle meetings will have a significant impact on morale, operation and effectiveness. The Chairperson must make sure that discussions do not get side-tracked on minor issues and must have the ability to see the "whole picture". The most important duty of the Chairperson lies in his/her ability to find a common ground and achieve workable compromises if appropriate. Last, but far from least, the Chairperson must be able to represent the entire group to the City Council and community groups. Minutes It shall be the responsibility of the board/committee/commission staff support to record and maintain minutes for all meetings. The Council has provided that these minutes shall be "action minutes" and not "verbatim" which briefly describe the issues and actions taken2. Minority opinions of members may also be recorded in the minutes if desired. Comments by all members on every agenda item cannot practicably be included in the minutes. Also, members abstaining for legal conflict of interest requirements are required to state their reason for recordation in the minutes. Minutes must be submitted to the City Clerk's Office and the City Council; they also become a part of the City's official records in the office of the City Clerk. Development and Review of Commission Goals and Department Policies The City of Temecula prepares and operates on an annual budget cycle. Boards, committees and commissions are encouraged to annually review and comment on department programs and capital projects that may be related to their scope of interest. This evaluation is intended to focus attention on the overall program and service priorities and commission objectives; and is not intended to be an evaluation of the administration or operation of City Departments. The City Council will conduct at least one joint meeting with each commission annually to review commission goals and work programs, and review the past year's activities. The City Council also reviews the commission's work program to ensure it's consistent and responsive to the Council's goals and objectives. Involvement in Administrative Matters Commissions should not become involved in the administrative or operational matters of City departments unless specifically provided in the prescribed powers and duties. Members may not direct staff to initiate major programs, conduct large studies or Policy and Procedure CCL-006 5 establish department policy without approval of the City Council. City staff assigned to furnish staff services shall be available to provide general staff assistance, such as preparation of agenda materials, general review of department programs and activities, to perform limited studies, program reviews and other services of a general staff nature. Commissions may not establish department work programs or determine department program priorities unless specifically authorized in their prescribed powers and duties. The responsibility for setting policy and allocating City resources rests properly with the City's duly elected representatives, the City Council, and cannot be delegated to an outside group, however capable and interested it might be. Communication with the City Council To avoid possible compromising situations, the invitation to individual commission members to address the Council on matters relating to their official capacity rests solely with the City Council. It should be emphasized, additionally, that when a member is present at a Council meeting and is asked to address the Council on a matter, the member should represent the viewpoint of the commission as a whole (not a personal opinion), unless a proper qualification is made. Working with Other Members Members should make every effort to uphold their reputation for honesty, fairness and openness with the citizens of the community. Each group will undoubtedly consist of diverse personalities; it is important that we work together to accomplish common goals. Working with Staff Commission members are individually appointed by the City Council. City staff assigned to work with the groups report to the City Manager, who in turn, reports to the City Council. Each group usually is aided by a department director or administrator who provides staff support. If a commissioner wishes to initiate a project which requires staff development, it is necessary that it be placed on the commission agenda for discussion and a recommendation to the City Council that the project be authorized. Only after City Council authorization may staff begin preparing the necessary reports and studies. Staff support also means facilitating operations. Staff is aware of their responsibilities, and the members should be aware of the time involved on the part of staff in preparing studies and reports requested. If friction develops, individuals should make every attempt to clarify differences and make certain that clear communication is taking place. The public meeting should not be used to express anger or disagreement. If differences cannot be resolved by this method, the Mayor and/or City Manager should then be consulted in an effort to resolve the matter. Staff Reoorts to Council on Commission Actions There will be occasions when City staff will be required to prepare an agenda report on either a commission action or appeal for City Council review. In preparation of such a report the staff member should present both the staff position and the commission's position. The position of members not voting in the majority on an item should also be presented in the staff report if so indicated by the member. It is the desire of the City Council to have an opportunity to hear and consider all sides of an issue and alternative recommendations to assist in their decision-making process. Procedure for Handling Public or Aooeal Hearings In some instances, commissions will have to conduct a public hearing, either on a major issue of concern to the community or on a permit application or appeal of a staff decision. It is recommended that the procedure established by the City Attorney3 be followed at all times during the conduct of this kind of hearing. Legal Assistance Some commissions require the presence of a City Attorney. When there is doubt concerning the legality of an issue, the Attorney should advise members as to the legality of the proposed action. Great care must be taken in the maintenance of records of the proceedings when litigation is a possibility. The direction of the City Attorney should be followed closely. Remember the adage, "Discretion is the better part of valor", and when in doubt about the legality of a procedure, wait until the legal opinion is rendered. If necessary, a hearing may have to be continued until matters can be clarified. Counsel must very often control the circumstances surrounding a particular matter since he/she may be required to defend the action in court. Council Review of Action Most actions and recommendations of commissions may be appealed to the City Council for review and approval. Certain actions are final with the Commission with no right of appeal. Public Appearance of Members When a commission member appears in a non-official, non-representative capacity before any public or private body, the member shall not identify or disclose his/her 3 City Attorney's Opinion No. sff/INS13308 membership on a commission. If a question of membership arises, the member shall indicate that he/she is appealing and speaking only as an individual. If a commission member appears as the representative of the applicant or a member of the public, the Political Reform Act governs this appearance. The City Attorney should be consulted. Members should take notice that the Brown Act makes punishable as a misdemeanor, the attendance by a member at a meeting at which action is taken in violation of the Brown Act. "Action taken" is defined to mean a collective decision, commitment or promise by a majority of the members of such a body when setting as a body, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance. Further, the Brown Act provides that the City can be enjoined by the courts from violating the Brown Act. (See Section XII Ralph M. Brown Act). Commission Members Runnine for Elective Office Members of the City's commissions shall be permitted to retain membership on such appointive bodies while seeking any elective office. Members of appointive bodies shall not, however, use the meetings, functions or activities of such bodies for purposes of campaigning for elective office. Commission Positions on Ballot Proposals and Legislation Commissions may review and make recommendations to the City Council on ballot proposals and legislation. The City Council shall review all such recommendations. Commission member shall only represent the majority position of the City Council on such matters unless speaking as an individual or indicating a minority opinion. Bibliography Chapter 2.06 - Municipal Code Commissions -- General Provisions Procedure CCL-006 - City of Temecula - Pre[~aration of Minutes City Attorney's Opinion No. sff/INS13308 - Public Hearing Procedures Process sff/ORDl1001(010390-7) Sections: ChaPter 2.06 COMMISSIONS -- GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.06.010 2.06.020 2.06.030 2.06.040 2.06.050 2.06.060 2.06.070 2.06.080 2.06.090 2.06.100 Commissions established. Number of members. Qualifications. Applications. Appointment. Term. Vacancies. Meetings/Quorum. Absence from meetings. Compensation. 2.06.010 Commissions established. There shall be established within the City a Planning Commission. The City Council may establish by ordinance or resolution such other commissions as it deems necessary. 2.06.020 Number of members. Unless otherwise specifically provided, each commission shall consist of five (5) members. 2.06.030 Qualifications. Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, or by ordinance or resolution of the City Council, all members of commissions of the City shall, at all times during their incumbencies, be bona fide residents and registered voters of the City. No member of any commission shall be a City employee, nor shall any person be a member of more than one commission at any one time. No person shall be eligible for appointment as a commission member for more than two full consecutive terms (six (6) years). 2.06.040 ADDlications. The City Clerk shall maintain all applications submitted to the City for commission positions for a period of two (2) years. 2.06.050 Members: Appointment and Removal. Members of each commission shall be nominated by an Ad Hoc Committee of two Councilmembers subject to the approval of a four-fifths (4/5ths) majority of the City Council. A majority of the Council may remove an appointee for good cause. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of each commission shall be selected by a majority of the membership of that commission. -21- sff/0RDl1001(010390-7) 2.06.060 Term. The term of each commission member shall be three (3) years with staggered terms. Initially, all five members may be selected at once. In order to achieve staggered terms, one member shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years; two for terms of two (2) years; and two for terms of one (1) year, said terms to be determined by drawing lot. At the completion of any term, a commission member may be reappointed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 2.06.050. 2.06.070 Vacancies. If vacancies in any commission occur, other than by expiration of term, such vacancies shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired portion of the term. 2.06.080 Meetin~s/0uorum. The city Council shall establish meeting schedules for each commission by resolution. A quorum of three shall be required for the transaction of any business. 2.06.090 Absence from meetings. Should any commission member be absent from any three consecutive meetings of the commission, without excuse acceptable to the City Council, that member shall vacate his or her seat on the commission. The vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as any other vacancy. 2.06.100 Compensation. Unless otherwise required by law, commission members shall receive no compensation. -22- Pro. # 006 ~ Date Revised 1/28/91 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 and City Commissions 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 and City Commissions proceedings is very important. A sufficient record must be kept to furnish evidence that the City Council and City Commissions have complied with the law or rules by which they are governed, thus pointing to the need for accurate and clear proceedings. The facts contained in the minutes are also treated as evidence in a court of law. Form and Content of Council Meeting Minutes 1. 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 MaRers To establish proof that jurisdictional requirements have been complied with, it is important that minutes contain the following: 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/commissioners in attendance. If a councilmember/commissioner 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. g006 1/8/91 Approval of Previous Minutes Although there is no legal requirement that minutes be approved by the Council/Commission, 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/ Commissioners in sufficient time prior to a City Council meeting to allow review. When approved as written, or as amended by the City Council or City Commission, the minutes are then official record. 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 and City Commission meeting need only be referenced in the minutes with the name and rifle 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/Minute Clerk will, as a matter of course, make no reference in the minutes regarding Councilmember's/Commissioner's remarks, except where a Councilmember/Commissioner specifically requests that higher 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. g006 1/8/91 6. Hearings ao Minutes of City Council and City Commission 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 heating 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 hearing subject. The City Clerk will briefly refer to the content of the testimony in the minutes. Co Findings of Council/Commission. Usually the findings made by City Council and City Commissions 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 and City Commissions. Arguments and Debates at Hearings. There is no requirement for inclusion in the record, but as a matter of procedure, the City Clerk/Minute Clerk will briefly note arguments and debates. ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council Joe Ureha, Manager of Information Systems February ~ 1991 INTEGRA TED WASTE MANA GEMENT RFP REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA T/ON: DISCUSSION: FISCAL IMPACT.' That the City Council appoint two members of the City Council to serve on the Integrated Waste Management RFP Review Committee. The RFP for Integrated Waste Management has been mailed and advertised. Proposals will be opened at City Hall at 2:00 P.M. on March 8, 1991. Shortly thereafter, the Integrated Waste Management Review Committee will meet to analyze the proposals. The Committee will recommend to the City Council for approval the selected hauler(s) to be ultimately granted a City franchise. Other members of this Review Committee include: Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer Once the hauler(s) are selected by the City Council, Staff will begin franchise negotiations to prepare the final franchise agreement which will be brought back to the City Council for approval. None. A TTA CHMENT: None. ITEM NO. 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL JOHN E. CAVANAUGH, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY FEBRUARY 19, 1991 ELECTRICITY FRANCHISE -- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY RECOMMENDATION: Adopt attached Resolution of Intent to grant an electricity franchise to Southern California Edison Company. DISCUSSION: We have completed negotiations with Southern California Edison Company ("Edison") for an electricity franchise within the City of Temecula. The authority for the proposed franchise is the Franchise Act of 1937, set forth in Sections 6201, et seq. of the Public Utilities Code. Edison is currently operating its utility within the City under a franchise granted by the County of Riverside pursuant to the Broughton Act, set forth in Section 6001, et seq. of the Public Utilities Code. The 1937 Act imposes certain minimum duties and liabilities upon the grantee of a franchise. These duties and liabilities include: Reimbursement for publication expenses incurred by the city in granting the franchise (P.U.C. §6293); Payment of the cost of repairs to public property damaged by any of grantee's operations under the franchise (P.U.C. §6295); 3. Indemnification of the city (P.U.C. §6296); Removal and relocation of facilities by grantee when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any public street or right of way (P.U.C. §6297); and Filing of an annual statement setting forth the total gross receipts of the grantee from the sale of electricity (P.U.C. §6299). After negotiations with Edison, Edison has agreed to the following additional franchise provisions: Agenda Report - Electricity Franchise February 26, 1991 Page 2 Quarterly, rather than annual payments of the franchise fee. The quarterly payments are based upon the gross receipts collected the preceding year. This provision, which gives the City the benefit of the interest which can be earned on the franchise fees paid, is a significant concession on Edison's part since, the bulk of Edison's franchise fees are paid annually. 2. A penalty for any delinquent payments required by the franchise agreement; The right of City officials to audit Edison's books and records to ensure accurate payment of the franchise fees; 4. Indemnification and defense of not only the City but also any future redevelopment agency. Retroactive effect of the franchise agreement, including the basis for calculating the franchise fee to December 1, 1989. The proposed Edison franchise is of an indeterminate term. Thus, the franchise continues in effect until forfeited by Edison, either expressly or by failing to take some action required by the agreement, or until the State or the City exercises its power of eminent domain and condemns Edison's facilities. In order to begin consideration of the proposed Edison franchise, the Council must adopt a Resolution of Intent to grant a franchise. This Resolution must state the character of the franchise to be granted and provide notice of the place and for a public hearing on the matter. A Resolution of Intent to grant Edison a franchise is attached. The public hearing must be held between twenty (20) and sixty (60) days after adoption of the Resolution of Intent. After the public hearing, the Council may grant Edison a franchise by adoption of an Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate impact as a result of the adoption of the Resolution of Intent, however, eventual adoption of an Ordinance granting a franchise will result in increased franchise fees for the City. A TTA CHMENTS: Resolution of Intent to grant an electricity franchise to Southern California Edison Company. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO GRANT AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY WHEREAS, Southern California Edison Company, a California corporation, has filed with the City Council of the City of Temecula an application requesting that a franchise be granted to it of the character and for the purposes mentioned in the notice hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City Council the public good requires that said franchise be granted; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby declares its intention to grant said franchise to Southern California Edison Company, that hearing of objections to the granting thereof will be held at the time and place specified in the notice hereinafter set forth, which the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish at least once within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this resolution in the Californian, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Temecula, and that said notice shall be in the following words and figures: "NOTICE OF INTENTION TO GRANT FRANCHISE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Southern California Edison Company, a California corporation, has filed its application with the City Council of the City of Temecula requesting that the City Council grant to it a franchise for an indeterminate period, pursuant to the Franchise Act of 1937, to construct, install, maintain and use poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances, including communication circuits necessary or proper therefore, under, along, across and upon the public highways and streets within the City for transmitting and distributing electricity to the public for any and all purposes. If said franchise shall be granted to it, Southern California Edison Company, its successors and assigns, hereinafter designated grantee, shall during the life thereof pay to the City two (2%) percent of the gross annual receipts of said grantee arising from the use, opera- tion or possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less than one (1%) percent of the gross annual receipts derived by grantee from the sale of electricity within the limits of the City. Said percentages will be paid as follows: (a) On or before the 15th day of March of each calendar year during the term of this franchise and forty-five (45) days after the expiration of the term of this franchise, grantee shall file with the City Clerk of the City, the original, and with the Auditor of City, one copy of a statement showing the gross receipts during the preceding calendar year or fractional calendar Co) On or before the 31st day of March, grantee shall pay to the City Treasurer the money herein required to be paid by grantee to the City upon the basis of the data set forth in said statement. (c) Thereafter, no later than the 3 l st day of the end of each quarter (June, September and December) of the City's fiscal year during the term of this franchise, grantee shall pay to the City Treasurer one-fourth (1/4) of the money herein required to be paid by grantee to the City upon the basis of the data set forth in the statement required by Subsection (a) herein. By this method of payment, it is contemplated and understood that grantee is in effect paying the money herein required to be paid by Grantee to the City under this subsection on the basis of gross receipts for the preceding calendar year and that an adjustment shall be made, as more fully set forth in Subsection (d) herein. (d) On or before the 31st day of March, grantee shall pay to the City Treasurer, or receive as a refund from the City, as the case may be, a sum of money equal to the difference between the sum of the payments of money made in accordance with Subsection (c) herein and the annual payment of money herein required to be paid by grantee to City upon the basis of the data set forth in said statement. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that any and all persons having any objections to the granting of said franchise may appear before the City Council at the City offices, located at 43172 Business Park Drive, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on Tuesday, the 26th day of March, 1991, and be heard thereon; and NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at any time not later than the hour so set for hearing objections, any person interested may make written protest stating objections against the granting of said franchise, which protest must be signed by the protestant and delivered to the City Clerk, and the City Council will, at the time set for hearing said objections, proceed to hear and pass upon all protests so made. 2/R~sos/14~ 2 For further particulars reference is hereby made to said application on file in the office of the City Clerk, and also to Resolution No. ~, adopted on the 26th day of February, 1991, declaring the City Council's intention to grant said franchise. Dated: ,1991 By order of the City Council of the City of Temecula. City Clerk of the City of Temecula SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 1991. Ronald J. Parks Mayor I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on of , 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS by the City the day NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS June S. Greek, City Clerk 21R~soal146 3 ITEM NO. 18 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager February 26, 1991 CDGB Funding Recommendations PREPARED B~ City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Approve the recommendations of staff which will be transmitted under separate cover at the conclusion of the public input meetings. BACKGROUND: The staff will be holding public input meetings at City Hall on Thursday, February 21, 1991 and on Monday, February 25, 1991. At the conclusion of these meetings staff will formulate recommendations to Council and these will be transmitted as soon as they are completed. JSG ITEM NO. 19 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC~Ar, CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager February 26, 1991 Ad Hoc Assignments for Committees Council/Commission Liaison and PREPARED B~ City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: make final assignments. Discuss the attached list of Committee Assignments and BACKGROUND: At the meeting of February 5, 1991, the City Council considered the list of Committee Assignments and added several committees to that list. Staff was directed to finalize the list after receiving input from Councilmember Mu~oz. We have received that input and have updated the list (Attachment A). Three members of the City Council have indicated a desire to serve on the General Plan Committee. JSG ATTACHMENT A TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL Committee Assignments Commission Liaison (One member) Planning Commission RON PARKS Parks and Recreation Commission PAT BIRDSALL Traffic and Transportation Commission SAL MUNOZ Public Safety Commission KAREL LINDEMANS Committee Assignments (One or two members) General Plan Committee PEG MOORE. RON PARKS. SAL MUNOZ Legislative Committee PEG MOORE Finance Committee KAREL LINDEMANS, PAT BIRDSALL RDA/Economic Development Committee KAREL LINDEMANS, PEG MOORE Public Works/Facilities Committee PEG MOORE, RON PARKS Cultural Preservation Committee PAT BIRDSALL Design Standards Committee PEG MOORE Regional Transit Authority SAL MUNOZ, RON PARKS WRCOG RON PARKS. PEG MOORE RCTC SAL MUNOZ K-RAT, JPA RON PARKS Waste Management KAREL LINDEMANS JPIA PEG MOORE Sphere of Influence RON PARKS, SAL MUNOZ Administration Committee RON PARKS, PEG MOORE Sister City PAT BIRDSALL, KAREL LINDEMAN$ ITEM NO. 20 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mayor Ronald J. Parks February 26, 1991 Resolution in Opposition to Senate Bill 2557 PREPARED B~ City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution opposing Senate Bill 2557 entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDRESSING IMPACTS OF SENATE BILL 2557 (MADD Y) BACKGROUND: Atthe meeting of February 5, 1991, Mayor Parks asked that this matter be placed on the agenda. The SB2557 Task Force of the Western Riverside Council of Governments recommends that each community pass a resolution similar to the one we have prepared for adoption and further recommends that a fully executed copy of the resolution be returned to WRCOG no later than March 1, 1991. JSG RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDRESSING IMPACTS OF SENATE BILL 2557 (MADDY) WHEREAS, State deliberations toward adoption of the 1990-91 budget were exceptionally arduous due to a projected revenue shortfall of 3.6 billion dollars; and WHEREAS, the 1990-91 state budget was not adopted until July 31, 1990, a recordsetting 31 days past the constitutional deadline of June 30; and WHEREAS, funding for County-operated, State-mandated programs was reduced by more than 700 million dollars statewide and 16 million dollars in Riverside County and; WHEREAS, the State Legislature was reticent to make such severe reductions in vital programs without providing some potential for counties to generate new revenue; therefore, Senate Bill 2557 was enacted during the final hours of budget deliberations without customary review and analysis; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 2557 has fueled significant intense and divisive debate among local governments as to the appropriateness of counties exercising the revenue generating authority provided in Senate Bill 2557; and WHEREAS, numerous counties have reluctantly imposed the new fees and taxes to partially offset state budget reductions so that essential health, welfare, and justice programs could be provided; and WHEREAS, schools, cities, counties, and special districts all need dependable sources of revenue to provide an adequate level of services to a growing population and simple redistribution of these revenues is not an adequate solution; and WHEREAS, resolution of local government fiscal issues, like state fiscal issues, requires thoughtful consideration with direct involvement of the affected parties; now, therefore, NOW THEREFORE, the City of Temecula, in regular session assembled on February 26, 1991, does hereby join with County government, schools, other cities, and special districts in Riverside County to express concern about Senate Bill 2557 and its divisive effect on local governments' ability to work cooperatively to meet the collective needs of all County residents; SECTION 1. That the City of Temecula urges repeal of Senate Bill 2557 with the enactment of an acceptable, adequate and dependable replacement revenue source; and 51144 -1- SECTION 2. That the Legislature establish a Commission on Local Government with representatives of schools, cities, counties, special districts and private industry to address impacts of potential State budget actions having direct effects on local government; and SECTION 3. That the State undertake an in depth review of all of the mandates imposed upon local governments and remove those which are unnecessary, ineffective, and/or not fully funded. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RF_~OLVE AS FOLLOWS: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of February, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor A'I'rEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 5/144 -2- WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS February 4, 1991 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Executive Committee, WRCOG Jim Winkler, Vice Chair, Executive Committee SB2557 TASK FORCE The SB2557 Task Force met this morning from 9:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. at the Offices of the County School Superintendent. They reviewed the issues which were presented to the Task Force in the attached report from the Technical Advisory Committee. The Task Force recommends that each community pass a Resolution (copy attached) to encourage the repeal of SB2557 and the enactment of legislation to provide for replacement revenues. It is requested that each member adopt the Resolution and return an executed copy to the WRCOG offices no later than Friday, March 1st. They will be utilized in a joint lobbying effort. The Task Force also agreed to evaluate some revenue generation options within Riverside County. These may include a cn,~nty wide sales tax, developer fees. or a county wid~ ~ti]~t¥ tax~ These options will be evaluated by the Technical Advisory Committee in conjunction with the two COG TAC's. A longer team effort has been recommended for evaluating the equity of the existing revenue structure. This would include evaluating the impact of all existing revenue provisions. This longer term effort is viewed as an appropriate effort of the COG's in conjunction with schools and special districts. 3544 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501 * (714) 787-7985 * FAX (714) 787-7920 Executive Committee February 4, 1991 Page -2- Finally, two specific recommendations were made to the County Board of Supervisors. That the ordinances which will be adopted to implement the SB2557 fees include a provision which would cause it's automatic revocation if replacement revenue's are made available prior to July 1, 1991. That the Board of Supervisors implement a business license fee within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County to provide equity in business taxation county wide. JW/AJW:dmr Attachment Count~/ Admtmstratt:.'e Offfee Gar~ N C.~tt,eil .~,ltscheL'e Z:mme-,~an .4sststant C.4.0 January30, 1991 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Riverside 4.080 Lemon Street - 14th Floor Riverside, California 92501 RE: SR 2q57 (MA!3DY) IMPIF. MF. NTATION Members of the Board: During the 1990-91 State Budget deliberations, the Legislature and Governor approved SB 2557 Maddy (Chapter 455 of 1990). This bill provides new authorization for counties to charge citie~ and other local agencies for property tax administrative costs and booking fees to recover th~ expense of booking prisoners into the County jail. The purpose of this legislation was to parriall.~ replace sharp cuts in State funding to County programs in 1990-91. Attached are two Ordinances: Ordinance No. 702, Booking Fees, and Ordinance No. 703, Propens. Tax Costs, which require adoption by the Board to implement SB 2557. Both Ordinances are to be set for PubLic Hearing at 9:00 a.m. on February 19, 1991. The 1990-91 State Budget cut $16 million from Riverside County Programs. The new revenue sources provided by SB 2557 would increase County revenues by approximately $8 millon or hat: the State Budget cuts. When adopting the 1990-91 Final County Budget, this $8 million wa.~ included as estimated revenue: $2 million for booking fees and $6 million for propert.x admini.stration- On November 6, 1990, the Board considered protests on the implementation of SB 2557 by local agencies, schools, cities and police officials. Responding to thes~ protests, the Board determined that the County would not bill any of the charges authorized by SB 2557 prior to March 1, [99t except for City property tax charges which are mandated. The Board also agreed to work with cities and school districts to urge the State to provide alternative funding to counties to offset the revenues provided in SB 2557 and provide relief to other public agencies which are affected by these fees. Resolution No. 90-703 which expresses the Board's intent in this regard was approved by Board action on November 27, 1990. Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center 4080 LEMON STREET · 12TH FLOOR * RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 * (714) 275.1100 · FAX (714) 275.1105 Page 3 of 3 $anuary 30, 1991 Attachment I shows the booking fee charges implemented M comparable counties. Attachme~: lists the estimated annual booldng fee revenue each City in Riverside County would pay in 1990-, The Riverside County booking fee calculation is included as Attachment III. POTENTIAl. IMPACT ON COUNTY DgPARTMF. NTS IF SB 2557 REVENUES ARE REAI .T7.1eD Departments have been asked to review the potential impact on their operations if the Count).' dc not receive the $8 million in revenue provided by SB 2557. Many critical criminal justice, health, mental health, and social service programs would be reduc despite mandated service levels. Copies of reports from departments on these budget impacts been compiled and previously distributed to Board members. In addition, the downturn in the economy has reduced local discretionary revenue by approxima:: $10 million. If both reductions are implemented in 1990.91, major layoffs in most Cour departments would be required despite population and caseload growth exceeding 8% in I9917 In summary, reductions in County programs for FY 1990-91 without additional State revenues replace the SB 2557 funding would cause a major County budget crisis in 1990-91 and future yea: and would severely impact the health and safety of all citizens of Riverside County. In light of :! foregoing, I recommend that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: Schedule a public hearing on February 19, 1991 at 9:00 a.m. to receive public testimony Ordinance Nos. 702 and 703. 2. Following the public hearing approve Ordinance Nos. 702 and 703. Direct the Administrative Office to continue to work with cities and school districts attempts to seek repeal or amendments to SB 2557; it being expressly understood that su efforts m~t include provision for compensating off-setting revenue to the County by r State, prior to June 30, 1991. Respectfully submitted, GARY N. CC~TTRELL Chief Administrative Officer Attachments EXHIBIT A RIVERSIDE C~NTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATi©N FISCAL YEAR !990-91 DISTRICT DISTRICT NAME COUNTY 01-1001 GENERAL FUND 01-1121 LIBRARY 01-1123 COUNTY FIRE 01-1134 ROAD DISTRICT FUND 01 TOTALS CITIES 02-2051 BANNING 02-2101 BEAUNONT 02-2151 BLYTHE 02-2225 CATHEDRAL CITY 02-2251 COACHELLA 02-2301 CORONA 02-2321 DES HOT SPRINGS 02-2351 LAKE ELSINORE 02-2375 LA QUINTA 02-2401 HEMET 02-2441 INDIAN WELLS 02-2451 INDIO 02-2490 MORENO VALLEY 02-2501 NORCO 02-2580 PALM OESERT 02-2601 PALM SPRINGS 02-2551 PERRIS 02-2881 RANCHO MIRAGE 02-2701 RIVERSIDE 02-2801 SAN JACINTO 02 TOTALS SCHOOLS 03-0004 03-0009 33-0018 ."3-0020 0,.3-0501 33-080! 03-1101 03-1501 ,33-I~22 O2-1701 03-2001 03-20~0 02-2201 03-2201 0.., .201 03-3601 YUCAIPA UNIFIED SCHOOL SAN BERNARDINO VAL COMM COLLEG COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL CHILDREN CENTER-COLTON ALVORD UNIFIED SCHOOL 9ANNING UNIFIED ~EAUMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED COACHELLA UNIF CHIL~ CENTER CORONA NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCH DESERT SANDS CHILDREMS CENTER DESERT CENTER UNIFIED SCHOOL LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED HEMET UNIFIED SCHOOL JURUPA UNIFIED SCHOOL COSTS SB 2557 COLLECTION CHARGES 2,587,388 78,094 112,953 5,885 2,784,321 20 783 11 959 9 814 17 997 3 707 132 790 8 850 19 076 4 971 45 931 798 24 992 38 254 17 796 6 881 194207 20 954 5 275 203 756 10,225 799,015 11,648 2,107 2,138 1~5,325 4! 870 52 845 59431 334 9O8 379 109 1 211 8,081 128 O~5 235 237 147 781 04-1701 04-1702 04-1713 04-1714 04-1716 04-1718 04-1722 04-1723 04-1724 04-1725 04-1725 04-1728 04-1729 04-1733 04-1736 04-1739 04-1742 04-1745 04-1747 04-1751 04-1752 04-1755 04-1757 04-1759 04-1765 04-1755 0~-1769 04-1774 04-~776 04-1777 64-1779 04-!73! 04-17~2 04-1783 C4-173t 04-179~ 04-1795 04-1795 04-1797 04-1799 04-1902 04-1903 04-1804 04-1805 04-1808 ~qO~ERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS ¢ISCAL YEAR 19'90-91 $ISTRiCT HAME SB 2557 COLLECTION CHARGES COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA 12. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 13~ COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA 17~ COUNTY SERVICE AREA 20~ COUNTY SERVICE AREA 21~ COUNTY SERVICE AREA 22' COUNTY SERVICE AREA 23' COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA 27- COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA 33. COUNTY SERVICE AREA ~6~ COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA 41. COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA 46~ COUNTY SERVICE AREA 47a COUNTY SERVICE AREA 51 COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA 59~ COUNTY SERVICE AREA 60- COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70~ COUNTY SERVICE AREA 72= .._UNT¢ SERVICE APEA COUNTY SERVICE AREA SPECIAL DISTRICTS COUNT~ SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA 94 SERVI';E AREA SERVI';E AREA SERVICE AREA ~7 SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA 91 SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA 93 SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA COUNTY COUNT'? COUNTY COUNT~ COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUHT¥ 27 13 113 10 1 100 42 5 1 491 196 105 146 670 925 737 103 151 45 735 281 6 36 75 45 1,025 299 348 114 576 7 ~,10~ 457 2,~30 94 27 39 153 4 S50 24 71 RIVERSIDE ,20UNTY ~O~ERTY TAX AOMINIST=ATZON FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 DISTRICT DISTRICT NAME S8 2557 COLLECTION CHARGES 04-461! 04-4821 04-4631 04-4646 04-4681 04-4671 04-4681 04-4696 04-4811 04-4821 04-4841 04-4842 04-4844 04-4847 04-4849 04-4851 04-4852 04-4853 04-4854 04-4855 04-4858 04-4860 04-4881 04-4866 04-4867 04-4869 0~-4871 04-4872 04-4891 04-4896 04-4897 04-5121 04-5131 04-5132 04-5133 04-5134 04-5135 04-5136 04-5137 04-5139 04-5141 04-5171 COACHELLA VALLEY RED & PARK JURUPA AREA RED & PARK LAKE ELSINORE RED & PARK VALLEY WIDE RED & PARK COACHELLA SANITARY HOME GARDENS SANITARY VALLEY SANITARY THERMAL SANITARY CABAZON COUNTY WATER COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRIC CVWD IMP DIST 10 CVWD IMP DIST 17 CVWD IMP DIST 13 CVWD IMP DIST 80 CVWD IMP DIST 50 MISSION SPG$ WATER OIST MISSION SPGS IMP A MISSION SPGS IMP B MISSION SPGS IMP C MISSION SPGS IMP 1 MISSION SPGS IMP 2 SPECIAL DISTRICTS EAST BLYTHE COUNTY WATER HISSION SPGS IMP G MISSION SPGS IMP E MISSION SPGS IMP S IDYLLWILD COUNTY WATER IDYLLWILD CNTY WATER IMP 1 PINE COVE COUNTY WATER YUCAIPA VALLEY COUNTY WATER YUCAIPA VAL CO WATER IMP I DESERT WATER AGENCY DESERT WATER AGNCY FRINGE 1 DESERT WATER AGNCY FRINGE 2 DESERT WATER AGNCY FRINGE 3 DESERT WATER AGNCY FRINGE 4 DESERT WATER AGNCY FRINGE 5 DESERT WATER AGNCY FRINGE ~ DESERT WATER AGNCY FRINGE 7 DESERT WATER AGNCY FRINGE 9 DESERT WATER AGCY FRINGE 10 SAN G-GONIO PASS WTR AG DEBT S 04-5401 'EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 04-5404 EASTERN MUNI WATER ADJACENT 04-5411 EASTERN HUN WATER 1ST FRINGE O4-5412 EASTERN PUN WATER ZND FRINGE 04-5413 EASTERN HUN WATER 3RD FRINGE 17 881 9 509 4 785 8 080 1 O59 1 765 6 155 71 179 51,698 234 31 22 12,323 227 4,846 0 1,404 764 269 166 0 133 4,295 1,952 949 789 528 12,039 149 31 103 2O 0 129 12,372 31,~40 ~7,815 13,962 1,808 4,204 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 DISTRICT DISTRICT NAME S8 2557 COLLECTION CHARGES 04-5414 04-5415 04-5416 04-5417 04-5418 04-5419 04-5421 04-5422 04-5423 04-5424 04-5425 04-5426 04-5427 04-5428 04-5429 04-5430 04-5434 04-5435 04-5437 04-5443 04-5453 04-5455 04-5457 04-5459 04-5461 04-5462 04-5462 04-5464 04-5466 04-5468 04-5469 04-5473 04-5483 04-5489 04-5491 04-5493 04-5494 04-5495 04-5496 04-5497 04-5498 04-5501 04-5512 04-5513 04-5514 04-5515 EASTERN NUN WATER 4TH FRINGE EASTERN NUN WATER 5TH FRINGE EASTERN NUN WATER 6TH FRINGE EASTERN HUN WATER 7TH FRINGE EASTERN MUN WATER 8TH FRINGE EASTERN NUN WATER 9TH FRINGE EASTERN NUN WATER 10TH FRINGE EASTERN HUN WATER 11TH FRINGE EASTERN NUN WATER 12TH FRINGE EASTERN HUN WATER 13TH FRINGE EASTERN NUN WATER 14TH FRINGE EASTERN NUN WATER 15TH FRINGE EASTERN HUN WATER 16TH FRINGE EASTERN NUN WATER 17TH FRINGE EASTERN HUN WATER 18TH FRINGE EASTERN HUN WATER 19TH FRINGE EASTERN MUN WATER 20TH FRINGE EASTERN MUN WATER 21ST FRINGE EASTERN HUN WATER 22NO FRINGE EASTERN HUN WATER 24TH FRINGE EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIST 3 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIST 5 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIST 7 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIST 9 EASTERN MUN WTR IMP OIST 10 EASTERN MUN WTR IMP DIST 11 EASTERN MUN WTR IMP DIST 12 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIST 12 EASTERN MUN WTR IMP DIST 15 EASTERN NUN WTR IMP DIST 17 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIST 18 EASTERN MUN WTR IMP OIST 21 EASTERN NUN WTR IMP DIST C EASTRN MUN WTR IMP DIS U-13 EASTRN HUN WTR IMP DiS U-10 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIS U-1 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DiS U-3 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIS U-4 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIS U-5 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIS U-7 EASTERN HUN WTR IMP DIS U-3 ELSINCRE VAL HUN WATER ELSINORE VAL HUN WTR 2ND FRING ELSINORE VAL MUN WTR 3RD FRING ELSINORE VAL MUN WTR 4TH FRING ELSINORE VAL NUN WTR 5TN FRING 22 1,300 34 515 254 35 169 48 2 12,480 2,320' 615 10 11 282 408 153 300 2,105 2,832 20,165 16 29 4,232 114 98 2,553 12 S,493 138 597 2,132 5,152 2,710 5,149 385 139 254 145 17,205 25,041 2,364 0 116 149 DISTRICT 04-5515 04-5517 04-5519 04-5520 04-5552 04-5601 04-5611 04-5551 04-5701 04-5711 04-5712 04-5713 04-5714 04-5715 04-5716 04-5717 04-5718 04-5719 04-5721 04-5722 04-5723 04-5724 04-5725 04-5751 04-5752 04=5753 04-5781 04-5782 04-5792 04-4325 07-4331 28-2105 29-4705 28-4735 2~-4743 28-4831 29-5231 28-5251 28-5255 28-5260 28-5275 28-5285 28-5291 38-2446 38-2608 38-2655 38-2708 ~IVERSZDE COUNTY =~O~E~TY TAX ADHINISTRAT:ON COSTS FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 DISTRICT NAME SB 2557 COLLECTION CHARGES ELSINORE VAL HUN WTR 6TH FRING ELSINORE VAL HUN WTR 7TH FRING ELSINORE VAL HUN WTR 9TH FRING ELSINORE VAL HUN WTR 10 FRINGE ELS VAL HUN WTR IMP 1 1ST FRIN LAKE HEMET NUN WATER LAKE HEMET HUN WTR IMP U-2 SAN 8ERDO V HUN WTR DEBT SV WESTERN HUN WATER WESTERN HUN WATER 1ST FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 2ND FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 3RD FRINGE WESTERN MUN WATER 4TH FRINGE WESTERN MUN WATER 5TH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 5TH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 7TH FRINGE WESTERN MUN WATER 8TH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 9TH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER lOTH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 11TH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 12TH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 13TH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WATER 14TH FRINGE WESTERN HUN WTR IMP DIST 1 WESTERN NUN WTR IMP DIST 2 WESTERN NUN WTR IMP DIST 3 WESTERN NUN WTR IMP DIST A WESTERN HUN WTR IMP OIST B WSTRN NUN WTR IMP DIST U-2 COACHELLA FIRE PROTECTION iDYLLWILD FIRE PROTECTION CITY BEAUHONT HUN LIGHTING COACHELLA VAL RESOURCE CONS RIVERSIDE CORONA RES CONSERV SAN JACINTO BAISN RES CONS CVWD IMP DIST I DEBT SV ELSINORE WATER ~ERN VALLEY WATER HIGH VALLEY WATER LEE LAKE WATER RANCHO CA WTR R DIV DEBT SV SALTON SEA WATER RANCHO CA WTR SAN R DIV DEBT S INDIAN WELLS FIRE ACC MNT 1 PALM SPGS PKWY MA[NT DIST-1 CITY OF PERRIS LIGHTING LOVING HOMES PARK/PKWY MAINT 6,494 2O 91 383 10,487 183 175 36,341 1,217 56 218 19 205 29 1 530 233 8 2 15 4,635 863 2,735 114 583 4,021 191 47 2,352 3,962 243 4,525 3,192 3,575 774 58 28,719 191 7,574 3,558 51 1,411 265 RIVERSIDE COU~4TY RROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATICN COSTS FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 DISTRICT DISTRICT NAME SB 2557 COLLECTION CHARGES 38-2709 38-2805 38-4@22 35-4824 88-2251 @8-2441 88-2601 88-2651 88-2701 88-2801 $8-7109 CANYON CREST PARK/PKWY MAINT CITY OF SAN JACINTO LIGHTING CVWD STORM WTR UNIT CVWD STORM/FLOOD 6 AUGMENT CITY OF COACHELLA AUGMENT CITY OF INDIAN WELLS AUGMENT CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AUGMENT CITY OF PERRI$ AUGMENT CITY OF RIVERSIDE AUGMENT CITY OF SAN JACINTO AUGMENT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FUND 04 TOTALS 235 588 61,441 271 1,372 172 149 305,659 1,287,216 REDEVELOPMENT BANNING RDV SLYTHE RDV CORONA RDV LAKE ELSINORE HEMET RDV INDIO RDV PERRIS RDV RIVERSIDE RDV SAN JACINTI RDV PALM SPRINGS RDV COACHELLA RDV DESERT HOT SPRINGS RDV NORCO RDV INDIAN WELLS RDV RANCHO MIRAGE RDV PALM DESERT RDV CATHECRAL CITY RDV LA QUINTA RDV '~CRENC VALLEY RDV COUNTY RDV TOTAL RDV 7 725 2 832 96 588 42,497 18 727 29 064 25 366 161 726 11 732 64 008 17 905 12,954 29 225 115 789 147 431 235 929 94 156 107 038 46 901 53 805 1,~21 397 TOTALS 1C,217,760 ATTACHMENT II COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT PROJECTED BOOKING REVENUE FOR FY 90-91 NAME OF STATION BANNING PD BEAUMONT PD BLYTHE PD CATHEDRAL PD COACHEl .! A CORONA PD HEMET PD INDIO PD PALM SPRINGS PERRIS PD RIVERSIDE PD SAN JACINTO UCR PD DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WEI LA QUINTA LAKE ELSINORE MORENO VAI NORCO PALM DESERT RANCHO MIRAGE TEMECULA TOTAL Actual Booking Actual Booking Oct - Dec 90 · Projection 447 1788 97 388 170 680 87 348 232 928 243 972 374 1496 794 3176 37 148 81 324 1626 6504 113 452 74 296 117 468 13 52 41 164 707 2828 777 3108 96 384 230 920 30 120 131 524 6517 26068 Projectec Revenue Tota', 5197395 5 42,835 5 75.07'.7. 5 38.!19 5102,45 l 5107.309 5165, I5~. $350,620 $ 16.33o $ 35,770 $718,0.12 $ 49,90 I $ 32,678 5 51.667 $ 5,74l $ 18,106 5312,21I 5343,123 $ 42,394 $101,568 5 13,248 $ 57,850 52.877.907 ATTACHMENT 1ookin6 THE R.F, LEASE F'~NCT~ON IS 3:NCLUDED C.~ ~.0. 0.~- [ ~.'~!~rrY oF EIYEI%ZI)Ig 5'[.tEP, E'~ DEPT. I~00[(D~C, ~b~T - FY 90 / J. 99 I. ~2L l. 289. 809 34,5. 334, 54,8. 534 2~8. 557 282, 198 NT. rl~C 5TAR~' Kl, 358.803 i257,922 TOTAL ~,960.219 t16. 92~ L522 83. 718 15. 113 D.~,D, ?['-J]6E~G CIIARGE~ "CLEI5" CORAL -sli2,l~" Jl3( ~TSTI~" PROG~G CLF..~f[N6 SUPPLIES lOT.g, ~IC]~ & SIjPPf.rm COLJ~'FCY 0~ P2,.1E:t;51~E ~ I:)E2T. E]t.X)I~N6 C06T - Pf' 90 1.99 t [~9.820 [32,806 33.??6 38, 484 17. ~44 [477,605 TO~ D~ C~ST 437, 824 94.61g [N~ COST CORRIL~ONS OVIIIHF~ CI~ CO~C.~ 183, 793 ~83, 978 84, 840 {252.811 5.39~, TUT~ D~ & [NDB~[K1' CaSl~ ~.690.435 100.00~ 42, 484 10.40 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 RO RMP: dc 01/31/91 wILLIAM C KATZENSTEIN COUNTY S~ITE ~0 353.5 · IOT~ STI~ET ORDINANCE NO. 702 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY O~ RIVERSIDE, ESTABLISHING A CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE The Board of Supervisors of the County of R~'ve[si~e ordains as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to Government Code Section' 29S5Q county is authorized to impose a fee upon a city, special district, school district, community college district, col:ege university for reimbursement of county expenses incurred with respect to booking or other processing of persons arrested by an employee of that city, special district, school district, community college district, college or university, where arrested persons are brought to the county jail for booking detention. Section 2. The fee imposed pursuant to Government Code Section 29550 shall not exceed the actual administrac~.ve costs, including applicable overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circular A-87 Standards, incurred in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons. Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 29550 county may submit an invoice to a city, special district, school district, community college district, college or university for the fee imposed pursuant to th~_$ .~.~ction on and after July l, 199c. Section 4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 29550 a criminal justice administrative fee is hereby imposed upon a city, special district, school district, community college college or university for the booking or other processing of persons arrested by an employee of shat city, special dls~_r:.~ , school district, community college district, college or university, where the arrested persons are brought to ~_he cou~.~_ jail for booking or detention in the amount of $110.40. Section 5. The amount of the fee set forth in Section of this ordinance does not exceed the actual administrative including applicable overhead costs permitted by Federal Circular A-87 Standards, incurred in the booking or other processing of arrested or detained persons. Section 6. For the purposes of this ordinance an 'employee' shall include any person making an arrest on behalf of a city, special district, school district, community college district, college or university. Section 7. The fee will apply to all arrests resul'. in booking or detention at a county jail on and after July 1, 199~ Section 8. In those situations involving an arrest by warrant, a booking fee will be imposed where an arrest is pursuan' to a warrant only in those instances where the arresting officer is an employee of the agency or entity that initiated the warrant Section 9. It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to exercise its statutory authority to impose a criminal justice administrative fee to the maximum-extent permissible. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances held invalid, such invalidity shall affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severabl Section 10. In the event the State of California pr[o~ to June 30, 1991, provides a stable source of fundings specifically stated to replace such criminal justice administrative fees that would have been recovered under ~hLs ordinance the County of Riverside shall rescind this ordinance. ? 9 10 11 12 15 19 20 21 22 25 24, 25 26 27 WIlLiAM C. CO~NT~ Section 1i. after ~ts adoption. This ordinance shall take effect thi~y da~. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Chairman D epu ty (SEAL) 3 1 $ ? 10 11 12 1§ 17 18 RO RMP: dc 01/31/91 ~VlLI. IAI~ C. ~TZEN~EIN C~N~ ORDINANCE NO. 703 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AUTHORIZi~IG ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AMONG PUBSIC AGENCIES RECEIVING ~ROPERTY TAX PROCEEDS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside ordains as follows: Section 1. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 97 for the recovery by the county commencing with the 1990-91 f~-scal year of its actual costs of assessing, collecting and allocac~.r.g property taxes, including applicable administrative overhead cos~ as permitted by Federal Circular A-87 Standards, from all public agencies in proportion to the property tax proceeds ~eceived each public agency. Section 2. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Sec'.ic.~ 97 the allocation of property tax administrative costs shall exceed the actual county costs of assessing, collecting and allocating property taxes, including applicable administrative overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circular A-87 Standards. Section 3. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 97 the recovery of such county property tax administration costs during the 1990-91 fiscal year is to be based on a determination by the County Auditor-Controller of the county's property tax administrative costs for the 1989-90 fiscal year and an allocation of such costs among public agencies receiving property tax revenues received by each such public agency for the 1989-90 /// 1 fiscal year. 2 Section 4. Pursuant to Revenue and, Taxation Code Sec:tc 3 97 the Auditor-Controller of the County of Riverside has determined on Exhibit "A", attached to this ordinance the county' property tax administrative costs for the 1989-90 fiscal year an/ 6 the allocation among public agencies of such costs in proportion 7 to the property tax revenues received by each puSlic agency 8 the 1989-90 fiscal year. 9 Section 5. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Secttc 10 97 the County of Riverside hereby allocates its property tax 1]. administrative costs for the 1989-90 fiscal year among all pubItc 12 agencies receiving property tax revenues for that fiscal year 13 accordance with Exhibit "A" attached to this ordinance. The allocation of property tax administrative costs.does not exceed 1% the actual county costs of assessing, collecting and allocating 15 3.6 property tax for the 1989-90 fiscal year, including applicaSle administrative overhead costs as permitted by Federal Circula~ 17 A-87 Standards. 18 Section 6. The Auditor-Controller of the County of Riverside is authorized and directed to invoice each public agenc' other than a city for its share of property tax administrative 21 costs in accordance with Exhibit 'A'. For each public agency 22 which does not pay the invoice wi_th'in thirty days of the date of 25 invoice and for each city, the County Auditor-Controller of the 24 County of Riverside is authorized and directed to retain up to half of any increased property tax allocation to which a 26 jurisdiction may be otherwise entitled until the county recovers 27 the property tax administrative costs to which it is 1 entitled under this ordinance. Section 7. In the event the State of California June 30, !991, provides a stable source of funding specificall7 stated co ~eplace such pcoperty tax administrative fees tha~_ have been ~ecovered under this ordinance, the County of Rive~sL/e shall ~escind this ordinance. Section 8. It is the intent of the Board of Supervfs~rs 10 11 15 14, 19 20 ~4 of the County of Riverside by adopting this ordinance to its property tax administrative costs to the maximum extent permissible. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect wi~hou~ the invalid provision or application and to this end provisions this ordinance are severable. Section 9. Exhibit 'A" attached to this ordinance may amended yearly by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of County. Section 10. The Auditor-Controller of the County of Riverside shall calculate the fees herein annually and collect such fees as set forth by this ordinance. I!1 III III III III III III 1 Section 11. R afte~ its adoption. $ 4 5 ? 8 9 10 By _ ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board Deputy (SEAL) This ordinance shall take effect BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA By Chairman ITEM NO. 21 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER /~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk February 26, 1991 Request for Support - Veterans Day Parade RECOMMENDAT/ON: Discuss this matter, and if it is the desire of the Council, approve support in concept and refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendations. BACKGROUND: Mayor Parks requested that this matter be placed on the agenda for discussion after he received a call from Michael Marzano, who is the chairman of the 1991 parade. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~R CITY MANAGER~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON FEBRUARY 26, 1991 LA SERENA PARK PROJECT PREPARED B~ SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDA T/ON: That the Board of Directors: Authorize the TCSD to purchase the Woodcrete Rail System Fencing materials from Designer Concrete Products, Inc. for the 2.5 acre park property on La Serena Way, and authorize staff to obtain bids from local contractors to install the fencing. FISCAL IMPACT.' Cost for the fencing materials is $17,971.00 and installation is estimated not to exceed $7,500.00 Monies are budgeted in account//029-190- 108-5804. DISCUSSION: On January 22, 1991, the Board of Directors accepted a donation of park property on La Serena Way and authorized staff to improve the neighborhood park site. Improvements approved by the Board include installing concrete split rail perimeter fencing, creating two (2) sand areas, and installing playground equipment to the sand areas. Designer Concrete Products, Inc. is the only provider of concrete split rail fencing with a wood grain finish. As a result, our City Attorney is in agreement that Designer Concrete Products, Inc. is a sole source provider of this type of fencing. The concrete split rail perimeter fencing is the first phase of the improvements at La Serena Park. Staff is currently in the process of obtaining bids for the development of the sand areas and the installation of playground equipment. I have enclosed a copy of the price quote and an illustration of the fencing for your review. DESIGNER CONCRETE PRODUCTSt INC. P.O. BOX 3973, GARDENA, CALIFORNIA 90247 (213) 323-WALL FAX (213) 323-9893 .IanuaFy 24, 1991 Mr. Gary King lemecula Community Services Distr. 45100 Business Park Drive Suite 102 [emecula, Ca. 92590 Dear Gary: It is our pleasure to present you with a proposal for the supply and installation of the blOODCRETE RAIL SYSTEM. Designer Concrete Products, Inc. will contract the work under. WOODCRETE AND BRICKCRETE WALL INSTALLATIONS, Contractors License ~ B 324138. '1'he following proposals are based on examinations of all plans and/or Sobsite conditions. Unce these bid proposals are accepted, contracts must be prepared and materials will be available 4-6 weeks from receipt in our office of the signed contract. Please include the attached i,~stallation conditions in the contract documents. We look forward to the opportunity of supplying you with our produots on this projeot and establishing a mutually benefioial working relationship. Sincerely, P e n n i s SALES HANAGER DK:crj January 24, 1991 page 2. BID PROPOSAL Proposal to supply and install the WOODCRETE RAIL SYSTEM for your project in Temecula. ALL FOLLOWING LINEAL FOOTAGES QUOTED ARE APPROXIMATE. EXACT MEASUREHENTS WILL BE ESTABLISHED UPON FIELD NEASURENENT AT THE COHPLETION OF WORK. RANCH RAIL to be supplied in the color "White" MATERIALS: 1664' x 3 Rail Woodcrete fence material @ $10.80 per lineal ft.: $17,971.20 Materials will be palletized and delivered to the jobsite. Materials will be broken down to supply three seperate locations per City's requirements. IHSTALLATION: 1664' x 3 Rail fence installed @ $4.25 per lineal ft.: $ 7,072.00 Fence to be installed per scope of work directed by Gary King. Fence will be installed at a height of four (4). ft, PAYHENT SCHEDULE: Haterials to be paid for upon receipt at jobsite. Fence installation will be invoiced at the completion of wot-k. WOODCRETE® RAIL SYSTEM Features a rugged woodgrain texture on all sides of the posts and rails, including the distinctive post tops. The traditional beauty of the system makes it ideal for estates and ranches, bridle trails, homes, golf courses, parks and livestock corrals. Although uniform integral color is standard, once installed, the fence can be easily painted. Steel reinfor~:ed rails and posts will not deteriorate and the system is safe from horse chewing and termites. The Woodcrete Rail System is available in two, three or four rail heights. CITY OF TEMECULA Memorandum TO: FROM: Mary Jane Henry~n~..~an~ Officer Shawn D. Nelson,~ector of Community Services DATE: February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF CONCRETE FENCING The attached product has been reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Board of Directors, for installation at La Serena Park. This product is made of a special concrete, with the appearance of wood, and is the only product of its kind. Because of the appearance and design, this product is recommended for safety purposes for this particular park area, and fits in aesthetically with the surrounding area of the City. AGENDA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT A REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 2S, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS 8:00 PM Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD BUSINESS 1. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of February 12, 1990, as mailed. La Serena Park Fencine RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Authorize the TCSD to purchase the Woodcrete Rail System fencing materials for the 2.5 acre park property on La Serena Way from Designer Concrete Products, Inc. 2.2 Authorize staff to obtain proposals from local contractors for the installation of said fencing materials. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: March 12, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HElD FEBRUARY 12, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 9:14 PM. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Parks, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, City Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CSD BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Parks to approve the minutes of January 22, 1991, as mailed. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Parks and Recreation Master Plan Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, introduced the staff report. Director Lindemans stated he would support the motion, however he felt that contracts such as this should be given to local firms whenever possible. 4\CSDMinutes\021291 -1- 02/20/91 CSD Minutes February 12. 199! It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Lindemans to authorize the Landscape Architecture firm of Purkiss-Rose to develop the City-wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which will be the Parks and Recreation element of the City's General Plan. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mufioz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT Shawn Nelson reported that Phase One Ballfield Lighting Project has begun and should be completed within 45 days. He said that bids for Phase Two of the Lighting Project will be going out February 15, 1991, and plans and specifications are being developed for the Restroom/Snackbar Project. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. D/RECTORS REPORTS Director Birdsall stated that she will be attending the Community Services District Meeting sponsored by the League of California Cities in April and stated she hopes that some of the Parks and Recreation Commissioners will also be attending. Director Parks stated that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan does address some of the points James Marpie brought up earlier in the meeting, regarding using the stream beds as transportation corridors, and stated he fully supports that plan as long as it still carries the water and protects property. 4\CSDMinutes\021291 -2- 02/20/91 CSD Minutes February 12, 1991 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:1 5 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Sal J. Mufioz, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4\CSDMinutes\021291 -3- 02/20/91 ITEM NO. 2 Page 2 of 3 January 30, 1991 On December 11, 1990 a public hearing was held on SB 2557 implementation. At that time, :? Board continued this item and directed the Administrative Office to work with the Chairman: assist in establishing a Task Force to meet with cities, schools, and other affected agencies in a effort to redress find alternative solutions to SB 2557. Task Force representatives met in .l'anua: and agreed that the SB 2557 charges to local age. ncies should be repealed if replacement Sta revenues are allocated to counties. During the Task Force meeting, city and school representative proposed that SB 2557 revenues when collected should be placed in a trust account, until June 3( 1991, pending the outcome of legislative efforts to find replacement State revenues for Countie To implement this repeal policy, the proposed Ordinances, Nos. 702 and 703, provide that ig th State creates a stable source of funding to specifically replace these SB 2557 revenues, th ordinances will be rescinded (and monies returned to each agency). PROP!=RTY TAX CHARGF. S Pursuant to SB 2557, the County may charge all local taxing agencies for the costs of admirtisteri,-, the County's property tax system. The charges are mandatory for cities. Ordinance No. 70 describes the procedures for charging these costs, which are based on the actual net costs for 198~ 90 for the Assessor's, Treasurer-Tax Collectoffs and Auditor-Controller's offices and appropria: overhead costs (per Federal A-87 Cost Standards). As required, the Auditor-Controller has prepared Exlfibit A to Ordinance No. 703 which the property tax charges to each local agency. Assuming that 100% of charges are collecte 9C 91 revenue to the County would total $7.8 million. Cost allocation procedures are bas,.,~ statewide standards promulgated by CSAC, the statewide association of County Administraciv. Officers, the Auditor's Association, and the State Controllet's Of:rice. BOOKING As proposed, Ordinance No. 702 would implement charges to all local agencies for jail bookirr: expenses. Sheriff, Auditor-Controller, and Admini-~trative Office staff developed the cos accounting methodolo~ to be utilized to recover these expenses. The fee was determined to b~ $110.40 per bookin~ based on actual costs and the number of jail bookings during 1989-90. Agai~ the County followed the basic statewide methodology and guidance recommended by CSAC. Om issue of concern raised by law enforcement officials, and addressed in Ordinance No. 702, is tha Riverside County will not charge for arrest warrants which originate from a law enforcement agent. or City other than the arresting City's Police Depatt/~ent. Further, the County will not charge: City for atre~ when working as a team in a multiple jurisdictional task force. Based on 1989 costs, the volume of bookings intoCounty jaiL% and assuming 100% collections, t,'~ 1990-91 booking fee revenue to the County wou.!d total approximately $2.8 million. ATTACHMENT t COUNTY Los Angel~s $114.66 Orange $154.00 SAn ]~l'll~tlino $122.90 San Diego $175.00 Ventura S 120.00 ATTACHiMENT II RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 DISTRICT DISTRICT NAME S8 2557 COLLECTION CHARGES 03-3901 03-4201 03-4228 03-4501 03-4701 03-5101 03-5301 03-5401 03-5701 03-5801 03-5101 03-6301 03-6501 03-7101 03-8401 03-8601 03-9001 03-9101 03-9127 03-9201 03-9230 03-9820 03-9831. 03-9832 03-9898 03-9902 03-9904 03-9905 03-9906 03-9908 03-9909 03-9911 0'3-9945 03-9946 03-9996 MENIFEE SCHOOL MORENO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL MORENO VAL UN CHILD CENT MURRIETA UNIFIED NUVIEW SCHOOL PALM SPRNGS UNIFIED SCHOOL PALO VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL PALO VERDE COMMUNITY COL PERRI$ SCHOOL RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL ROMOLAND SCHOOL SAN JACINTO UNIFIED SCHOOL TEMECULA UNIFIED VAL VERDE SCHOOL ELSINORE UNION HIGH PERRIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE RIVERSIDE CITY COMM COLLEGE RIVERSIDE CON COL CHILD CENT MT SAN JACINTO JR COLLEGE MT SAN JACINTO J COL OHO DEV ELSINORE AREA ELEM SCHOOL FUND PERRIS AREA ELEM SCHOOL FUND PERRIS JR HIGH AREA FUND SCHOOL EQUALIZATION AID INSTITUTIONAL CHILDREN PHYSICAL HANDICAP PROG-COUNTY SEVERE MENTAL RETARD PROG CTY JUNENILE HALL PROG-COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATION PROG-COUNT CO SUPT SCHOOL GEN PURPOSE MENTAL RETARD PROG-COUNTY CO SUPT SCH CAP OUTLAY A CO $UPT SCH CAP OUTLAY B COUNTY SCH DEVELOPMENT CENT FUND 03 TOTALS 5 729 185 733 5 753 78 605 5 955 338 889 48 048 8 379 5 456 485 518 1 746 43 299- 133,554 11,340 9,709 98,262 185,756 132,919 2,279 97,504 830 76,367 53,748 35,863 70,890 54,015 51,334 22,937 5,753 11,910 66,996 1,273 _.. 7,991 28,124 16,355 4.025,811 SPECIAL DISTRICTS 04-1351 04-1361 04-1362 04-1363 04-1364 04-1365 04-1366 04-1367 04-1376 FLOOD CONTROL AOMIN FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FLOOD CO'NTROL ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FLOOD CONTROL ZONE FLOOD ZN o ANX 1 14.904 51 118 25 167 9 642 64 083 10 295 23 763 9 643 4 497 RIVERSIDE f~©UNTY PROPERTY TAX ADHINIST~AT~ON COSTS FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 DISTRICT DISTRICT MANE SB 2557 COLLECT[ON CHARGES 04-1814 04-1815 04-1816 04-1817 04-1820 04-1825 04-1837 04-1838 04-4005 04-4011 04-4015 04-4018 04-4025 04-4031 04-4035 04-4038 04-4041 04-4045 04-4047 04-4110 04-4111 04-4112 04-4121 04-4126 04-4151 04-4156 04-4157 04-4158 04-4171 04-4251 04-4270 04-4271 04-4272 04-4325 04-4331 04-4341 04-4343 04-4365 04-4381 04-4391 04-4455 04-4461 04-4485 04-4541 04-4555 04-4571 04-4606 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 102. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 103 COUNTY SERVICE AREA 104. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 105. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 108' COUNTY SERVICE AREA 113. COUNTY SERVICE AREA 125' COUNTY SERVICE AREA 126. BANNING CABAZON CEMETERY BEAUMONT CEMETERY COACHELLA VALLEY PUBLIC CEHETE ELSINORE VALLEY CEMETERY MURRIETA CEMETERY PALM SPGS PUBLIC CEMETERY PALO VERDE CEMETERY PERRIS VALLEY CEMETERY SAN JACINTO VAL CEMETERY TEMECULA PUBLIC CEMETERY WILDOMAR CEMETERY CATHEDRAL CITY COMM SERVICE CATHEDRAL CITY CS ZN A CATHEDRAL CITY CS ~N B EDGEMONT COMMUNITY SERVICES EDGEMONT CON SERV DIST ILL 1 JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES JURUPA CON SER DIST ILL 2 JURUPA COMM SERV IMP 2 JURUPA COMM SER IMP 3 SANTA ROSA COMMUNITY SERV RUBIDOUX COMMUNITY SERVICES HORENO VAL COMN SVC MORENO VAL CONN SVC ZN A HORENO VAL COMM SVC ~N B COACHELLA FIRE IDYLLWILD FIRE PROTECTION HURRIETA FIRE PROTECTION MURR!ETA FIRE PQR CO FIRE DESERT HOSPITAL PALO vERDE VALLEY HOSPITAL SAN GORGONIO PASS HEM HOSP BANNING UNIF SCH DIST LIB BEAUNONT LIBRARY PALO VERDE VALLEY VAL LIBRARY SPECIAL DISTRICTS COACHELLA VAL HOSQUITO ABATE NORTHWEST MOSQ ABATE BEAUMONT CHRY VAL REC & PARK 15 87 524 153 217 17 180 1,155 1,910 2,637 3,587_ ~ 620 571 2,040 736 968 2,252 1,563 1,340 1,271 190 4,686 3,863 121 15,433 107 1,420 1,544 441 13,006 711 13,619 981 1,595 5,25= . 09~ 2,331 4,0,~ 4,530 3,~0~ 1,~35 0 27,826 1.3,623 5,279