Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062591 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER o 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE JUNE 25, 1991 RDA 'EXECUTIVE SESSION: 6:30 - Closed'Session of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency purSuant to Government Code SectiOn 54956.9(c) to discuss pending #tigatJon CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION: 6:45 - Closed Session of tho City Council purSuant'to Govemment Cede Section 54956.9(c) to discuss potentia! litigation Next In Order: Ordinance: No. 91-23 Resolution: No. 91-61 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM Mayor Ronald J. Parks Invocation Pastor George Simmons Temecula Valley House of Praise Flag Salute Councilmember Birdsall ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks Proclamation - Declaring July the Month of the Arts 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 or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, 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. 21.~M/Oel 2eO I o812o/~1 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. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of June 11, 1991 as mailed. Claim for DamaQes - Darlene Vancjalis RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Deny the Claim for Damages. 4 Resolution Aooroving List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 21agenda/OO 1280 2 0~120/~1 City Treasurer's Reoort RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and file report. 6 7 8 Authorization to Solicit Bids - Street Maintenance ProQram RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Authorize. the Public Works Department to solicit bids for the implementation of the FY 1991-1992 Street Maintenance Program. Release Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-1 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Authorize the release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-1. 7.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Release Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-2 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Authorize the release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-2. 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 9 Accept Public Imorovements in Tract No. 21675-1 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Accept Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-1 and authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds. 9.2 Accept the Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount and approve the Subdivision Agreement Rider. 9.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 2/~endWOe12eO 3 oe/2ote I 10 11 12 13 Final Vesting Tract Mao No. 21818 (Located west of Via Norte and north of Avenida Del Reposo.) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 21818, subject to the conditions of approval. Final Parcel Mao No. 24038 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. approval. 24038 subject to the conditions of Agreement with the County of Riverside Redevelooment Acjencv to Fund Imorovements to Sam Hicks Park RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve an authorize the Mayor to execute an agreeent between the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Riverside and the City of Temecula. Award of Bids for Purchase of City Vehicles RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Award Vehicle Bids to purchase four (4) vehicles for use by Building and Safety staff. 13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991 BUDGET TO ACCOMPLISH A BUDGET TRANSFER 211elndl/O~ 1280 4 08/20/l 1 14 Resolution Establishinq Citv's Temoorarv Gann Aoorooriation RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING CITY'S TEMPORARY GANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR FY 1991-1992 15 Award of Bid for Purchase of Breathinq Truck RECOMMENDATION: 1 5.1 Award bid for purchase of Breathing Truck for the Fire Department. 16 Resolution Providing for the Establishment of Authorized Positions. Titles and Salary Ranges RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PRO VIDINO FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, TITLES AND SALARY RANGES 16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 BUDGET 2/eglndl/0e 1210 6 Oel2O/el SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 17 Ordinance Establishing Prima Facie Soeed Limits on Certain City Streets RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-22 AN ORDINANCE OF 'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ADDING CHAPTER 12. 02 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACILE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 18 2/a~end~O~12eo Costco - Zone Chanqe No. 11. Parcel MaD No. 26852, Plot Plan No. 224 (Continued from the meeting of June 11, 1991) A proposal for a zone change from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S on 24 acres, located at the northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads, and subdivision of 97 acres into 13 lots with two remainder parcels and construction of a 149,000 square foot commercial center on 19.7 acres. RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Zone Change No. 11, Parcel Map No. No. 26852, Plot Plan No. 224. 18.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 24 ACVRS OF LAND FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO C-P-$ (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD J ETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108. 0~1~01~ 1 Costco - Zone Chanqe No. 11. Parcel Mao No. 26852. Plot Plan No. 224 - Continued 18.3 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- 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 NO. 11 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108 18.4 18.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26852 TO SUBDIVIDE A 97.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO 13 PARCELS AND TWO REMAINING PARCELS LOCA TED A T THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINSHESTER AND MARGARITA ROADS Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOTPLAN NO. 224 TO CONSTRUCTA 149,500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER ON 19.7 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROAD. 19 Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance Adoorion (Continued from the meeting of May 28, 1991) RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Continue the Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance to the meeting of July 23, 1991. COUNCIL BUSINESS 28O 7 0~/20/~ I 20 Main Street Revitalization Committee Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Birdsall. (Continued from the meeting of May 28, 1991 .) RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Consider the formation of a Main Street Revitalization Committee. 21 Reauest for Fundinq - Miss Temecula 1991 Presentation by Karri Walton, Miss Temecula CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: July 2, 1991,7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California ~EMECULA COMMUNI. 'T~ ~RvIcES DISTRICT MEETING- (To be hei~ at 8:00)' CALL TO ORDER: President J. Sal Mur~oz ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mur~oz PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink 'Request to Speak' to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. 2/.~le/Oe 12co I 08120/91 DISTRICT BUSINESS I Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of June 11, 1991 as mailed. 2 Award of Vehicle Bids RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 2.2 Award the bids for the purchase of two (2) vehicles. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-1991 BUDGET TO ACCOMPLISH A BUDGET TRANSFER. PUBLIC HEARINGS TCSD Creation of Zones and Prooosed Rates and Charqes and Second Readina of Ordinance 3 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR PARK AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, STREET LIGHTING, SLOPE MAINTENANCE, RECYCYLING AND REFUSE PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 BUDGET 280 8 0~1201~ I TCSD Creation of Zones and Prooosed Rates and Charges and Second Reading of Ordinance - Continued 3.3 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. CSD 9 I-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN ZONES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT BOARD OF D/RECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting July 2, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California TEMECULA'REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mur~oz, Parks Moore, PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink 'Request to Speak'to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. AGENCY BUSINESS 1 Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of June 11, 1991 as mailed. 10 0~/20/~1 EXECUTIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT A OENC Y MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting July 2, 1991, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 08/20/81 PROCLAMATIONS & PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Temecula Valley is a place of natural beauty; and WHEREAS, the area has attracted residents seeking a balanced community; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula strives to provide its citizens with the highest quality lifestyle; and WHEREAS, the arts have become an integral part of each individual's life and they have been proven to build and enhance self esteem; and WHEREAS, the Arts Council of the Temecula Valley has planned Aris Festival '91, with the support of the City of Temeeula, to showcase the visual and performing arts within the community; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald I. Parks, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby declare the month of July to be: THE MONTH OF THE ARTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 25th Day of June, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD JUNE 11, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:36 PM in the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks Moore, Birdsall Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (c) to discuss potential litigation. The meeting was reconvened at 7:06 PM in regular session by Mayor Parks. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mayor Parks. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Lindemarts. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLA MA TIONS Mayor Parks proclaimed June 17-23 as Amateur Radio Week. PUBLIC FORUM Gary G. Burg, 30219 Corte Cantera, addressed the City Council regarding the need for responsive city government. He requested that the Council not use the "Brown Act" as an excuse to avoid meeting with the citizens of the community. Councilmember Mu~oz asked that the City Attorney address this subject. City Attorney Field stated that as a general rule every citizen has the right to petition his #inures\06\11\91 -1- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 or her elected officials. He explained that the Brown Act prohibits Councilmembers meeting as a quorum unless it is a scheduled meeting. He explained that one sensitive area is public hearings where Councilmembers must insure a fair and unbiased public hearing. He stated that if information is obtained prior to a public hearing, a Councilmember should make this information known at the public hearing to allow for any rebuttal. Alice and Albert Lacasses, 29803 Marhill Circle, stated that incorrect trees were planted in their section of the Woodcrest Homes. She explained that the roots may be damaging to water lines, sidewalks, etc., and asked that the City help solve this problem. City Manager Dixon referred the matter to Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services. Pat Keller, 39695 Creative Drive, representing the Architectural Control Committee of the Winchester Creek and Winchester Collection Housing, addressed the matter of water main breaks along Winchester Road, poorly maintained slopes and excessive weeds in vacant property in these tracts. She also asked when street sweeping would commence. She addressed the lack of neighborhood parks on the East side of town and suggested that the City lease property on a temporary basis if land could not be purchased. City Manager Dixon stated that an ordinance is in place for weed abatement and asked that Ms. Keller give her name and address to Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services. John Dedovesch, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, spoke regarding the recent article in the newspaper about the proposed changes in rates and charges for the TCSD. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Moore requested the removal of Item No. 10 from the Consent Calendar. She also stated that on Items 13-18, City Clerk is still listed as David F. Dixon, and this should be changed to June S. Greek. Councilmember Mu~oz requested the removal of Items 8 and 19. Mayor Parks stated he would abstain from Items 13, 14 and 18 due to a conflict of interest. #inures\06\11\91 -2- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-7, 9 and 11-18, with Mayor Parks abstaining from Items 13, 14 and 15. The motion was carried by the following vote: e Be AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Linderoans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Minutes 2.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Approve the minutes of May 28, 1991, as mailed. Claim for Damages - James Forsyth 3.1 Deny the claim for damages filed by James Forsyth. Claim for Damages - Greg Baker, et al 4.1 Deny the claim for damages filed by Greg Baker, Eisa Wong and Kiefer James Baker· Claim for Damages - Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 5.1 Deny the claim for damages filed by Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. Claim for Damages - Charles H. Finelli 6.1 Deny the claim for damages filed by Charles H. Finelli. #inures\06\11\91 -3- 0~/18/91 City Council Minutes 7. Resolution Approving List of Demands 7.1 11. 12. 13. June 11, 1991 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-5§ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUIVClL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUIA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A, Change Title of Assistant to the City Manager to Senior Management Analyst 9.1 Change the title of Assistant to the City Manager job classification to Sr. Management Analyst. 9.2 Reclassify one existing Management Analyst position (Finance) to the new job classification of Senior Management Analyst. Resolution Regarding California Environmental Quality Act 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL Q UALITY A C T Cooperative Agreement with CalTrans for Landscaping- Rancho California Road 12.1 Approve an agreement with CalTrans for Landscaping of the Rancho California/I-15 overcrossing and authorize the Mayor to execute the same. Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 20130-6 13.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 20130-6. 13.2 Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds and accept the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts. 13.3 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. #inures\06\11\91 -&- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: June 11, 1991 AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks 14. 15. Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21340-6 14.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21340-6. 14.2 Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts. 14.3 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Linderoans, Moore, Mu~oz NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21340-F 15.1 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21340-F. 15.2 Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts. 15.3 Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. #inures\06\11\91 -5- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 ABSTAIN: I June 11. 1991 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz None Birdsall Parks 16. Acceptance of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21675-2 17. 18. 16.1 16.2 16.3 Acceptance 17.1 17.2 17.3 Acceptance 18.1 18.2 18.3 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21675-2. Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts. Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21675-3 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21675-3. Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water bonds and accept the subdivision warranty instrument of credit in the reduced amounts. Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. of Public Improvements - Tract No. 21675-4 Accept the public improvements in Tract No. 21675-4. Authorize the reduction in street, accept the subdivision warranty reduced amounts. sewer and water bonds and instrument of credit in the Approve the subdivision agreement rider and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. #inures\06\11\91 -6- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 NOES: 0 ABSENT: I June 11. 1991 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz None Birdsall 10. ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks City Commission Resignation and Reappointment Policy Councilmember Mu~oz requested that a change be made in the advertising provisions to require publication in at least two local newspapers. He further requested that a letter not be sent to incumbent commission members inviting them to reapply. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve the proposed Policy and Procedure for Commission Resignations and Reappointments with changes in the advertising provisions to read "notice of vacancy to be published in at least two (2) local newspapers" and to eliminate the wording "a letter from the City Council inviting them to reapply will be sent to the incumbent commission members". The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall Community Services Funding Criteria for 1991-1992 Councilmember Moore requested that criteria "j" be changed to "an accepted accounting method", instead of General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Mary Jane Henry concurred with this change. Councilmember Mu~oz requested that the reference to $300,000 in allocated Community Services funds be removed to avoid any perception that the Council was obligated to expend that amount. #inures\06\11\91 -?- 06/18/91 Citv Council Minutes June 11. 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt the proposed policy as displayed in Attachment "B" for the Community Service Funding Application process for the Fiscal Year 1991-1992, with a change in Attachment "B" to remove the reference to $300,000 in existing funds, and to reword criteria "j" to read in accordance with accepted accounting practices not General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall 19. Second Annual 4th of July Parade Councilmember Mu~oz asked who will absorb the cost of additional police services during this event. City Manager Dixon answered that the City will absorb these costs. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendations as follows: 19.1 Approve the temporary closure of Front Street between 6th and 2nd Streets on July 4th, 1991. 19.2 Waive the fee for Encroachment permit in the amount of $25.00. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall #inures\06\11\91 -8- 06/18/91 June 11. 1991 City Council Minutes RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:04 PM to accommodate the scheduled Temecula Community Services District Meeting. The meeting was reconvened following the TCSD Meeting at 8:45 PM. 20. Business Registration Ordinance Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks asked if fire and building and safety inspections are done annually. Mary Jane Henry answered that fire inspections are done annually and building inspections are done based on the age of the certificate of occupancy. Councilmember Lindemans asked that the City confirm that local businesses do have a fire extinguisher. Mark Brodowski, Fire Department, stated that inspections of all local businesses are in progress. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:51 PM. Having no requests to speak, Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:51 PM. Councilmember Moore stated that she has several problems with this program such as reporting of the Board of Equalization Number to ensure sales tax credit goes to the City instead of somewhere else in error. She also stated this ordinance does not address in home businesses. Mayor Parks stated he is not in favor of including the Fire and the Building and Safety inspections as a part of the business licensing program. City Manager Dixon suggested continuing this item for two weeks to allow Councilmember Lindemans and Mayor Parks input information to staff. Mary Jane Henry stated that the inclusion of fire inspection services was a recommendation by staff to help recover costs for a program that is not funded by structural fire tax revenues. Mayor Parks reopened the public hearing at 9:00 PM. 14inures\06\11\91 -9- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue the public hearing for 30 days. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks 21. Tentative Tract Map No. 25603, Amendment No. 3 and Plot Plan No. 227 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 9:11 PM. Kevin McKenzie, 40550 La Colima, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the City Council reversing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this project. He stated that the density is only at 2/3rds of the what is allowed. He also addressed the matter of buffering, stating that the grade of the project would provide this buffer. He stated that the developer may be interested in seeing this property developed into a park, however the City has made no attempt to contact the developer to pursue this option. He addressed the height of the crib walls, stating that many surrounding projects have been approved with extensive grading and crib walls. He stated the developer would be willing to work with staff in lowering these walls. Mr. McKenzie addressed the school issue, stating that $400,000 in school fees would be collected from this project, mitigating the school issues. Jerry Zyrossi, addressed the matter of trying to find solutions to the Planning Commission's concerns. He stated the developer is willing to have an association in place to insure the proper maintenance of the project. City Attorney Field addressed the concerns of three members of the Council living within close proximity of the project, Councilmember Mu~oz, Moore and Birdsall, and stated that this would not create an impact of $10,O00 or more, therefore no conflict of interest would exist. Lisa Bellino, 42111 Humber Drive, a member of Coalition 25603, spoke in favor of the City Council upholding the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny this project. Hinutes\06\11\91 -10- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes June 11. 1991 Chris Martinelli, 30255 Corte Cantania, stated the Coalition sent a registered letter to Mr. Zyrossi requesting a meeting, which was never addressed. She also stated the Coalition was not given an opportunity to address the applicant's new version of the project until 10 hours prior to the hearing. She requested that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the project. Duncan McDonald, 42135 Humber Drive, asked that the City Council deny this project based on the lack of buffering and open space areas in the project. Jim Contopulous, 42075 Humber Drive, requested the denial of this project based on traffic concerns for neighboring residents. AI LeCou, 42060 Avenida Vista Ladera, asked that the City Council to deny this project based on the lack of amenities. Bill Bellino, 42111 Humber Drive, addressed the height of the crib walls stating this is a dangerous situation and asked the City Council to uphold staff recommendation. Belinda Contopulous, 42075 Humber Drive, addressed the City Council regarding the impact on already over-crowded local schools. She also addressed the high vacancy level of apartments within the City and asked the Council to deny this project. Linda Vankirk, 41756 Humber Drive, addressed the City Council requesting denial of this project based on the school district's feelings it will have a negative impacts. Councilmember Lindemans moved, Councilmember Mu~oz seconded a motion to extend the meeting until 10:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. Don Tulimero, 42109 Humber Drive, speaking as a law enforcement officer, asked this project be denied based on higher crime rates generated by high density housing. Clark Kegley, 41775 Humber Drive, spoke in favor of denying this project and showed slides of similar projects. Dick Pipenhagen, Humber Drive, addressed the Council listing alternatives to high density housing on this land, such as a park, large custom homes, etc. He asked this project be denied. #inures\06\11\91 -11- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes Art Yorki, 30089 Corte San Luis, spoke in addressed the environmental issues. June 11, 1991 opposition to the project and Dave Michaels, 30300 Churchill Court, spoke in opposition to the project and stated the City has too many high density projects. Robb Vankirk, 41756 Humber Drive, spoke in opposition to the project listing extension grading and lack of amenities as major problems. Lori Jochum, 42092 Humber Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and presented the City Clerk with a petition with names opposing this high-density project. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, addressed the Council and asked that they listen to the people on this issue and deny the project. Ed Messier, 42175 Humber Drive, spoke in opposition to the project stating the high crib walls are dangerous. Doug Shelter, 30107 Santa Cecilia, spoke in favor of this project being approved, stating that Mr. Wait Dixon has m~.'~ numerous changes trying to accommodate surrounding residents and this property is zoned R-3. He requested this project be approved. Kevin McKenzie, 40550 La Colima, spoke in rebuttal, stating that the apartment vacancy rate in Temecula is only 15%. He asked that City Council consider continuing this item so more work could be done on the project. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 10:46 PM. Mayor Parks reopened the public hearing at 10:46 PM to accommodate a missed speaker. Denise Coletti, 330 Humber Drive, spoke in opposition to the project. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 10:48 PM. Councilmember Lindemans responding to questions from the first speaker explained that previously approved projects were final vested maps and the City had no alternative but to approve them. He stated he would vote for staff recommendation to deny this project. #inures\06\11\91 -12- 0~/18/91 City Council Minutes June 11. 1991 Councilmember Moore read staff's recommendations to the Planning Commission and stated that for those reasons she would vote in favor of staff recommendation. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve staff recommendations as follows: 21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25603 TO SUBDIVIDE A 20.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 54 MULTIPLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD 21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECUIA DENYING PLOT PLAN NO. 227 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 54 UNIT FOUR-PLEX ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD 1,500 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370-005 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to extend the meeting until 11:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. RECESS Mayor Parks call a recess at 11:00 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 11:10 PM. #inures\06\11\91 -13- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 22. Zone Change No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852 and Plot Plan No. 224 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, requested this item be continued to the meeting of June 25, 1991. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 11:11 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to continue the public hearing to the meeting of June 25, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall 23. First Extension of Time - Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23103 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report and stated he had received a copy of a letter from John Moramarko agreeing with approval of the project with several conditions. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 11:15 PM. Gary Fatland, representing Marlborough Development, stated that the best possible design for the road has been developed, and further said that Callaway Wineries is in agreement with this project. Craig Weaver, 32720 Rancho California Road, representing Callaway Vineyard and Winery, stated he did not have a problem with the tentative map approval. He requested that the road be built as close as possible to the natural level. He requested a study be done on the height necessary to insure protection from frost that may occur due to a blockage of air flow. Mayor Parks called a brief recess to change the tape at 11:27 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 11:28 PM. Gary Fatland, stated that the road could be brought down to a certain point, however 14 feet is the lowest point possible. #inures\06\11\91 -14- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes June 11, 1991 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve staff recommendation as follows: 23.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23103, AN 18 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 29.2 ACRES LOCA TED WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD BETWEEN LA SERENA WAY AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-0120 and an additional condition that prior to recordation of the final map the City Engineer will approve a final design for Butterfield Stage Road that addresses the negative impact to the Wineries with respect to flow of cold air and potential blockage of the flow. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Linderoans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to extend the meeting until 12:15 AM. The motion was unanimously carried by Councilmember Birdsall absent. 24. Plot Plan 69 (Rev.) - Pactel Cellular Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 11:57 PM. Jeff Brown, representing the applicant, stated he concurred with all conditions of approval. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 11:58 PM. #inures\06\11\91 -15- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded Lindemans to approve staff recommendations as follows: 24,1 Grant Pactel Cellular an exemption from the provisions of Ordinance No. 91-01 for antenna expansion. June 11, 1991 by Councilmember 24.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 69 (REVISED) TO PERMIT THE PLACEMENT OF CELLULAR TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT ON AN EXISTING RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER, LOCATED ON ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-220-013 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: I COUNCIL BUSINESS 25. COUNCILMEMBERS: Linderoans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall Ordinance Establishing Prima Facie Soeed Limits on Certain City Streets It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendations as follows: 25.1 Approve the Engineering and Traffic survey of April, 1991 as submitted. 25.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 12.02 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS #inures\06\11\91 -16- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes June 11. 1991 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall 26. Request for Funding - Old Town Temecula Farmer's Market Mark Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager, introduced the staff report. Jeanette Colburn, 1856 Bello Hills Lane, Escondido, Chairman of the Farmer's Market and Secretary of the Old Town Merchants Association, asked the City for their support of the Farmer's Market. She stated that this will greatly benefit the City. Marcus Thompson, Assistant Project Administrator for San Diego's Environmental Development Division, 1200 Third Avenue, San Diego, stated he has experience with Farmer's Markets and their use in revitalizing older commercial areas of town. He stated a Farmer's Market is one of the most cost-effective revitalization projects a City can undertake and encouraged the City to support this Market. Mary Hillibrecht, 1811 Citrus Glen, Escondido, Manager of Pacific Beach and Coronado Markets stated a Farmer's Market provides rapidly growing Cities like Temecula a way to maintain ties with the rural community. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he would be in favor of the City lending $3,800 to start the Farmer's Market, if after a year of operation, this loan would be repayed. He stated he is in favor of Temecula starting a Farmer's Market but does not feel the City should subsidize private enterprise. Mayor Parks called a brief recess at 12:28 AM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 12:29 AM. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve a contribution to the Farmer's Market equal to the cost of City application fees (minimum of $3,231) and provide City departmental support as appropriate, and to authorize an additional loan in the amount of $3,800 for a term of one year. City Attorney Field was directed to draft the appropriate contract to be executed by the Mayor and the Old Town Temecula Merchant's Association. #inutes\06\11\91 -17- 06/18/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: June 11, 1991 AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall Mayor Parks announced Items 27 and 28 would be heard concurrently. 27. 28. Memorandum of Understanding - Johnson Ranch Memorandum pf Understanding - Ranpac French Valley Bill Meacham, Consultant, introduced the staff reports. 29. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve staff recommendations as follows: 27.1 28.1 Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Johnson Tractor Company and authorize the Mayor to execute same. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Temecula and Won S. Yoo and Insook Yoo for property known as Ranpac French Valley and authorize the Mayor to execute same. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall Reconsideration of Temecula Valley High School Scholarship Donations Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the Council would be in favor of doubling the scholarship amounts, stating he felt the amount originally approved was too low. #inures\06\11\91 -18- (~/18/91 June 11. 1991 City Council Minutes Councilmember Moore said that since these scholarships have already been awarded, she suggested referring the matter to staff for consideration in the 1991-92 Fiscal Year Budget. 30. Air Traffic - French Valley Airport It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded Lindemans to continue to the meeting of July 2, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY MANAGER REPORTS None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIl. REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT by Councilmember Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None Birdsall It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 12:40 AM. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Birdsall absent. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk Minutes\06\11\91 -19- 05/18/91 ITEM NO. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER /~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk June 25, 1991 Claim for Damages - Darlene Vangalls RECOMMENDATION: Deny the Claim for Damages BACKGROUND: This claim was reviewed by the City's Liability Insurance Carrier who recommends the City Council deny the Claim filed on behalf of Darlene Vangalls. JSG CARL WARREN & CO. 5465 Morehouse Drive. Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 457-3500 GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY PRELIMINARY REPORT TO: City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92390 ATTN: June Greek LOSS DATE: 5-18-91 FILING DATE: 6-10-91 CLIENT: City of Temecula COVERAGE: In order as submitted RECOMMENDED ACTION ON CLAIM: Reject the claim. a coDv of the rejection letter. DATE: 6-13-91 CLAIMANT: Darlene Vangalis FILE NO:F-91-011AP EXCESS REPORT: YES NOX s MoS: YES X NO POLICY YEAR: 1991 Please provide our office FACTS: Claimant, while sitting at a picn£c table with small child on her la~, was attemDtinq to retrieve her cake and paper plate which had blown across the table. When she sat back down, she slipped off the picnic table bench and fell to the cement. -~ POSSIBLE CO-DEFENDANTS: None known at this time. EVALUATION: Liability appears remote. Please advise if these tables are contructed of PVC material and if this is a public park. In her D.C. report he advises she fell off the bench while attempting to retrieve her paper Dlate while holding the child. In any event, ahd she not attempted to do ei~R~: doubt h~~~ry would have taken place. AMOUNT: 1. Darlene Vangalis BI 1325.00 2. 3. COMMENT/WORK TO BE COMPLETED: We will await the requested information from your office. Due to minimal nature of the claim we will not proceed with further investigation at this time. Our further report will follow shortly. Very truly yours, CARL WARREN & CO. BY: Angela T. Pedlico ~ ~ ity ,,,~ --, C of Temecula 43172 Business Pad( Drive .Temecula, California 92390 Ronald J. Park~ Mayor Pa~cia H. Birdsall Mayor Pro Tern Kami E Undemans Counolmember Peg Moore Counolmeml:~' J. Sal Mufio:, Councilmember David F. Dixon GLy Mar~ge' (714J 694-.1989 FAX J714) 694.-i 999 Date: June, 10, 1991 Carl Warren and Company 5465 Morehouse Drive Suite 150 San Diego, CA 92121 Atto: Claims Department Enclosed please find the following claims: Claim No. Date Received Claimant 0024 06/10/91 Darlene Vangalis Please call should you need any further informadon. Sincerely, City CIerk cc: Finance Officer cI.IVl..oo 1 INITIAL REPORT Patient: Darlene Vangalis Claim/Policy $: N/A Employer: N/A Date of Injury/Onset: 05/10/91 1. Incident of InJurT: The patient states that she injured herself on 5-18-91. She states as the wind blew her food off table, she tried to catch it. Doing so she fell off the slippery park bench. Since she was holding her grandchild in both hands, she was unable to break her fall. She states that she hit her tailbone. and her head as she struck the ground. She further states that if the park bench hadn't been so slippery, she wouldn't have had the accident. 2. Patient's Comnlaints: 1. Left sided low back pain 2. Pain down the left leg 3. Neck pain 4. Tingling and numbness in both arms 5. Pain between the shoulder blades 3. Objective Findings (Examination): PHYSICAL: A 53 year old female presented to our clinic on 05/21/91 for examination. Height: 5' 4" Weight:124 lbs. Blood pressure: 130/80 Pulse: 60 POSTURE ANALYSIS: Head tilt is normal. Lumbar muscle tension is apparent on the left. Lumbar muscle tension is apparent on the right. The ilium is normal. ORTHOPEDIC/NEUROLOGICAL: Kemp's Test is positive bilaterally. Brachioradialis reflex is 1+ bilaterally. Triceps reflex is 1+ bilaterally. Biceps reflex is 2+ bilaterally. The Patellar reflex is 2+ bilaterally. Foraminal Compression Testing is positive bilaterally. Shoulder Depression testing is positive on the left. Testing for Vertebrobasilar insufficiency that includes George's Test is negative. RANGE OF MOTION: Cervical flexion reduced approximately 10%. Cervical extension is reduced approximately 10%. Right cervical rotation is reduced approximately 20%. Left cervical rotation is reduced approximately 20%. Dorsolumbar extension is reduced approximately 20%. PALPATION: Palpable myospasms noted in the suboccipitals and cervical paravertebrals. Myofascial trigger points noted in the levator scapulae bilaterally. Myospasms and tenderness were noted in the thombolds and the thoracic paraspinals bilaterally. 4. X-Ray AnalYsis Summary: CERVICAL SPINE: TWO VIEW SERIES ~ultiple views of the cervical spine revealed no conclusive radiographic evidence of recent fracture or gross osteopathology as visualized. There was a marked straightening of the cervical lotdoric curve. The radiographs suggested the presence of moderate m¥ospasm of the cervical paravertebral musculature. Osteoarthritis was noted in the areas of C3-C6. Radiographic analysis revealed multiple subluxations of the cervical vertebral motor unit at the levels of C1,C2. THORACIC SPINE: TWO VIEW SERIES Radiographic analysis of the thoracic spine.was negative forrecent fracture or gross osteopathology as visualized. The kyphotic curve in the thoracic spine appears to be normal. Ra~iographic interpretation suggested mild apparent myospasm. Radiogra vertebral motor units at the levels of T2,T4. LUMBAR SPINE: TWO VIEW SERIES Radiographic analysis of the lumbar spine was negative for recent fracture or gross osteopathology as visualized. Radiographic interpretation suggested mild apparent myospasm in the lumbar area. Radiographic analysis revealed multiple subluxations of the lumbar vertebral unit at the levels of L2-L4. 5, Diagnosis - ICDA #: 353.4 LUMBAR PLEXUS DISORDER 724.4 Radicular Neuralgia 846.0 Lumbosacral Sprain/Strain 723.3 CERVICOBRACHIAL SYND. 729.1 Cervical Myalgia 353.3 THORACIC PLEXUS DISORDER 847.1 Thoracic Sprain/Strain 6. Alternate Summary (Comments): It is my opinion that the patient did, in fact, sustain an injury as a direct result of the accident which occurred on 5-18-91. It has been clinically substantiated that neuromuscular involvements of this nature respond well to conservative chiropractic management if given a sufficient period of time for complete recovery. Barring unforeseen circumstances and assuming patient cooperation with visit schedule and home instructions, expect resolvement of this condition within eight to ten weeks. ?. Disabilit~ Data: The patient is temporarily partially disabled. Doctor's Signature Date Palomar Village Chiropractic 30630 Rancho Calif. Rd. ~ F501 Temecula, CA 92390 Received by CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CLA~[ FOR DAMAGES (For Dnmages to Persons or Personal Property) Via [ ]-U.S. Mail [ ]-Over the Counter A CLAIM MUST BE F]I,ED WITH THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS AFrER WHICH THE INCIDENT OR EVENT OCCURRED. BE SURE YOUR CLAIM IS AGAINST THE CITY OF T~-~IECULA, NOT ANOTI-~,R PU'BLIC ENTITY. Where space is insufficient, please use additional paper and identify information by paxagraph number. Completed claims must be mailed or delivered to: The City of Temecula Attention: City Clerk 43172 Business P,ark Drive Temecula, CA/92390 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council, The City of Temecula, California The undersigned respectfully submits the following claim and information relative to damage to persons and/or personal property pursuant to the provisions of Section 900 through 915.2 of the Government Code. b. Telephone Numbers: ~"~ G'7 (~- q~ c~ <~ _~_.~,. ,.,. daytime evening c. Date of Birth: l- ~ 'g- ~ ~ d. Social Security Number: e. Driver's License Number: ~ (l(~ ,~% ~ el ~ 21formSClaM-020 Claim for Damages Page 2 Name, telephone and/or post office address to which claimant desires notices to be sent if other than listed above: Occurrence or event from which the claim arises: a. Date: 5 - I ,~ - ~ / Time: Place (exact and specific location): \ - How and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? Specify particular occurrence, event, act or omission you claim caused the injury or . ~/ · ' ~ - ~ What particular action by the City, or its employees, caused the alleged damage or injury: 2fforms/CLM420 CIaim for Damages Page 3 Give a description of the injury, property damage or loss, so far as is known at the time of this claim. If there were no injuries, state "No injuries". Give the name(s) of the City employee(s) musing the damage or injury: e Name and address of any other person(s) injured: e Name and address of the owner of any damaged property: Damages claimed: a. Amount claimed as of this date: b. ~finmted amount of future costs: c. Total amount claimed: d. Basis for computation of.amounts claimed (include copies of all bills, invoices, estimates, etc.) 21 fovm~'CL,M-020 $ $ $ i 7,00.o0 i $ " ° Claim for Damages Page 4. o Names and addresses of all witnesses, hospitals, doctors, etc. (x ~.,. ~.'. ~ '.~.'~q~ '(2 Any additional information that might be helpful in considering claim: Signeel this day of ' , i9 Claimant's Signature WARNII~G: IT IS A CRIMI~AL OFFE~NSE TO FILE A FALSE CLAIM. (PENAL CODE SECTION 72; II~ISI. YRANCE CODE SECTION 2/forms/CL,M420 4 ITEM NO. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLMMS 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 $715,559.93 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 25th day of June, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 187 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 91- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 25 day of June, 1991, by the following roll call vote. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 0 ~8noor ......... ~ia~8 ................... Invoice Date P/O Date ~r~=tion 52891 05/~/91 ~/~/91 y2Z. tRSHP;A~'~L;~/117!-~130192 )70~ 051~/91 I:~'fMAST POSTMASTER ~17I ~/31/91 'C~eck 7oLa~s: OSl3llg! A,SSE&.q~.NT ~TC ~ILER$; MAY .)7054 06i0~/91 HOWA~ ~BBY HOWARD 6391 -~t~3tqt :~7C'55 06,'0~91D(1T~Ze-)~iSTi~tE-ORT~O 63~1 06/03/91 Cn~k Totaks: ~eck Totals: 0~/03/91 I~TR'UCTDRS PAY; MAY C'~ES 3i0. O0 O. O0 3!0. O0 ,:tO.00 0,00 310.00 3,4~).00 0.~ ,I,480.00 3.~q0.00 0.~ 5:480.00 "~6~ .~0 C~. O0 9 ~0. O0 960.00 0,00 960.00 464.80 O. C~) 484. BO 48(.80 o.'00 ;S4.80 6~.00 0.~ 640.00 ---~:~,0~- ~0~ :8.00 i8.00 O. OO i8,00 i55. C~J 0.'>3 i55.00 .......... --~ 55,. CQ ......... O. w :?~.oO O.OO 0.00 - O.-~, i98.00 198.00 !55,00---- &neck ~91 C~/04/91 06/~/91 ~: MTR ~G;FOR S~ MiC~(S ?K !5.00 763.~ iOQ. 00 1~.00 O,O~J -0.40 0.00 783. O0 78~.00 ...... i00.00 :00. oO O. O0 iW. 00 295. ¢~ .... ~, QO----- 295. '00---. .,,VO: ..... ..,00.00 0S209t-- --<Y5/~/9t 0197 -- -- 05/15/9i- Nm_'c 060591 ~/01/91 'Cnec~ Tc:aLs: ~/01/9I REI.MI~.F'E{'-FY ~ ACCT. CITY 2,3'60.0O 240.10 0.~ 0.~ 2~.10 ?07121 ~/12/91C{3t. Ell~Wt ~ ~5 ~209! ~/~t91 C,r, ec ,-k-T-or.a Ls: ~/~/91 "K~rUNI) K42AT;DEVEL~MENT ~ O. O0 2aFtriO 1,~.00 C~ec~ Totals: ~7l~ 04/12/9t ~'J3RA~ C b C GRADING AND PAVING 05/07-/9t-.0-1~ -~/07-/9 t~~'a t R~-~IAY-91 05/07/91 0195 05107191 £~5 ST PS. PAiRj MAY 91 --4.482,88-- 14.48:,7~ 0,00 0.00 i4,481.78 7,i84.02 '0 7:9 79 )07129 ~/25/9! ~Ei SECIJ AEi SEOJRITY iNC, ~9~ 05/~;'91 0!51 .Cnecl<--To: a~ 02/08/9i ~ '~ DE?OS2 T ,~0~ .... O. C~> 575. O0 Cn ec I.'. lo.-.a::.: ~5.~ -' ~CITY .... !015 ...... ~/!9/91 -01~ 05/!4/91 T~iC-~%~--C~V;5tt-9-~I~ 1003 05/05/~! 013c~ 03/14/91 s~lr~: =~ .... ~, ~-~i i~ 4.474.78' 0972 ~/07/9i OlSi< 03/]4/9t T~FF!C ~T,~ ~:~/7-~/~ 471.52 0,00 L75,00 0.~ 2'~.7~ 0,00 ~2,5~ -- O. O0 4.71.52 --0, '00-- .... Or.X/J--- ~ec~ Totals: ,X~34~i25t~i-~R.~SiA AETESIA-imF'c~.MENT .... 2~49~ 04/03/91 !02~ CWO$/9! T'~CTD~ ?~T;~OWN F'~T.APRJL 145.00 0.~ 14b,00 .............................. Gqec~io:a~s; ~'m~ (~bi25/91 ~S$~REC' "~UF'F.J ELECTRICAL "dO~T~ ..... bOl ...... C~./~/91 0k37--- 02/~i~t-iF~i.'A~.J.- ~;.SYST~.~'R2~ ...... CW2~/91 TYPEWRITER; FINANCE ~EF7. ':;.gO i$,2~0.00 .32,7b0,06 .......... :....£+ Invoice Da:e ?/0 Oa:e Descr~D:Ion 04tOi-P~t-4~OS2B 04/~/9101~ 0~/07/91F.~c.~ $T,'~PAiR;APRiL & ~¥ !5,75!.16 7'00.00 o.00 I0.012.59 0.00 13,751.16 740.00 8750 05/09/91 0i71 1989-8426 05/07/91 0171 19Tiff-3521---05t3 tt9.z-O 127 I~9-!708 ~/30/91 0!27 19~-6~32 0~1,~/9, 0127 05/i8/91AD~28; 12/!8/~ /~d?~17~-~%~; 5/~/91 19f:19-4~5 05/2;/91 0127 6400;~o8 ~/23/9i 017i 0~/0~/7I 0127 i989-458Z 05/17191 0127 !999-~)82 04/0!/91 0127 0.00 f~-,81 O. O0 52.,41 87.50 O. O0 87. ~0 ~4.~ 0.00 34.~ ~-~27 O. O0 ~9.27 ~.~ 0.~ ~.85 13.59 0.~ 13.59 17.10 --0,~ '17.10 !~.76 O, CQ !~,76 ~,~ 0.00 ~.~0 ~.10 0.~ 32. ~2 O. ~ 32. ~2 ......... ~, ~ O, ~ -~r~ ~. 3~. ~- O, ~ 39,4~- 040391 811.00 '007143 ....'~=~ 9' ::~,J7i~ 0~/2519i COBB 7mE COBB ~1091 . --"~/ZO/gl ...... 59.'00 72.90 J2~.23 599.23 g,'Jv :;.00 59. O0 72,90 B841-!N ~1!7/91 10!93 05/¢~191 i(~ ~5R DOS VERSION 807,'00 0.'00 807.~ 07/i2790 TAPE PL&N~I~ MT6; JUNE ~OkqivO 0,~ 807. O0 I~.15 0.00 1~.15 06125/91 DIXON D~V[D ;. · 05~91 ~W~-24i91 052991 05/17/91 Check lozais: 0~/17/9! P, EiMB.'rL,o~,5/i7-5/2J !~. 15 O, 00 I~, ' ~ 5t.i5 O. OO 590.96 0.00 590.96 06/25i91FA.~ FAP~tJ_~ C, Ot~°UTIN6? iNC 5158 C~/15/91 0194 307151 ~%/25/9! F~'..RN, E FEDF. F~L EXPRE~ 4,3t8~624-.05t i 7 t9}- 432 'g~0580 05/2¢19~ Cqec~-To:ais: 05/15/9I SYSTEM 'SUF$gRT~ ~eck Tc2ais: C~/!7/9!-?ACIO~B-.'S ,9~-'T~-511719! .... 05/2~19~ PACKAGE~ $~NTI --~ i1 C.-O~ ~'"~" 6~,00 0.00 500,00 ~0'~. 'OO 0.09 600.~ ---- 3B75 -~ 3!.75 i7.b4 0.00 255, 75 0.00 --2~ Check ~AY 9! ,'~"v~ ~ ,,,, 0,00 0b/25/91 6R'~ZK JUNE GREEK 0526 .... 05i2e/9! ...... '-~eck Totals: - 05/26/9!-'KEiMB.'~.~.!ES-FOR-BiRTH.~A,~- ..... ---~28.18 0.0o -28.4& - 26725 ~/i5/91 10210 ~f~71~7 ob/25/9! GI'~JZLL 8TE 197-5854-(~i0ii9! ~/i~/9! S-JMC '~'"' u ....Y :<EPAiE~: 5i167si o5/i~/9i 8MC Jify R~AiRS; 5/1~/9i 475,79 Cnec~ 7o~a!s: -~t01/91- APRIL- :~- ~tY -~J.E, DILL .............. $,SGO. 59 28, L8 455.52 ~75.7~) 'J, O0 ~07.5i 0.00 27.23 0.00 NET. ........ C~ecz T~ais: · ;Q7161 06/C5/91JD~'SBAR ~r,.,e BARRICADE ~-B 0C/09/91 i0259 05/0W91 5 $]BN ST~l)$; 2I~/91 C~ec~ To~a~s: ~7162 06/~/91 LEAGUE-2 LF. ASUE OF CA~.IFDRNiA CITIES C~ec~ T:tais: 6582 6581 ~77 '~,~87 6506 ~585 05/~/91 0!61 03/15/91LAt~)SCAPE SF.~!~S; 05/~/91 0161 05/!3/91 u¥~)SCAPE 'bF. RVICES; MAY 05/2~/91 0i61 03/13/9! ~E ~I~5; ~Y 05/281910tbl 03/i3/9: ~ "~ S;~i'~S; MAY ~i.42 0.00 27i,42 14%75 0.~ 149.75 I~9,~ 0,00 I~9,7§ 725.-00 0.00 725.00 7~.00 0,00 72%00 700.00 0.00 700.0~ 2;JO.00 0,00 -- 2-~t~ OQ O.-(X) I,~20.00 O.¢vJ 775.'00 O.OO 775.00 P~, .]2~,~) O, O0 1,32~, O0 499.50 O. 00 499.50 9W, O0 o. O0 900, O0 --! 4q¥0~-- O.(YO 045091 04/.:~J/9i 8,9~.50 .,071~ :~/25/91MOBik MO~:L "~ec~ Totals: .J7>bO ~t/25791MOOP, F~EE PE5 MO0~ iSd. 90 180.90 O.00 180.~0 1%45 0,00 I%45 06/25/9i NATION~O ~4TIDNA. NOTARY ASSOCi~TiD~ 060391 06/~/7! 06/~/~! ~W.M!NAR;j.~S.J; OCT.2.1~I 248.00 C~e:~ T~zais: 248. 'W 248.00 248. O0 C Invoice Date P/O Date 157.83 3,00717'5 06125191 F~_ASTIC PlASTiC FABRICATING 05/7,0,/91 ]0244 0,00 1.~-,-~ 42.85 ..,007!74 04i25/91 PRE~'ENT PRE~ ENTEF2RiS,-_" 17b-73~ Tarais: 42.&3 0.00 0.~ 42.85 ~ec~ Totals: i0.52 ~,~o0 C~/23/9I m~o ~"~v 0.00 0.00 10.52 !15.43 .~)7i7b 0~/25/9! ~OP~TY PROPC~.TY C~TA ~AY & JUNE C~/06191 0i08 ~'"~ '~ ~0.~ O.¢~J ~0.00 :007177 .......' Oo~tY, PRYOR 2846577- . 920. oo O. O0 -v2o. 00 59.00- O. "~ 5%00 Check To:aLs: 59.00 ~.00 59.(~) iDEA! Mi~: STAMP ..)07:79 0o/25/9: iqNCMWTE E~NCMC ~107600771 04/01191 ---0107~)00ct2·(~/01/ql 0115001012 04/03/9! Oa/0i/~! (~/05/9! ~.61 ........... .... ~ ' 0.00 ~w.b4 oiI~Z,.',45i 0i2;00970i 05/02/9i --012~)tSqT~1021~l 0124019181 ~/5/~1 0124%000i o5/02/9i Olz.44~OOl-05/OJqi 0131170052 (~/~/9! 01~0151 0411q/9! C~,, ,,./,, 'Jis~oJ~APE; 4/12-5/i: ~JeS:-~, D.~. 05102/91 DOP£ST!C;5/2-5i3;RAI~3HO VISTA C~/2~19~ D~ESTiC: ~/~-5t3: . 65/02/91 n,~rcr,r.~ :~.ra,,: O,00 i0. i7 0.00 21.96 19.54 ...... 51.50 0.~ 30.~ O. ~' ~ 0.~ ~. 92 27.71 O. ~.v/· ~ 59,77 -i~5.'J - --- !g.i7 5!.5o 30. ,'~5 20.J4 i99:.92 · 27.71 ~> 59--- 2,520. 2,500. .... i~.9'8 ..... invo',ce Date . q ~ , 4~--0~, ~ 2-/-9. ~5-7419 05/0i/91 05/0t~91-~F'~ LOCK-L;P~ -~Y- 9i- 05/0i/92 r"~LI~AR A.E. M~Y 9i 45.48 O, O0 45.48 CO~n~o~ APRIL 8ILLIN{3,SOLAi4A ¢~/i!/91 4/1!-S/30~ ¥NEZ 0§/0i/92 §/1-§/,30} ¥.N~.Z STI, T 0~/~/9! 4/~-~/21;ViA I'IONTAZLI'LA 04/23/9! 4/23-5/20;T7FR'~T/~ ~ / ~/9i--4/~-6-/~-2 ~}~R~T ST. 05/01/~i 5/!-5130:Wui~tO CAL. YNE2; 04/~/91 4/75-~/24; '~ VS; 04/.77/91 4/,'??,-5/2!:C21'Y Cui/'7'?../9i 4/27-5/2~:Cii'Y Ch~:k-~osals: -..,~,o~ -,-,~ ,~/~ .... STSCHOT lN$~J~dqCl v~i,m 05i14i91 05/i4i9i .~DITI~N~L FREM!UM:LO"~ 2 ~.91 0.00 18,~ OrO0 18-,~) 3!b. 71 0.00 31~.7i 206.29 O. ~ 2~. ~ i47.47 '0.~ i67.47 ~.~ 0.~ ~.~ 2!8.~ 0.~ 218.'~ 11~.~ 0.~ 1~3.~ 217.~ 0.'~ 217.~ 2~. 94 O. C~ 2~. 9~ 245, ~ O. <~ 2~5. ~ 481.10 O,~ ~81.10 292.72 O. '~ 2~2.72 8~3 0,~ 8.9S %50 0.~ ~.~ 19<.74 ~.00 i~0,74 :v07!8~ 0m/25/9! STMZGHT ..... - ......- C~STRUCTZr~ Z90.7; 0.00 i%.74 -215. ~ O. O0 ~,8.~ .- 72.50 ........ ~qec~. T¢cais: .................. 72.50 y007i99 04/25i9t TO~CTR 0.00 0.00 0.00 --0. O0 ~JNiT.2~ C~i2~i9! ~i25191-,~c, rmai ?ayroli,4/2~ ........ 2UNIT,22 65/23/9i- 05/23/91 ~.,r~4i ?a'~oi2,5/23 20.00 O.C~ 20.00 --- ~a~e --weno~ ............. ~ame t0.028.00 8,~42.50 8,903.00 11,170.50 9,072.~0 10,~70.00 32,979.69 · :,J-~. 93 Co i.,"5:t 9.~-W{' 002-A200 06125191 '002-Az02 002-D ~'W 0~/25i~'~ 950.00 .. .....~. 0,.b,'25191 XEROX-2 527~!88~ Cn~k Total. s: R.~oK? .Tot--ais,~ :,i69.04. ..... bb2.-108,00 -- -0.<<~--- - 0.'~ 0.00 0.~:: 0.'0~ 0.00 (~,~ U, trV .Net i ,0,~4~'.) ,,, 10.028. C~) 10:~E~.50 8,903.00 ~1,170.50 9.072, 54' 1U, 170. ~ 32,979. ~9 2~,56I. !8 9~. O0 i ,509. L,169.04 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer June 25, 1991 City Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of May 31, 1991. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and receipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the Code Sections as of May 31, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: City Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 1991 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report As of May 31, 1991 Cash Activity for the Month of May: Cash and Investments as of May 1, 1991 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as of May 31, 1991 $10,008,720 3,014,078 (1,233,846) $11,788,952 Cash and Investments Portfolio as of May 31, 1991: Type of Investment Institution Yield Balance Maturity as of Date 5/31/91 Demand Deposits Treasury Service Shares Petty Cash Certificate of Deposit Local Agency Investment Fund Security Pacific N/A N/A $61,301 Pacific Horizons 5.720% N/A 1,851 N/A N/A N/A 800 Overland Bank 6.750% 8/30/91 100,000 State Treasurer 7.374% N/A 11,625,000 Cash and Investments as of May 31, 1991 $11,788,952 Per Government Code Requirements, this Treasurer's Report is in compliance with the City of Temecula's Investment Policy and there are adequate funds available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures for the next thirty days of the City of Temecula. APPROVAL O F C .R CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Public Works Department June 25, 1991 Solicitation of Bids for the Maintenance Program. FY 91-91 Annual Street PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: FISCAL IMPACT: lb\Cityeng\StaffBid\ Tim D. Setlet, Director of Public Works That the City Council authorize the Public Works Department to solicit bids for the implementation of the FY 91-92 Street Maintenance. The City's annual maintenance contract with the County of Riverside Transportation Department expires on June 30, 1991. This request will allow the Public Works Department to solicit proposals from private contractors and Riverside County to perform annual street maintenance. Our current emergency services contract will be extended until the annual contract is awarded and the City will not be without essential maintenance services. It is anticipated that the project will proceed according to the following schedule: Bid Opening Award Contract August 1, 1991 August 13, 1991 The plans. specifications, and contract documents are on file in the office of the City Clerk. The approved budget for FY 91-92 was allocated $680,000.00 under account number 5q02 for routine street maintenance. It is anticipated that approximately $300,000.00 will be used for routine maintenance with the remainder being available for larger resurfacing projects. ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEcE~__~~' FINANCE OFFI CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 25, 1991 Release of Monument, Bond for Tract No. 19872-1 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19872-1 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On November 5, 1985, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Spanish Oaks Development Company 255 North San Gabriel Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91107 For the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Developers Insurance Company On May 14, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. The City Council also accepted a Faithful Performance Maintenance Bond as submitted by the successor-in-interest, Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. No action was taken on the monument bond at that date as several technical requirements had not been met. A:TM19872-1A 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. 916~85S in the amount of $15.500.00 to cover Survey Monumentation. The Faithful Performance Maintenance Bond, and Materials and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending Staff recommendation and City Council bond exoneration. The Surety Bond posted to cover the developer's share of the proposed Pala Road Bridge design and construction will also remain in effect pending resolution of financial and construction issues, AKC:ks Attachment: Location Map A:TM19872-1A 2 _ ~lr£ ¥1~'INIT¥ t~L41~ ITEM NO. 8 CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department June 25, 1991 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 19872-2 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer R ECOMMENDAT ION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 19872-2 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On November 5, 1985, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Spanish Oaks Development Company 265 North San Gabriel Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91107 For the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision acjreements were surety bonds issued by: Developers Insurance Company On May 14, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements and reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. The City Council also accepted a Faithful Performance Maintenance Bond as submitted by the successor-in-interest, Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. No action was taken on the monument bond at that date as several technical requirements had not been met. A:TM19872-2A 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. 916~82S in the amount of $14,500.00 to cover Survey Monumentation. The Faithful Performance Maintenance Bond and Material and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending Staff recommendation and City Council bond exoneration. AKC:ks Attachment: Location Map A:TM19872-2A 2 ITEM NO. 9 APPROVAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager -~ Engineering Department June 25, 1991 Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-1 PREPARED BY: Albert Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Public Improvements in Tract No. 21675-1, AUTHORIZE the reduction of street, sewer, and water bonds, ACCEPT the Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit in the reduced amount, APPROVE the subdivision agreement rider, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: On February 21, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Mesa homes, A California Corporation 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92390 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by: Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company as follows: Bond No. 3S687~8900 in the amount of $223,000.00 to cover street improvements. A:TM21675-1 ' 1 Bond No. 3568749000 in the amount of $35.000.00 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 3S68749100 in the amount of $26,000.00 to cover sewer improvements. Bonds No. 3S68748900, 3S68749000, and 3S68749100 in the amounts of $111,500.00, $17,500.00, and $13,000.00 respectively to cover materials and labor. The following items have been completed by the developer or his engineer in accordance with the approved plans: Required street, sewer, and water improvements. The affected streets are Corte Camarillo, and a portion of Rancho Vista Road and Via El Greco. The inspection and verification process relating to the above items has been completed by the County of Riverside Road Department and City Staff, and the Engineering Department recommends the reduction of the subdivision improvement bonds. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce these bonds as follows: Streets: $200,700.00 Water: 31,500.00 Sewer: 23,400.00 The remaining 10% of the original faithful performance bond amounts are to be retained for one {1 ) year guarantee period as follows: Streets: $22,300.00 Water: 3,500.00 Sewer: 2,600.00 Total $28,400.00 The developer has submitted a Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit designating the City of Temecula as obligee. City Council acceptance of this Instrument of Credit will permit the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to release the Faithful Performance bonds for these items of work. The Materials and Labor Bonds will remain in effect pending City Council exoneration. AC:ks Attachments: Location Map Subdivision Warranty Instrument of Credit Subdivision Agreement A:TM21675-1 2 To Corona / To River&iOll To San Diego AGREEMENT REGARDING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", and ~[esa }~omes hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Riverside and CONTRACTOR have entered into a series of agreements and CONTRACTOR has submitted a series of bonds in connection with consideration by the County of Riverside of final map approval 21675-1 ; WHEREAS, the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989; WHEREAS· in order to expeditiously process the acceptance of improvements pursuant to the final map, the CiTY has permitted subdividers to use the existing County Subdivision Agreement and Bond forms in lieu of CITY forms; WHEREAS, certain references in the County forms incorrectly refer to County positions instead of City positions; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between CITY and CONTRACTOR as follows: 1. All references to the "County of Riverside" contained in of the documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 21675-[ are now defined as referring to the "City of Temecula". 2. All references to the "Riverside County Road Commissioner" contained in any documents between CITY and CONTRACTOR concerning Tract 21675-1 are now hereby defined to refer to the "City Engineer". 3. All references to any other Riverside County offices or positions contained in the Agreements or Bonds concerning Tract 21675-1 now hereby refer to the equivalent CITY offices or positions. MESA HOMES CC~NT RACT,Ol~ ~'~NAME William M. R~l~r, Print Signatore's Name) Dated: Dated: CITY OF TEMECULA MAYOR RONALD J. PARKS JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: SCOTT FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS. On April 22, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared William M. Butler, President on behalf of Mesa Homes, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature . ~a~.F[~ CYNTHIA G. ZAJD '~ -::..r~:,?:Notary p~ ca,form, ' ,~ ~'~"~,~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY , MY ~mmill/on expires Oct. 14. 1994, BUTTERFIELD FINANCIAL CORPORATION 3470 Mr. Diablo Blvd., Suite A-200 Lafayette, California 94549 Telephone: (415) 283-8262 Fax: (415) 746-8202 Instrument of Credit Delivered as Improvement Security: Subdivision Warranty Gentlemen: Butterfield Financial Corporation , a financial corporation, subject to regulation by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, delivers to the City of Temecula this instrument of credit as security for certain improvements in accordance with the Subdivision Agreement, dated and referred to herein and by this reference made a part hereof, subject to the following conditions: I. We pledge that we hold and will hold cash and notes receivable in the sum of TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($28,400.00) as funds guaranteed for payment to the City of Temecula to secure Mesa Homes (hereinafter referred to as "Principal") faithful performance of the Subdivision Agreement executed by Principal and City of Temecula for Subdivision 21675-1 for the commencement and completion of the one year warranty period as described in said Subdivision Agreement and the SubdivisionLaws of City of Temecula. We will so hold this sum until the commencement, completion, and written acceptance by the City of Temecula City Council of all work and improvements under said written Subdivision Agreement. Prior to said acceptance, upon demand by the City Engineer of the City of Temecula, the whole or any portion of said funds shall be paid forthwith to the City for use toward the commencement and completion of the work and improvement as it sees fit. II. When all of the guarantee and maintenance requirements have been satisfied, the sum of TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUND~RD AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($28,400.00) shall be released upon written acceptance by the City Council of the completion of these requirements. Prior to said acceptance, upon written demand by the City the whole or any portion of said residual sum shall be paid forthwith to the City for use toward satisfaction of these requirements. IV. No alteration of said subdivision Agreement, or of any plans or specifications of said work, agreed to by City of Temecula and Principal, shall relieve us from liability on this letter of credit. Page We hereby give consent for any such alterations to be made without further notice to or consent by us. We hereby hold ourselves bound without regard to and independently of any action against Principal whenever taken. We further agree that if City of Temecula sues on this letter of credit, we will pay, all its reasonable costs, expenses and attorneys fees incurred by it in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. This instrument of credit is irrevocable. BUTTERFIELD FINANCIAL CORP. Donald A. Lorenz (Name) MESA HOMERS By: . - William M. Butler (Name) Vice President (Title) President (Title) I swear under penalty of perjury that I have authority to bind the above-named financial corporation to the terms of this letter of credit. Executed at ~/~ California, on ~'~ , 19 /. By: (Name) (Title) By~.D~, d A. .. S i gn at/u~-e Lorenz.~.ice President Approved as to Form: By: Scott Field City Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA State of California County of Contra Costa ss. On June 10, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Donald A. Lorenz, personally known to me to be the person who executed the within instrument as Vice President Butterfield Financial Corporation, the corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that such executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature: ~'~j . _ '-~.j . ~ _ My commission expires December 12, 1994 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SS. On June 11, 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared William M. Butler, President on behalf of Mesa Homes, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. '~ ~ OFIrlClA~. ~EAL , ~-~ CYNTHIA G. ZAJD ., ~ N~Rary I~ul~lic California ' ~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY Signature 2/. ~J ( Seal ) .y oonission e i, 0/14/94. ~.. ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Departmen'~ June 25, 1991 Final Vesting Tract Map No. 21818 PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council APPROVE Final Vesting Tract Map No. 21818, subject to the conditions of approval. DISCUSSION: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21818 was originally submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on January 15, 1988. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21818, Amended No. 1, was approved by the County Planning Commission on May 11, 1988 and the County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1988. The first extension of time was approved on June 6, 1990. Vesting Tract Map No. 21818 contains 29 residential lots and one open space lot within 35.04 acres. The tract is located west of Via Norte and North of Avenida Del Reposo. The applicant is Bedford Properties. The following fees have been paid (or deferred} for Final Vesting Tract Map No. 21818: * Area Drainage Fees (Deferred to Building Permits) * Fire Mitigation Fees (Deferred to Building Permits) * Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees (Deferred to Building Permits) * Stephen's K-Rat {at Grading Permits) $ 1,970.00 11,600.00 4,350.00 68,328.00 Requirement of Quimby fees (Park Fees) is not listed as a county of Riverside Condition of Approval for Tract Map 21818. However, with the Approval of the First Extension of time the Planning commission adopted Condition 24 requiring the implementation of Quimby Fees for this project pursuant to Ordinance 460. A:FVT21818 1 The following bonds have been posted for Final Vesting Tract Map No. 21818: Faithful Labor and Performance Materials Streets and Drainage $367,500.00 $18q, 000.00 Water 74,500.00 37,500.00 Sewer -0- -0- Survey Monuments $14,500.00 FISCAL IMPACT: Not Determined. SUMMARY: Staff Recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Vesting Tract Map No. 21818, Amended No. 1, subject to the Conditions of approval. DS/BY: ks Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Development Checklist Location Map Copy of Map Extension of Time Conditions of Approval Fees and Securities Report A:FVT21818 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Final Vestinq Tract Map No. 21818 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. 23 Condition No. 2t[ NIA Item No. 13 Road Department Letter dated 5/q/88 Condition No. 21{a) Fire Department Letter dated 3/lt~/88 Condition No. lq A:FVT21818 ~No'r "TO SUBMITI'AL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA FROM: Riverside County Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: June 26, 1990 SUBJECT: Notice of Decision of Extension of Time request acted on by the Riverside County Plannfng Commission on June 6, 1990. RECOMMENDED MOTION: RECEIVE AND FILE the Notice of Decision o¢ the case acted on by the Riverside County Planning Con~nission on d~. ~ 6, 1990. The applicant of the following map has requested an extel)sion of time to allow for recordation of the final map. The Riverside County Planning Commission APPROVED the Extension of Time and amended the Conditions of Approval for : VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 21818, AMENDED NO. 1 - Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - 30 Lots - 33.82 Acres - West of Via Norte, north of Avenida Del Reposa - Schedule B - R-A-~ Zoning - Extension of Time to May 31, lg91. FIRST EXTENSION. Mark -. Balys, Chief Dep~y Planning Director PROUECT LOCAlION: West of Via Norte, north of Aventda Del Reposa in the City of Temecula. BACKGROUND: (LRW:lgg 6/25/90 PLANNING COf, IMISSION: JUNE 6, 1990 Agenda Item: 1-2 RIVERSIDE PLANNING CONMISSION MEETING BOARD ROOM - 14th Floor - 4080 Lemon Street - Riverside PLANNING CONNISSION CONSENT CALENDAR STAFF REPORT NOTE: The following will be presented to the Planning Commission as consent calendar item. Unless specifically requested by the applicant at the time of consideration, the item May not be discussed and is subject to approval by the Commission under a single motion. CEQA: The following tract has confcrmed to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. [t has been determined that t~e individual map will not have significant effects upon the environment· GENERAL PLAN: Unless otherwise noted, the following tract has been determined to be consistent with the general plan and its elements· ORDINANCE 659: It has been determined that in qrder to insure public health, safety and welfare, the map listed belo~ will be subject to Ordinance 659, Development m~tigation fee for residential development. ' ORDINANCE 663: The Conditions of Approval for the'following map will be amended to reflect the implementation of Ordinance No. 663 (Stephens' Kangaroo Rat mitigation). The conditions will be · amended as follows: Add Condition No. 23. ORDINANCE 460: The conditions of approval for the following map will be amended %o reflect the implementation of Section 10·35 of' Ordinance No. 460 (Park and Recreation Fees and Dedications). The conditions will be amended sa follows: Add Condition No. 24. FINDINGS: There is reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within & reasonable time. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. ® The project complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. . · VESTING TRACT 21818 Consen% Calendar Staff Report Page 2 RECONNENDATIONS: The applicant of the following map has requested an extension o¢ time to allow for recordation of the final map. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval. VESTING TRACT 21818, Amended No. 1 - Robert Bein - William Frost Associates - Rancho California Area - First SuDervisorial Di'strlct - 30 Lots - 33.82 Acres - Schedule B - R-A-l/2 Zone - EXTENSION OF TIHE THROUGH Hay 31, 1991 - First EXTENSION. RW:ts 05/07/90 · ,T..-3 . -,,' '11V ',iJIl : .f lUl II..v: -'.' L L nn n( Road z~ Butlding& Safety ~.~ : 6~.~:.~., :~.'; '~'~'~:~ Health ROAU ~PAR~MENT VESTING "~: '~'"' :"' '"' ~ "~' :~- ' Fire P~tectton : RE: :TENTATZVE T~CT~ ~P NO,' REG ~ ~ T~ ,NO *' '"' . : . ~ r ~.,'.~,.: ...... The Riverside County ~ Planntn9 Dt~ctor/~Board Of Supentso,s'"h'as .... """' taken the?following action on the above referenced tentative map,: z,.:, ?.%,:..~: ;.' :"-~..'~ :-.:~,,' XX APP~VED tentative map subject to the attache'conditions ~.(no waiver request su~itted). DENZED tentative map based on the'attached findings. ::~,.,~'~::~d. APPROVED tentative mp subject to at~ched condJtJons"anA.D~ZED request,:~for:~: waiver of the ftnal. top. ~ . . : .,.~;.~,-.,~.~,..., APPROVED tentative ~p and APPROVED r~uest for waiver of,.the fine1 APPROVED: ' ~~ E~tenslon.,Af Time to all previously ap~ed~,c9n~t~;ons. - . :.;,~. ~ . ~ / "il" · ' '. ':-'.,,' . . ... ,.. ,.,, , ~ ~ubject to all previously appm~e~oq~([~R~. and., the attached,.a~l ',t c ~ (,r ;~ons ::.-~:' .' .:. DEN]ED Extension of ~tM:~. ; .~..'.. ' ....~.,.;~:;,, APPROVED withdrawal of eehtat~e-mp- ...... ,~;;~ ~rmvru minor Change to ~v:~.~-~ally' approved =condition~ as~':'s~ :ac~ed)";..t ~P~VED Htnor ~ange to ~vtse ortglna]]~ approve( ~ ,~ · -, .- -~- . ,- ;. ,: DENIED ~quest for Htnor ~ange..-.-}?,~ ~ ~,..,.~.,. , ~P~VED Htnor ~ange ~ ~atve ~e final mp.~:~'?:, .,::~. . ~, ~ / -:: -.. } "~ .,.., ;;' ~.-,. ' ' ' 1" <" :~ · .. '.: :.2 ' ' , . RJH'<c ' , ' ' :.' ' ' '. · R]VE~]~ CO~ PL~N]NG DEP~ENT:.~,:? "~::~'; .' . · . . . - , :'.:. , . = ,.. '. ,~,~. ,. ~ -. , . , .- - ~¢~ -- ~. ~'~ . . .~.~,~%..,:. : , . ', :~ ~ ',;~ .. .~r~ ...... .,a':~:,~ ...:~, ~. ~ ~RV~OR <~..~ ROAD - BLUE ., BUILDING & $~.,;? 8REEN .- '~ H~TH - PINK ': ' FI~ P~TE~I~.~L~aROD;'~: : . . . ~. - J . . -~ .........=.~ ..:. ~J.. ;..~ · ~,,,..,.-. ~ ..., 4~0 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR ..r. ' ".: ':' "' '?~4~2~ OA81S~TREET:'R~M 304 RIVER81D~ ~LIFORNIA 92501 " ",::"'f~:' ~' '.' :7:~: ~DIO, ~LIFORNIA 92201 ,., I ,, ~; · . FROM: The Planning Department ,,. CO >..-? SUBMrI"TAL TO 11.!E BOARD COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF ~JB~CT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21818, AHENDED NO,1 -' DEVELOPMENT CO. - First Supervtsortal Dlstrtct'-:,Rancho Area - 33.82 Acres - ~g Lots - Schedule B - R-A-~ Zoning RECOMMENDEDMOTION: .. ' 8 RECEIVE AND FILE the above mentioned c, ase Planntng ComnJsston on !~y 11, 1988. THE PLANNING CON'4ISSION: .... ADOPTED the Negattve Declaration for Environmental Assessment.~ · No. 32269 based on the flndJ.ngs Incorporated tn the envtron-~ mental assessment and the conc~uslon that* the proposed ~11 not have a significant effect on the envtronmentii'and ~,...-- ,~!.,., APPROVED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO.' 21818,'AHENDED 3act to the attached conditions and based on the findings conclusions Incorporated tn the Planning CQmn.~sslon minutes dated Nay 11, 1988. !. Applicant 2. Engineer/Rep: Locat~ on: 5.~ Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: g. Comprehensive General Plan Designation.: , ,Land Division Data: .. 10. 11. Agency Recommendations: -~ Kaiser Development, Rancho Paciftc Engineerin 'To subdivide' 33.82, acres' tnto I~est of 'Vta Notre Oel Repos,o R-A-~ R-A-~j, Subject s~te:ts;:? dry gt.~ass site Su rroundi ng land '~use single. family homes' Land :Use: Density: Total Proposed Htn.~ Loti See Letter Dated', 13. ANALYSIS: .. ProJ act Oescri pt1 on: :.':.:,': ...... . ¥.~ 3-1' ~. "i. '. ,;(':. ,:..,;,.~: Bldg. & Safety: . :,~.;,'.:,. 14ount Palomar: ' ': ' ":"%"~' '" O~posJng/: Letters: · ,' ,, . . , , '~.:....!' , :. ' :.~,~ ,. ':'" · '~ ~ :,; ' :*, 1~:.', Sphere of' Int'luence: .~:-,,:: ..-* :~ ::.::.::.' Not within 'a ...... ,. ,. . . , ~.~ . . . ~: · ~t~ .. , .. ~%/ · · : ~ ., . ,;, .~ : :. ' / · . .~: ';..':',".-;:: ....,~ · ,: ,..,'.': '. "-T .' ::',.'.l "Vestlng" TentatJve'Tract No. 21818 Amended No.'~' 1, 'a Schedule' sion in the Rancho California zoning area proposing to:subdtvtd~;33.a2"~cres?'!i~t,o."2.9':~?:. single family residential lots wtth a mintmum lot size'::of~':21,780~square-~'?eeT"!f:' and one open space lot. The project , . ..... ~.c:.~.~;. ~".~' '. '~:,~:' ,;~...:' ~ :.-.:~:,...: Avertida Del Reposo ..... . ,- ~: ,. ............,.¥.:.,~ , .-. ,., -.. ' ~4'~.' '. "~ ~ ~",~'4'';~ ; , ~ ~ ~ ~-:~ · -" . , - ,' .- .. ~ ...."~..~'!~.:~- '.'-~i.:::~~',~','~"s ...... . · ' " ,.. ... · ,~ ....... : . ~. - . ... ~. :~ .~:L:~". ' ' ' ~': ~,.. .... ~Z ~ .1' · · . . . ~'.,,',,,'..~ ~:. :.*..~%., . *, .:;.' :'f-'...% -.- ~ ~.~-:~~~~~" ~.~ % · ,. ,.. . · ,. . , ~ ....., .~.~.~-~:~:: :/~ ~.~::~:~:.: ' . ' · ' , '~ '~ ': Y£STING TENTATIVE:.-TRA~T NO. Staff bp t or Page 2 Land Use and Zonlnq: 2 828 ' A.,d'.fi The subject stta ts currently vacant'.':" Surrounding land' uses'tnc larg _ nrta1 homes end vacant land. The project'Is zo_ned R-J~% es stngle famtly restde are all properties timedlately surr~ndtng_the.st.te.. :~.Ad,dttt,o.na!l.Y.;[.K:.Ra: az°.~r~+n~g- exists' to the north, northeast end southea$;,_ the north and northeast. The proposed large developm;nt' ts 'compatible wtth stmtlar extsttng,~l ,ubdlvtstons adjacent to subject property.. , ', Oeslgn Considerations:" ', ".. The proposed subdivision has been destgned tn accord~cje"wtth'the'standa.rds the R-A-~4 zone (Residential-Agricultural etch & ~4 acre mtntmum 1at'size) circulation pattern uses Via Notre es 'the-proJec$?s ma¶n":!access curvilinear streets end cul-de-sacs tnto the proJect.~-The:'1~rgeF~1o~, to the NeSt of the project use Centanario Avenue, Artl'Buena"bSuerta" and:~Arte De1 Rapasp as access potnts. Additionally, 'the proposali:ts.tncorporattn! comaon open space end 30' equestrian easement tratls :Into.the proJect.!r;D~ the tracts "vesttng status" a development destgn ~..ma, nual ~'wes st destgn mnual Nas found to be adequate and kd]]...J)e i~'~' Comprehensive $enera~ Plan Conststencyi' · ::!::-.'. :.i',~: :.:,., ': , *,:: '?, ~, The Comprehensive 6eneral Plans f~e~".$pace"and Conservat~on:Elemen~'"sho~s s~ tn 'Areas not designated'es ~en 1re ~neral. Jan shes 'tn the'Southwest.Territory,Land P1 the stte C~rehens ,. , A the Ranc~ ~11fo~la~emcula . , .~ --- ~+, -., ~he ~1tctes of ~e hncho ~11fornta~cula sube~a state uses ~tn ~ts i~a should generally tth ~e ~ter rtton of ~e area ~t~g-~t~ ~nclude residential develo~nt ~t~ er hal~ ac~ ~ one ~elltng untt ~r five ec~s, and'~qut~s ~nd c~.tW ~ter, c~atlbt11~ ~ extstt~ ~tr~nts. ~ts_ p~Sll can IdequTtlly_~ p~Ject due ~ the ' ivltlabtltW T~ ~unty Envt~nmen~l Health ~p~~ ~11fornta Hater Dtstrtct agreetng ~ serve , .. . , ," :?::i~ YESTZm TENTAT]~ TRA~'N0'~ Z!818. *~. ~. '~ " · · '. ,~ .~ "~..~ .... ~ ~ I- '. , Staff Report,...~: ,,:.: .~*':': , ::~-.',~ ~,~ .: :.~: The tntt~ml s~ud~ conducted for EnvironS1 , loss of .n~qum a~ prt~ fataland. T~,. p~pos, generated notse ~rtng ' construction and st~ ts ~htn t~ ~un~ Pal~ar Observa~-$~ctml~L~' designated as m ~en~lal sl~e for ~ues~rt~n'~trm~ls:. / ~s~den~tal develo~n~ ~s ~t~htn ~ T~culm. Unton~:~h~l~ .tmpac~d b~ overcrwdtng. F.r~he~re. servtc. as ~tng tm~c~ b~ residential develo The subject stte ts surrounded' by large lot ~tdenttal therefore not conducive ~o ramland. No'ntttga' generated notse and cumulative at,r quality tnpac Potent1 Iqount Palomar Observatory,' can be mtttga~ed?'throu conditions of approval and the 'Comprehensive S~ectal Lighting 'area poltc~es.':"-Thts'proposal~t htktng equestrian tratls tnto the destgn of l~e I · to the area's schools and libraries wtll be'accomPl mitigation 'fees prior 1. to the 'tssuance '-'of'":bu.t141n Implementation of the above_referenced mtttgatton$~'~t the proposed project ~' will ':not have"-& stgn~flce dve-se~ envt tonmental. and a .negatJ re' declarer1 on. has been : ~ A Ftsca~ Impact Report:"for 'this:':, proJ, /klmtntstrattve Offtce: The Administrative ';:"Offtce.~ Impact' Report and detemt,ned that,: based' upon a :sell he proposed project' ~111 ~rov~de,~~the, 3.BA~.00 annu&l ~ after F]NDUIG$: .. 1. "Yesting" Tentative Tr&ct No '., tn the I~nche C~11fornle aree:,~nt~ · ~ ,, . ', ,. 'tr~;.'. ' ·. ': i : ~ ~''~ '/ ~ : ~ ~ "' ', . .. :.' · 2..~e ~bJect'~! 3. "~ ~.ndt~ ' 1~.:,? us. :,'Includelot'st '..,.' end v~c~nt, 1~. 4.: '~vtw ef t~'/~11c~--.' of:'" tM ?~ .. ~ -.' gertere1. -" '"~ ~go~ Ill,at ~ts tim 5. ~e 'tntMal 'st,~ for ~nvtronn~l ~ses~nt .... ~.' that the .-. project ~ wtll ~vtewed;. Itcated ~: StAff lieport 'Page 4 .~"~ ,i;.~. 1.:¥'Tbe proposal ts consistent vtth Ordinance 348. Z. The pr.oposa~ ts ; General Plan.'~.'. 3. "*~he pr,oposal ~s compatible Mth area develo 4., Potential envlronmental '1rapacts w111 Ix mttt conditions of approval.. . .r based upon the ftndtngs Incorporated tn the*tnttlal:~ ~hat~ the proposed.project?t1] not :.have' &i~st ~ntft · envtronment;: and. .' . ' * , ' ' · · ' . ~PR~ of VEST]~' TENTATIVE T~CT: NO"' Z18~8~ attached condtttons.'of ~ ,' Based upon· the ftndtngs and:c,onclustons:,'.:itncorporatAd · StAff rectumends :. , V ,;:;,', '" ~(;"::- ?":. :~.!" ~:~.."" , : , ~ .... * . / · -,~ ~.,.' -... ~: ..: ~:'~ .~., .' ~TI~ of ~ t~ negattve dec]lrltt~ for:EnvtronmntA' 'RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~4ISSION MINUTES" {ARENDA ITEH4-¢ - REEL 983- SIDE I - 1898-2101] TRACT ~1818AHENDED NO, 1- EA3~$9 - Kaiser Development CIllfornla Area - First Supervisortel District -west of Via. De Renoso - ~9 lots - 33,8~t acres - R-A Zone, Schedule B *~'*'~:' The hearing ms opened at S:45 9.m. end continued TO~ · '~.. ,~ ~ ' . ..*~ STAFF RECOI~IENDATION: Although staff supported the proposal had.'not'~been : .'* correctly advertised as & Vesting Tract ~p and they were,therefore~rocommend., trig ! one week continuance (the map had been readvertlsed 'correctly.~for thati~ ~::.* date . Stiff felt the proposed project, ~lth a minimum lot, size'of;sltghtly~ moro}than 21,000 square feet, vould be compatible vtth the surrounding l~nd'!.? uses vhich included 1&roe lot single family rtsidences_and*vaca_nt~l. lnd.~,~:lts,*~:~:~*.~:~i; mciel recmmended severe1 changes to the cond ltions. of~..l. ppro.v.a..1 David ~lames, representing the applicant, requested that Condition lg(d) deleted or reworded. This condition had been imposed to cover maihtenance~'?~:~;..~;~- the common open spice ereis if they ~ere refused by the Headowtew Property?i Ovaors Association.~ Mr. ~lNS thought the Nordtag of this condition vie difficult to understand, and might not be correctly Interpreted,ln~the~future~., ..~! if roylived by near staff not familiar with the current'~lntant~of.'ithls.*:.condi. tide,* Ks, Lind advised this condition contained the standard'~ording'~aPProved/',~"?, by County Co. nsel. and recommended that Fir. 'Oames requested the' deletion of Road Departmenti,Condition* re uired street l~ghts. This wes a very rural are&,'end there l igqhts. The developer had promised the Meadowview Property .. that he would retain the existing. ~rel character to the;greatest.extent..-: possible, and the street lights would not be compatible;? Mr; dohnso? advised that sincl this wes e Schedule B Subdivision, the Commission to delete the street light requirement, However, he suggested that,~"as!--'a, mtnlmum, street ~lghts be required at the major Intersectlonsl be/'.fe~t strongly they were there needed for safety purposes, ~- In enswer'to:&~question by Commissioner Bresson, Ms, Crotinger &dvised thare'~ere no ~l~hln the Headowvlew develo!~_ento Com!sslo, n.e.r yes i ost Ii htln In the Meadowlay Area, ns. ~roTingeE;ala~not ~!ro ~lames advised Condition ~ of the Flood Control conditions offsite 100 year storm runoff from east of Via Rorte be conveyed'.across-Via? Notre and throu h the subject tract Into a etom drain system to'~.the-westerly g II II ' '~'~ '~ '" '"*'" side of 6roen Tree Road. He asked ~hether the terri:' should. male this ~'~:..'~:'; ,~, condition mandatory. Ns. Crotlnger advised the Flood Control condltlonl made mandatory because the Planning Department conditions required'thee to fulfl~led. Hr. James advised this area wes very rurel,~and there'Wre cross-lot drainage situations, ,ith drainage carried' ln's~ales and'under:~:': culverts. He felt this added to the aesthetic attractiveness #to dames requested that this condition either be deleted orrevlsed by. adding languag~ allowing then to provide &l~tarnative flood~:con~,rol .~ttlgatloq'~.t~f~ · - , , · , ', ' ' ',,o. ,;~ -'..,' ~.q'~. /, .....'~f4, ~. ,-.; ..,. -, .~,:~.'. - .. ILT¥£RSZDE GOUNTY PLANNING COI~I]SS~ON 14~NUTES ~ could prove at e later date, to the satisfaction of the Flood Control District, that th~ could conv~ the ~iter through the slti £d Lotz edvtsed the Flood Control District strongly rtcofinended that'.the, s~stem be reD, ired because of the size of the water shed led the besv~ ~loffs in this ertl. They lad rovirded the project very closely and discussed it with the ·ppllcant*s engineers and consultant..~ hcause of the size contri~to~ deer shed, be did not think propert~ ~ers ~uld be'coonizln of the potentill flooding p~obllm. Hr, Lo~ file ver~ st~ngly drlin~oe facili~ was needed for this p~ect. ~. Jl~s Idvised~thtq'wls cost fica% Is it ~uld not h cost tffective for hill Ic~ lots .to this ~ype of drainage s~stau. ':' :¥. Be~nle Thomas, 31525 Aventda De1 Reposo, President of. the Headowvlew:' Homeowners Association, had Just received the conditions and not had opportunit~ for adequate revl~. I~. Thoms felt thai'deleting Flood Control~ CondttlonZ ·s requested b~ #r, ~ames Nould cause serious problems ~xtsting drains the severe flooding in this area. He briefly described ~he4 patterns in this area. According to Mr, Thoms, mostof. the storm water the.general area funneled doN~ through Norte Vlst~ and onto:the (vhich yes · dip betwen two hills),- .' ~ ~lr, Thomas wls concerned about the design and r~)ute of:the'equestrian, as it was proposed ~ go across driveways and through throvgh water channels. Although the applicant ~uld_'dedicite trials to sltlsfi the needs of &res residents, It to actua11~ eshblish the trill is dedicated, Hr, Th~s';.requested street lights not h required, is the~ wre lnco~itlble Ni~ .the itel, street 11ghts ~re located It the t~ intersections. mntlo.ned,~ ~lth the ~ceptlon of the equestrian trails, and wlth'the./stlpulition'that g~t c~ h given ~ miteglee the driinlge prob~e~l Hr,~:~ could support the sub, act tract mp, ~ idvi~ed the~pl~nned'to these ~o~ tn~ the ~dowl~ H~~ ~soctltion Nhen ~ Nlrl c~l~ted, ~t ~ N~s ~t su~ ~e~ ~uld ~ccept ~e c~n Ireis ~intenancel ~ts Issue ~u~d ~ subject ~ ntgotiltlon,/~s,:Llnd .Idvtsld o s et s r . ~ ~..~ ~..'~- · ., ~ - . .. ..~ ,..~.~.; ....~...~ RZYERSZD£ COUNTY PLANNZNG COPIIdZ$SZON HZNUTES Commissioner aresson asked ~here the street lights ~ould"be'needed Johnson thought 11ghta ~ould be needed at the intersection of~la Norte'and the interior intersection; only t~o 11ghts ~ould be requlred.?con~tssioner Bresson requested that the condition include a requirement for post.t #r; Johnson &greed to this request, end advised he ~ould check with th traffic engineer and have the nan condition ~ltttn when them reconsidered the following ~eek. .-'' ~...-~ ,, Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson,'seconded by Commissioner'Smith' unanimously carried, Tract 21816 was continued to 9:30 e,m.~y 471986, staff was requested to provide the amended condlttonsas.dlscussed,during hearing that day so that tt ~ould not be necessary to'go.i~hrpugh',them the following ~eek. ' . ~,,~.L.,- · ? ~ 23 I II R-A RiVERSiDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIViSiON CONDiTiONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21818 DATE: AMENDED NO. 1 EXP i RES: STANDARD CONDiTiONS The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and ~old hamless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees fram any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or 1is agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of "the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. Z1818, whtch action is brought about within the time period provided for tn California Government Code Sectton 6649g.37. The County of Riverside will promptly nottry the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. if the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold hamless the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall camply with the State of California Subdivision ~p Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule B, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative nmp will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final mp shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requiraments of the State of California Subdivision Mmp Act and Ordinance 460. 5. The subdivider shall subnit one copy of a sotls report to the Riverside County Surve~or's Offtce and two coptes to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the sotls stability end geological conditions of the site. -. 6. if any grading' is proposed, the subdivider shall subnit one print of c_omprehenstve grading plan to the Department of Butldtng and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as mi)4)e additionally provided for in ~hese conditions of approval. Vt3TIR6 I~ITATI~ TRACT I10. 21818 CondttJm of Approval Page 2 7. A gradtrig pemtt shall t~ ·baitned frm the Department of Bu1141ng end Sete. ty pr~or.to ccxmencemnt of any grading outstale of county mtnta~ned roe· r~ght or my. 80 My M11nquent property Uxes shall be patd prtor to recordation of the final ip. The subdivider shall cmply vtth the street Improvement rocmmendattons outltned tn the Riverside Gounty Road J~partmnt's letter dated 5-04-88, · copy of ~htch ts Ittached~ended k/ PlaMing Coralssire S-ll-aO) 30. Legal access as requtred by Ordanance 460 shall be provtded frm the tract mp boundar~ to · County mintlined road. 11. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the publlc and shall conttnue tn force untt1 the governing body accepts or ·band·ns such offers. All dedications shall be free from ~11 encumbrances as approved by the Road Camlast·nor. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Conutsstoner, 12. Easements, vhen requtred for roadray slopes, dratnage factlltaes, utilities, etc., shall be shorn on the final mp tf they ere located vtthtn the land dtvtston boundary. All offers of dedication end ~onveyances shall be submitted end recorded is dtrected by the County urveyoro Viter Ind sewrage dtsposal facilities shall be tnsta~led tn accordance vtth the provisions set forth tn the Riverside County Health Department's litter dated 4-04-880 a copy of uhlch ts attached. 24. The subdivider $hall comply vtth the flood control recmmendattons outltned by She Riverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dated · 3-.16-88, I c~y of vhtch ts etaached. I¢ the lind dtvtst~ 11es vtthtn in adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Sectton 1¢~'26 of Ordinance 460, ipproprtate fees the constroctton of area drainage facilities shall be collected by ¢t~l llold Commissioner. IS. 16. 17. The subdivider shall comply vtth the ftre tmproveMnt recomendattons outltned tn the COunty Ftre Flirshal*s letter dated 3-14088,. 8 copy of ~htch Is attached. "the ~ubdtvtder sho_11 cmply vtth the reco~nendettons outltned tn the ButldJng and Safety letter dated 3-1S-880 · copy of vhtch ts attached. Subdivision phistrig, Including any proposed connon open space area Smprovemnt phutng, tf applicable, shill be subject to Planning. ,ires o~ Ap~al 3 Oepo~*~Mnt approval. Any proposed phastng shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shall substantially con¢om to the tntent end purpose of the subdivision approval, Lots created by thts subdivision ,shall comply vtth the foileying: a. All lots shall have a n~ntmum stze of ZI,780 square feet. b. A11 lot length to vtdth ratios shall be tn conformnee vtth Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. c. Corner lots and through lots, tf any, shall be provided vtth additional area pursuant to Section 3.88 of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contltn less net area than the least mount of net area tn non-corner and through lots, d. Lots created'by this subdivision shill be tn confernee ~th the development standards of the R*A-~ zone. e. Vhen lots Ir~ crossed by major publtc utility easements, each lot shall hive a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feat, exclusive of the uttltty easement. f. Graded but undeveloped land shall be mtntstned tn a reed-free condition and shall be ateher planted vtth interim landscaping or rovtded vtth other eroston control measures as approved by the tractor of Butldtng and Sirsty. 19. Prtor to RECORDATION of the ftnal nip the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prtor to the recordation of the ftnal mp the applicant shall sutmtt .?t~ten.~le&ra~es ~o the ~tverstde Count~ Road and Survey Deportment Tnet all perTIHfiT rlquIrlmentS outltned tn the attichid approval letters from the fo13ovtng &genctes have been Bit: Count~ Ftre OeportzNnt County Flood Control. County Health Department Count), Planntng DeportJ. nt' Prtor to recordation of the fine1 nip, the applicant shall apply for &nnexitton of the subject property, Is dtvlded, Into the Propert~ OVners ~soctatton .end shall PrOVtde ev_tdefice to the Plenntng Diparen. t of TM approval or rejection Of said application for Innex&ttofi. if the Ip~ltclttofi for annexation tf rejected, the sub~ect propsrely $h&11 be &finaxed 1fire Coufit~ hrvtce Area The coaunon open space shall be shovm &s a numbered lot on the final mp and shall be deeded to and managed b~ the HlldM~w Property I~ST~NG TENTATTVE TRACT NO. 2~8~8 Md. fi Coedttleas of Approvll Page 4 Ovners Association or-tf mltntenlnce of the co.non open space ~s rejected by the Heidowtev Property O~ers Association, the cmmon open space shall be deeded to and ranaged by County Servtce Area 143. do Prtor to recordation of the ftnal nip, the subdtvtdor shill convey to the County tttle to all camon or connon open space IreIs, tf the Heldovvte~ Property Mars Association rejects in application to &nnex the subject property, is dtvtded. As I condition precedent to the County accepting tttle to such Ireis, the subdivider shill submit the foliovine documnts to the Plinntng Dep&rtment for rtvtev, vhtch documnts shill be subject to the ipprovll of th&t dip&tranS and the Off tee of the County Counsel: l) A decl&rltton of covenants, conditions &nd restrictions; and z) A simple document conveying tttle to the purch&ser of in tndtvtdull lot or entt vhtch provtdes that the declit&Sion of covehints, conditions and restrictions ts Incorporated therein by reference. The decl&r&tton of coven&nts, conditions Ind restrictions submitted for revte~ shill (&)provtde for a tam of 603~1rs, (b) provide for the establishant of I property o~mers' assoctltton comprised of the o~ers of elch tndtvtdull lot or untt and (c) conSeth the following provisions verblttm: 'Notv~thstlndtng Iny provisions tn this 0eclat&Sion to the contrary, the foliovine provisions sh&11 appl~: The prope~tyo~mers' association est&bltshad heretn _sh&11, ~f doneit, be activated, by tncorperatton or othervise, it the request of the County of Riverside, and the property oM~ers~ issocJltJOn shall unconditionally accept fram the County o Riverside, upon the county's dmlnd, Stile to all or iny part ,~ the 'cen~on area', lore perttcul&rly described on [xhtbtt attached hereto. The dectston to requtre activation of the property mrs' assQctitlofi and the d~c_ts~on to requtre that the association uncondttlona11~ itcapt tttle To the 'camon area' shall be it the sole discretion of the Count~ of Riverside. In the event that the cannon Irea, or &ny pert thereof, co. va~ed to the preper~y ovnars' &SSOCtatton, the thereafter she11 om such 'connon Irel', she11 alnag!. and continuously mtntetn such 'cemaon IHl' I~d shall not seu _or transfer such 'camon Irel' or Ifiy p~rt hreOf~ absent the_prloc vrtttefi consent of the P1&nntng Dtrector of the COunTy OT Riverside or the County's successor-In-Interest. l~e propert~ ovnir$' Issoctltton shall have the rtght to assess h o~ers OT VF. qTIJS TEXTATIVE 11ACT IO. Z1818 Md. fi CoedJtJots o¢ Appr~el each Individual lot or untt for the reasonable cost of mtntatntng such 'canon area', and shall have the rtght to 1ten the property of any such ovmer vho defaults in the po3~ent of mint,henCe assessment. An mss,saint 1ten. once established. shell not be subordinate to any encu~rance other than a first trust deed or first mortgage. lid, tn good fltth and for 'value end of record prior to the assessment 1ten. Thts Declaration shall not be taminit.d, *subs~unttally' emended or proIxrty aleannexed therefrom absent the prtor vrttten consent of the Plenntng Dtrector of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-In-the.rest. A proposed mendmeht shall be considered 'substantial' t¢ tt affects the extent, usage or mtntendnce of the 'camon area'. ~ In the event of any confitct betwen thts Decllratton and the Articles of Zncorporatton, the Bylavs or the Association Rules and Regulations. I¢ any. this Declaration she11 control.' Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions end restrictions shall be recorded at the sam tim that the ftnal rdp iS recorded. The developer shall be responsible for mint,hence and upkeep of slopes. landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other portte~ as approved by the Planning Director. Prtor to recordation of the ftnal nap, in Environmental Constraints Sheet (£CS) shall be prepared tn conjunction vtth the ftnal mp to delineate 1denttried environmental concerns end shall be permnent_l~ _ftled vtth the offtce of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be erinmitred to the Plamtng Department for revtew end &pproval. mT~p ,PtoPrOV~ ECS sh,11 be ,orulrded vlth co, tea of the recorded ftn,1 P1&nntng Dlp&rtmnt and the Deplrtoent of Butldtng and Slfet~ o o g. The folioring note sh~11 be placed on the Environintel Constraints Sheet: 'Thts property ts located vtthtn thirty (30) atlas of Haunt Palamir Ohsirritate. All proposed outdoor 11ghtlng s~stets she11 be shtelded and oft,need so es not to shtne obey, the horizontal plane passtrig through the lumtniro. Outdoor lighting for roldviys. walkways, eCNtPmlnt yerdso ~lrktng lotso security. Ind other stntlar Ippltcattons shall be from low pressure sodtum vapor 11ghttng systens. VE3TIIG TERTATIV~ TUCT g0. Zl118 ~d. f! Coalitions of Appr~ll 20. All othe~ outdoor 11ghtlng that ts not frm 1or pressure sodium 11ghttng system shall be ~urned off it ~X:00 p.u. or earltar. vapor h. Plier to recordation. ~he sppltant shall obtain Planning Director approval of the altgnmnt of all equestrian easements viebin the subject I),'ope~y. All equestrian eismnts shill IdJotn the boundaries of tndtvtdull lots and none shall bisect sKY tndtv~duil lot. (Added b~ P1innlsl Comtsstoao~S-XX-88) Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERHITS ~he fellsring conditions shall be satisfied: I~ · 4endscape efek4~ee~w sad eke3~ ffe~4de 4ff &be ~eZ~ow~,g, a, kindscape el~een4n! ~e~e ~eqv~Pld eka~3 be dea4gned is'be epique 8, A~ u%434~y eeffv4ee iffel! lad eae~eevffes eke~ be eeleased ~ffem be p~aeed ,~de~jfevad, 4, Plffkway! e~d 3andseeped bv43daa! es%basks thl~ be ~e~dteeped ee · ea.eeff~! s4deva3kl~ keaekee ead eekff pedea~ff4aa iMa4~4ea. vke~e 6, Laadseep4a! ~eae eke33 4neefpe~eee eke use o~ epee4ma~ eeee~e 4~eee e% ke~4eus~ ~eel~ pe~ev4~k4n %bepeedee~, ~efe s%fee% 4fees ea~aee be t3e~ed v4%k4a f4gk%-ef-way ~ 8, AZl e,,~ee49! epee4mea eftess sad e4g~4~4eea& leek eueeffep~age a~d ehe~ ~e~e these 40 be e~uevedv ~e3eeeaed ead~e~ ~e~&4aed, V~TIN6 TENTATIV~ TIACT BO. 21018 toMgalois of Appr~al Pugs 7 Ot &3~ 4Peas eke3~ be m4n4M devk3e e~eked, WHkee e,,d/eP e~ew I~ &T~ ep/Peved t~ed4nf end h43d4.! p3e~e ek4~ ftf~ea~ eke ve4~iamiie~ · c. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading pernfits, In overall conceptual gridtrig plln shell be submitted to the Planning 01rector for approvll, The plan $hall be used es a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases' of develoi~ent end shall include the following: Techniques vhtch will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate tim frmmes for gridtrig mnd identification of items which mly be graded during the higher probability rain months o¢ Januar7 through Piirch 3) Preliminary pad end roadway eliviSions 4) Areas of temporarx grading outside of a pottitular phase de ~tvevays shall be designed $o es not to exceed e fifteen (25) percent grade. e. IMturel features such as wiser courses, s~ctmn trees-end significant rock outcrops shall be protected tn the slttng of Individual butldtng pads on ftnil gradtng plans. f. Gredtng plans shall Incorporate the gradtrig ed equestrian tretls ~o that ell equestrian tretls ere graded ~o lintshed grade that 1s reasonebb'- for thetr use for equestrian purposes, (Mded it/Pl&Mtng CemtsstG,..a S*11-ei) Zl. PTtOr tO the tssuence of BUILDING PlaITS the following conditions shell be satisfied: I. No tmtldtng pimtts shill be tssued the Oounty of Riverside for ny.resid!nttsl lot/uQtt vtthtn the ;roJect bounder~ untt1 the eVelOpor's successor's-In. Interest provtdes evidence of coapltlnce VE3FI~ TEJ~TATIV~ TItACT BO. 218Z8 AM. ~1 cond~tJa~s ~r~ Approve1 P~ge 8 wtth publlc fac111ty financing masures. A cash sum of one-hundred ollars ($100) per lot/untt shall be deposited vtth the riverside unty Department of Building and SIfety as mttlgatton for ~ubllc 11bra~ development. bo de Roof-mounted mchan~cal equt~mnt shall not be perutreed vtthtn the subdivision, howvet solar e_qut~ment or any other energy savtng devices sh411 be perutreed vlth Pl&nntng DeplrtMnt Approval. 4~f4ga.,4®n, [DelRed !~ Planntng coralssion Prlor to the tssuance of butld4ng pemtts, a plot plan shall sutnttted to the Planning Department pursuant to Sectton 18.30 ~ Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable ftllng fees. as i plot plan that ts not subject to the Clllfornta Environmental qualtty Act and ts not tranmttted to any governmental agency other than the Rtve~rstde County Planntng Department. The plot plan shall ensure the con~rormnce of the ftnal stte develoiz~nt vtth the tract's aPPrOved Destgn ~tlnual (Exhtbtt #). and shall contatn the folioring elegies: A ftnal stte plan shortrig the lots, butldtng footprtntsr 811 setbacks. and floor plan and elevltton &sstgnments to Individual ]ors. One (l) color and mtertels sample board (mxtmum stze of 8 X ~3 4riches by 3/8 1rich thtck) containing prectse Color. texture and rotefta1 _watches or photographs (~tch my ~ fr~ supp14ers" b~hu~s). Indtcate on the ~ t~ him, Iddress IM phone n~ers of ~th ~e ample ~l~ pre~rer lad ~e p~Ject ~pltcint, trice nu~er, Ind t~ mnufic~r I~ p~du~ nu~ers ere ~sstble (trials ames Ilso Iccep~ble). ~ 3. One (~) copl of the ArchitecturAl elevations colored to represent the se]ecti~color combinations, vtth s)qubols keyed to the color And materials board. The ~ttten color And nitertA1 descriptions she11 Be located on the elevation. o SIx (6) coptes of each of gloss~ phototraphtc color prtnts (stze 8 X l0 taches) o~ both color And mtertal$ board And colored Architectural elevations for plrmnent ftllng. heartrig body revteu And Agenc~ dtstrtbutlofi. All vrttlng rest he legtble. htd plat plan shall riqutre the Approval of the PlAnning Dtrector prtor to the tssuance of Anj, buildtrig I),mtts for lots tncluded vithtn the plot plan. TM subMetAl of plot plans prtor to the tssuance of butldlng Hrults nl~ be phased provlded: VESTING TENTATEV[ TRACT I0. Z]Jl8 Md. tl Ca~dltlalS of ~q)rffal ' Page ! seplrlte plot plan shall be subnttted to the Pllnntng_Deplr~ment each phase, vhtch shall be i¢co~p&nted by appropriate ftltng fees, Z. [ach Individual plot plln shall be ipproved by the Planntng 0trtctor prior to the tssuanco of butldtng peratts for .lots Included vlthtn that plot plan. P~ea~4~l g4~ee*.~ a~d i#e ~4fee~ee ~ k4.~d4~l end Safe~,Deleted at P1&natng C(~tsston 5-11-88) GIq:bc 4/18/88 VESTZNG TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 21818 Amd. #1 Conditions of Approval Page 10 23. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No, 553 be superceded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County Ordinance or resolution, (Added at Planning Commission on June 6, 1990), 24. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following conditions shall be complied with: The subdivider shall annex Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 21818 into the County Service Area 143. (Added at Planning Commission on June-6, 1990). The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with County Service Area 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460, The agreement shall be approved by the Board cf Supervisors prior to the recordation of the final map. (Added at Planning Commission on June 6, 1990). RW:ts 05/07/90 X LeRoy D. Smoot co,~ss~eR ~ coumY SuRvEYon OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR March 17, 1988 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA Re: Tract Map g1818 - Amend Schedule B - Team I Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptabtltty may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in a11. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities Including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: #Oratnage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. e The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offstie drainage iqowtng onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Arttcle X1 of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. Tract Hap 21818 - Amend #1 March 17, 1988 P&ge 2 3. !~Jor drainage ts tnvolved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 4. Green Meadow lld. and Green Tree Road shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section B. (36'/60'). 5. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from R.C.W.D. prior to the recordation of the final map. 6. The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%. 10. 11. 12. 13. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the Road Department. Avonida Centenarto, Ave Buena Suerte and Aventda Del Reposo shall be improved with asphalt concrete dikes located 18 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; within a 30 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section B. Via Notre shall be improved with asphalt concrete dikes located 22 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; within. a 33 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section B. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs shall be 35 feet. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he ~ enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Tract Nap 21818 - Amend March 17. 1988 Page 3 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Camisstoner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Asphalttc emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the land division. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shom on the final map and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on Via Norte for lot 7 and so noted on the final map. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 21820, P/P 783-U and TR 3883. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment Otstrtct' in accordance with Governmental Code Section $6000. T~act ~p 21818 - A~end ~1 .~iarch 17, 1988 Page 4 GH:lh Very truly yours, Road Dtvlston Englneer COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE L a. llLL~, KA,IL~JL DEPARTMENT ~ 4, 1988 of HEALTH 18?l #TH I'I'N(E? MAi. L (llOSl' OPlrK:~ Riverside Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 APR ! 3 B88 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE; TRACT NAP 21818: Being a Division of Lot 545 of Tract 3883 as recorded in Book 63, Page 14 of Haps, on File in the Office of the County Recorder, Riverside California (29 Lots) ATTN: Gloria Maciel Gentlemen: 8elMIA S05 I~JT# I~NA VISTA ~O~ONA, CA 81780 iS0 NORTH STATE #~MET. OA 8854s elele 48-80e OASIS STNEET INOIO. O& es's'0! illl ILI~I#1 LAKE ~LIINO~E. GA. S8850 Pii~l e#1111 Nii18 8a? M(~TN '0' iTN~ET MVllilBI · tVSRSIH. GA. 18107 MISSION ~.~0. The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map Tract Map 21818 as recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and 3oxnt specifications, and the size of the main at the junction o~ 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 25, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Nap No. 21818 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it viii supply water to such tract at any specific Riverside County Planning Commission Page Two ATTN: Gloria Maciel April 4. 1988 quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose." This certification shall be signed by t responsible official of the water company. submitted to the Co~Q~Z_~M~y~Z~L~_Q~A~ to review at least two weeks .R£ior t~_~_£~g~!~_for the ~ecopdation of the fint!_B~R. This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water Distrlct agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand, providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department will permit domestic sewage disposal from the individual lots in this subdivision as per a percolation report submitted by Leighton and Associates dated, March 2, 1988 (Addendum March ~4, 1986) for each 100 9allohs of septic tank capacity as follows: TABLE I (.LEACH LINE) SQ./FT./OF APPLICATION LEACHING AREA PERCOLATION RATE REQUI~k-n LOT RATE (MIN. (SQIFTI100 GAL (INCLUDES 100% ~= /INCH) /DAY) EXPANSION)# 60.0 2 30.0 3 17.1 4 4.0 30.0 4.4 7 30.0 See Table II 9 See Table II 10 See Table II 11 See Table II See Table II 120 2880 65 1560 40 960 20 480 65 1560 20 480 65 1560 Riverside County Planning Conmission Page Three ATTN: Gloria Maciel April 4, 1988 TABLE I (LEACH LINE) APPLICATION PERCOLATION RATE LOT RATE (MIN. (SO/F'I~/100 GAL ~Q~ /INCH) /DAY) LEACHING AREA RE~UIP~ (INCLUDES 100~ EXPANSION)# 13 60.0 14 See Table II 15 6.0 16 24.0 17 5.2 18 See Table II 19 See Table II 20 See Table II 21 See Table II 22 See Table II 23 21.8 24 See Table II 25 See Table II 26 See Table II 27 See Table I! 120 2880 120 2880 55 1320 20 480 50 1200 *NOTE: The areas and depths have been calculated using . 1200 gallon septic tank. For areas, see Geotechnic&l Map. Riverside County Planning Commission P&ge Four ATTN: Glori& M&ciei April 4, 1988 TABLE II (Seepage Pit) LOT PERCOLATION R~TE D~PTH OF' $' D I ANETER 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 I .90 1.10 I .49 2.76 1.10 1.10 1.10 3.50 1.10 2.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 2.65 1.10 2.69 2-20.0'BI 2-35.0 BI 2-26.0 BI 2-28 0 BI 2-35.0 BI 2-35.0 BI 2-35.0 BI 1-22.0 BI 2-35.0 BI 1-38.4 BI 2-35.0 BI 2-35.0 BI 2-3S. 0 BI 2-35.0 BI 1-29.0 BI 2-35.0 BI 1-30.0 BI (Below Inlet) Riverside County Planning Commission Page Five ATTN: Gloria Maciel April 4, 1988 TABLE II (Seepage Pit) DEPTH PERCOLATION OF LOT 29 2.01 1-38.0 BI *NOTE: These areas and depths have been calculated using a 1200 gallon septic tank. This area does not include the seepage pit wall separations. For total areas, see Geotechnical Map. These results (leach lines and seepage pits) are based on the type and depth of the earth materials indicated in our preliminary report, dated March 2, 1988 The above information is an indication of the type of sewage disposal systems based on existing ground elevations at the time the tests were conducted. If any grading compaction, cutting, etc., is accomplished and is in excess of two feet, additional sewage disposal information shall be required prior to lintling of the map. It is our opinion that extensive grading is going to be necessary for this subdivision. ~£ior to recordation of the final map, we will reqgi£! an evaluation and update preliminary grading map by the soils engineer of record. Additional testing is to be performed to incorporate system designs for each !!! incorporating all the recommendations/conclusions listed in the soils report referenced above. A copy of the revised grading map signed by the soils engineer, shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map, indicating areas of intended subsurface sewage disposal placement to include 100~ expansion area. Riverside County Planning Commission Page Six ATTN: Gloria Maciel April 4, 1988 This Department will permit domestic sewage disposal from the individual lots in this subdivision by means of septic tanks with minimum size leaching lines or seepage pits based on the occupancy of each individua! lot there shall be an unoccupied area on each lot where sewage disposal as required above, may be installed in conformance with the current Uniform Plumbing Code. There shall be an additional unoccupied area equal to 100~ expansion of the above required sewage disposal systems for sewage disposal installation in case of failure. However, it should be noted that this type of sewage disposal system is considered temporary and if sewer lines of a sewer district become available, connection to the system should be made. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely, Sam Martinez, Se~ Sanitarian Environmental Health Services HRL:SM;tac KSNN[TH I,- ~'DWARDS ~NI~f EN~I NEEN 1lie MARKK'T ~I'REE"r P.O. BOX I 111.,EPHONE (714) RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT March 17, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention= Regional Team No. 1 Gloria Maciel Ladies and Gentlemen= Re: Vesting Tract 21818 Amended Map No. I This is a proposal to divide 34 acres into 29 lots in the Temecula Valley area, on the west side of Via Notre, about 600 feet north of Avenida Del Reposo. The topography of the site consists of hills to the north and south and a watercourse that conveys runoff through the site from east to west. Offsite runoff from about 45 acres approaches the site from east of Via Notre. The applicant has proposed to con- vey this runoff across the front yards of several lots in the natural watercourse. Culverts would be provided to convey water underneath driveways and the proposed Green Tree Road. This of- fsite runoff should be contained entirely in a storm drain system through the project. Following are the District's recommendations= This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the 'Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans', amended July $, 1984: Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner as part of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shell be paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map~ or be At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting deferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees shall be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grad- ing permit or building permit for each approved par- cel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map; however, Riverside County Planning Department Re= Vesting Tract 21818 Amended Map No. 1 -2- March 17, 1988 0 Drainage fees shall be paid to tha Road Commissioner as a part of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or Parcel map, or before receiving a waiver to record a land division, for each 1Or within the land division where construction activity as evi- denced by one of the following actions has occurred since May 26, 1981= A grading permit or building permit has been obtained. (b) Grading or structures have been initiated. The effsite mf£~i%a 119 year sterm runeff frem east ef Via Nerte sheuld be cenveyed actess Via Nerte and threugh this tract in a sterm drain system te the western side ef Green Tree Re~d. Driveway culverts should have the capacity to carry the 10 year stormwater if the driveway has a dip and 100 year stormwater if the driveway is at continuous grade. An emergency escape flow path should also be provided. Watercourses should be delineated on an environmental constraint sheet. A note should be put on the environ- mental constraint sheet stating, 'Watercourses shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions unless drainage improvements are constructed." The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be installed. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape should also be provided. Ohsits drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, 'Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions'. Riverside County Planning Department Re= Vesting Tract 21818 Amended Map No. I -3- March 17, 1988 All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans, environ- mental constraint sheet and final map along with support- ing hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be sub- mitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. A registered engineer must sign, seal and note his expiration date on plans and calculations submitted. 0uestions concerning this matter may be referred to the Subdivision section 714/787-2884. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS ~£e~ Enginee/~/ HN H. KASHUBA /'~n~o~r Civil Engineer cc= Rancho Pacific Engineering SEM=pln PLANNING DmP~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOFEAATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPAFFTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD ~ CHIEF Plsmd~ & hlineerinl Office 14-88 4080 l. mnon Street, Suite l 1 ah~lak. CA 92501 TEAM! MAR 16 1988 TR 21818--AHENDED # I PLANNING DEPARTMENT With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department reconunends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "9" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4#x2J#) located. one at each street intersection and spaced no ~ore than 660 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than' 330 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be lOCK) GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water syStem plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans s~all conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer end the local water company with the following certification: #I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any coeabuetibls.building material being placed on an individual lot. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire DeparfJnent, a cashlumof $400.00 per Lot/unit ae ntttigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a.bulldinqpermit. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. GEORGE S. TATt~, Planning OffiCer Count of l iwe -mlde Planning Department Dl~m Gloria Maciel Building and Safety, Land Use Division TR 21818 - Vesting, Amend %1 Land Use has the following comments~ Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach'l' into required minimum $' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. Grading has the attached comments. ~,AR 16 1988 RIVERSIDE COUN'P( PLANNING DEPARTMENT GEN. IrOl~M 4. Land Use Division February 11, 1988 Eric Traboulay, Deputy Director, Grading LDC Review of Vesting Maps The Grading Division will not be reviewing precise grading plans for vesting maps prior to Planning Department approval. Grading requirements and recommendations will be addressed during application for grading review and permit. Any modi- fications required of grading plans submitted to the Planning Department for vesting purposes will be subject to Planning Department review and. approval. Please incorporate this policy into you~ comments and cor- respondence on vesting maps at Land Development Committee ~eetings. . JB/jp Three copies of the ~rading plan (A~-scale) conforming to Chapter 70 of th~ uniform Building Code and County Ordinance A5?.&A shall be submitted to this Department for review and approval before a grading permit can be issued. Two ~opies of the Preliminary Geotechnical report ad- dressing underlying soil conditions including soil bearing and expansive properties shall be furnished. The report shall specifically address site geologic/ seismic parameters for building construction. Recom- mendations regarding footings, interior slabs on grade; allowable active pressure for retaining wall construction and clearing and grading operations are to be included. The report shall be submitted to this Department for review and approval. Hydrology and hydraulic calculations addressing off- site tributary areas and ho~ flows ~ill be conveyed through the tract must be provided to this department for review and approval. The QI~ and Q10~ must be shown at all points of entry and exit. Details of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities and protective devices must be shown. 'Provide building footprints on all lots showing all setbacks. Show driveway details on the grading plan along with grades not to exceed 15~. Slope stability calculations with a factor of safety of at least one and five-tenths ¢1.5) shall be submitted by a soils engineer for all slopes equal to or greater than 30 feet. Provide proper building setbacks on all pads from top or toe of slopes to the face of structure. the The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be provided with slope planting to minimize erosion. a. Cut slopes equal to or greater than 5 feet in vertical height and fill slopes equal to or. greater than 3 feet in vertical height shall be planted with grass or ground cover. b. Slopes exceeding 15 feet in vertical height shall be planted with shrubs~ spaced not to exceed 1~ feet on center; or trees~ spaced not to exceed ~0 feet on center; or a combination of shrubs and trees at equivalent spacing. c. All slopes required to be planted shall be provided with an irrigation system. d. Provide Erosion Control-Landscape plans prepared by a registered landscape architect. Accompanying the plan shall be a cost estimate detailing all costs associated with the project for bonding purposes. :IiVE:DiDE count , PL, nninc DEi',u CfilEnC DATE: December 18. 1987 TO: Assessor ~!.~. ~,~-" Butldtng and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda -- JAN 1 9 1988 Road Depart~nt Health - Ralph Luchs Ftre Protection RIVIera,_. ;, ***.,, '( 1R£CEivED Flood Control Dtstrtct PLANNING D£F~alMF. N Fish & Game LAFCO, S Patsley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Devtdson Native Plant Society Rancho Calif. Water Southern Calif. Edison Southern Calif. Gas Sterre Club Ganera1 Telphone Temecula Unton Htgh School Fit. Palomar De Luz Prop. O~ners Santa Hargartta Rancho Prop. O~ners Temecula Chamber of Commerce 1988 VESTZNG TRACT 21818 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 3226' -Katser Development Co. - Rancho Pactft. Engineering - Rancho California Area - Ftrst Suoervtsortal Dtstrtct- #est of Vta Notre & North of De Reposo - R-A-~ Zone - Schedule B - 33.82 acres tn*~,9 lots - No gatvet - I~Od 119 - A.P. 919-340-002 -- Conmisstoner Bresson Please revte~ the case described above, along ~tth the attached case map. A Land Dtvtston Committee meettnp has been tentatively scheduled for February 18, 1988. If tt clears, tt ~tll then go to publlc heartrig. Your comments and recemendattons are requested prtor to February 1, 1988 in order that may tnclude them tn the staff report for thts porttcular case. Should you have any cluesttons regarding thts ttem, please do not hesttate to contact $1oria gaciel at 787-1363 Planner CO~ENTS: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DATE: ~/~5/88 SIGNATURE PLEASE prtnt name and tttle Dr. Robe£ Jt~, Brucato/AssisC&nt Director/Palomar 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PALOMAR OBSERVATORY 10S.3~4 This case is within 30 miles of the Palomar Observatory and is therefore vithin the zone requiring the use of lo~-pressure sodium vapor lamps f~r street lighting, as stipulated by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. We request that the design for o~her tFpes of outdoor liihting that ~ay be .employed on ~his property be made consistent vith the spirit of the decision of the Board of Supervisors vhich 'is intended to mitigate the adverse effects such facilities have on£he astronomical research at Palomar. BeneEicial steps to that end include: 1. Use the minimum amount of liiht needed for the task. 2. Orient and shield light to prevent. direct upvard illumination. 0 Turn off lights at 11:00 p.n. (or earlier) unless, in commercial applications, the associated business is oven past that time, in vhich case the lights should be turned off at closin$. Use lov-pressure sodium lamps for roadrays, valk~ays, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other sixilar applications. These lights need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m. For further information, call (818) 356-&035. Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director PASADENA. CALIFORNIA fllZS TELEPHONE (818))$d*-40&3 TELEX 6754Z$ CALTECH PSD April 19, 1988 Mr. Richard MacHoer, Supervising Planner Riverside County Pl~ming Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: Meadowview Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 21818 Deer Mr. MacHott: The following summarizes our findings regarding the fiscal impact analysis for the project identified above. The appendix attached s~arizes the basic ass~ptions used in the analysis. Please note that these results reflect the current levels of service provided by the County based on Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 actual costs (per capita factors) and Departmental and Auditor-Controller review of operations and facility costs for services reviewed using case study analysis. Staff to the Growth Fiscal Impact Task Force and Departments are currently reviewing service levels provided and the need to increase the levels of service. Current findings are that existing levels of service are not adequate in most cases. Should the desired level of service be utilized in the fiscal analysis perfo~ed, it would si~nificantl¥ increase the costs associated with this development. COUNTY FUND (Operations and Maintenance) FISCAL IMPACT AFTER BUILDOUT CUMULATIVE FISCAL IMPACT AT BUILDOUT County C, eneral $3,925 $12,814 Flre $707 $1,073 Free Library $257 $390 SUBTOTAL COUNTY $4,889 $14,277 Road Fund ($1,077) ($1,616) GRAND TOTAL $3,812 $12,661 Robert T. Anderin Admlnistmt~ve Center 4060 LEMON STREET ~ I~'TH FLOOR · RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA g?.501 · (/14)787-~44 The following special circumstances apply to this project: 1. CAO staff has reviewed library costs with Library personnel and incorporated actual operations and maintenance costs into the analysis. Using Library staff estimates of the costs of providing the current level of service, considering the increase in population, this project should result in one-time capital facility costs of $4,173 (library space, volumes). Library staff has indicated that the current level of service is not adequate. 2. Flood Control staff has indicated that flood control facilities constructed within Zone 7 are unlikely to be sufficiently funded for maintenance costs. Current estimates indicate that funding shortages should occur for the next ten years. Suggested mitigation measures include a cash deposit by the project developer or use of an assessment mechanism. The a~ount of deposit would be determined by a present value analysis and project timing.. The cost of maintaining flood control facilities not be known until final design phases, when facility have been fully identified. Flood Control staff therefore, condition project approvals to identify a of financing facility maintenance and operation necessary) prior to recordation of subdivisions. will needs will, means (if Based on the analysis and assuming that the average sales price of the units will be $215,000, overall Vesting Tentative Tract 21818 will have a positive fiscal impact at buildout of $12,661. After buildout, this project will have an annual positive fiscal impact to the County of $3,812 at current levels of service. Initial Review Review Approved By: M ~ APPLICATION FOR LAND UIE AND DEVELOPMENT DATE: DBCB#B~R 4, 1987 ~f~K~lE OF ZONE NO, r'l PUBL~ ~ I"'ERMrT NO. C~:)NDmONALLk,~E in TRACTMAPNO. YBSTXIIG ~ OPMK;ELMAP"O. m¥~qjANCENO. AC~.TED PLOT PLAN NO. ,,COM~-rE,U'PL~T, ONSWtU. NOT BE ACCEPTEO. DEC ~-~ 1987 AII~UCANT INFORMATION 1. AINMicinrl Name: TMephone N,~: TeWIMtone N(~: nip ~_11,dJtiv~: T~ NG: ( ! (8 &m.- S Am.) Zjll, (714 ) f~7(~-do:Ta (8 I.m.- S p.m.) N011 :If rome than one pera~n M inv~ in the oumerahi~ of ~le pf~y being develol~ed a .el~mte ~age m.~---.~ &tt~c~ed t~ ~hi~ -r p4~ ~t~n v~ich ~W~ th~ n~m~ ~nd iddr~ M M~ pef~Qn~ h~vin~ ~n intM~ in t~ ~ ~ B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Purpole of Request (clefcribs project): (Ordinance 348 ref. no.) Subdivide 33.82 acres into 29 single family res$dential lo1~s. 2. Rillted ~ filed in conjunction with thll requeit: C. PROPERTY INFORMATION 1. Amemm'll~reeINMa~ 919-340-002 2. GInl~ll(x~tWn(WiMNm, ltc) #sac o£ Via Notre and North ot DeX Repose Portion Rancho - TileCUla Al~woximmeGmllAgmNe: 33.82 acree Le~ildeicdlXioniliviexm:~le~M~m/Kgmleq~lheOffk~dtheCountyReGordM~Maybeattached. 888 A'L~TACHBD. ~ LEMON STREET, 8TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 (714) 787-6181 48,'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORI~ ICqeaee complete Parts I and II ~ ~ loom and Drov~e WI of ~ ~ m~orlMo rO~lUe~ed in Part IlL Failure to do ~c) may f~ tO oontact the Pllnning DIpl 'b~l~d I! ~M) 787-~41& PAlIT I: ~efioml IMormlfiofi PART II: Environmental 1. Is the lyOiect within In AIqu~PdQio Specill S~udlel Zone? YESO NC~ TO detormkw i~ ymar proiect is located in · 8poc/I 8hadi8~ ZOfl~ ~tho Public IfS)rotation Soctiof% or refer to the Spectll Sludy Zofill MI~I Ivlilll~ It N PuI~ I,d~. ,. '~ fi C~ ~11hl PIInning Dlplfimlfit. If the ~x'Oj~Ct il within I zone, mf~ to Ordinance M7.1, or di~:u.~ the .ttultl~n ~tth It~ County Geologilt. Ifafaulttmzar~ml~i~n~c~a~y, COml~Othein4.~g tJonpd~tos~MdttlnOyour~rpb. tionandprovideScopiesot the g~mrt with thi~ form. If a umiver of the m(luimmofi4818 gmf~od, cubmir a coOy of the u~A~o~ with th~ f~ 2. Is the project located within a hazard manaOoment zone or Ilti~,Tf~ ..tJon a~e as ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~fe~ Ei~ merit Technical RoOort'? YES O NO~X To dmemdne # your ~'oiect i8 eulXoct to the OOok~c hazafd8 norad above you 8houkl concult tho-Selomic ~®~ & ~fe~ Element Tocfinicfd Ripoff' which i ~ it h Plablic InL. -'~h C4unt~ ~ I~e Planning DOplrtmenL If the Inswet to Question e2 is'Yee," oont~ct ~he 8p~oortlto Geogruphic Pinning Tolm Section to discull ippropriate fiwelure to minimize the hazard. Incorporate iny mttigltion melsuml into the ~ deign IMorto 8ul)mittin0 the applica- tion o~ indlclte in the IOIce provJdod below the ~ o~ your 3. ff your proiect il in tM desert aml, il It wtthln i blowelj~l hlzlrd am~? YEBO 1403:] The Ptanni~ Officel in Indio and RNmide ~ pfmdde wi.h to COntact ttm U.& 8(gl Coe w i rvation 8ervic~ If your proiect il subject to biow~and hazardl~ lubmlt I t)lowland cQntrol plan udth the appiicatio~ (AJio ~er to ~tion 14.1 of Ordinance 460, if your proiect ii ~ mlp or lubdivtliQ(l~ II watlr left'ice ivaJllbie it the project litl? Y~8 If'N(~' how far mu~t the wlter line(I) be extended to provide lelykin? Number ol feet or mlle. Furmet ex~4~rmtion: 5, 188eworeef~ceavutlsbiemtheeite9 YE80 Nt~W SBPTZC ff 'Ido," how far muet the wmer llne(I) be extended to pfovlde eervtm? & Addi~ ~m: ~ III: Addltio~l IIItl~11 I. At lee81 three (3) plnoramic pl~Xogmphl (colo~ i:ld~tl~ of ~ pro~lct llte, or in aed~l plmto of the lit~ if ~ ~t~m~s 2. A ctelr Pho(ocoDy (Xerox o~ iM~11~ cxX)14 of ~ iPl)fQpdlt~ podion of ~ LLS~ Ol ntog~c fl ~urvey quidtangle ma~ ~li~ I owtify thlt I have invel~iglted the quatalons in paris i ind Ii and ttm inewem im true Ind oorrect to ttm mt ~ my 1114~ IIIII l IIi ! OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE THIS MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY R~VERS~DE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTIqEHT COUNTY AD#ZNTSTRATZVE CENTER, NtNTH FLOOR 4080 LEHON STREET RZYERSZDE, CAL~FORNTA 92501-3657 Roger S. Streeter, Planntng Dtrector A PUBLZC IrdgtZllG has been scheduled before the PLAlIIZIIG COlI4TSSZOII to constder the application(s) described below. The Planntng Department has tentatively found that the proposed project(s) wtll have no significant environmental effect and has tentatively completed negattve declaration(s). The Planntng Coelntsston wtll constrict vhether or not to adopt the negattve declaration along ~tth the proposed pro~Ject at thts heartng. Place of Heartng: Bolrd Roo~, 14th Floor, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Date of Heartng: ¥EDNESDAY, 14AT 4, 1998 The ttme of heartrig ts Indicated ~lth each application 11sted below. Any parson may submtt ~rttten cramants to the Planntng Department before the heartrig or my appear and be heard tn support of or opposition to the adoptton of the negattve declaration and/or approval of thts project ~ the ttme heartn9. If you challenge any of the projects tn court, you may 1trotted ~ ratstrig only those tssues you or someone else ratsad at the publlc heartng described tn thts nottce, or tn ~rttten correspondence delivered to the Planntng Cmmtsston at, or prtor to, the publlc heartng. The envtromental ftndtng along ~lth the proposed project application ,my be vteNed at the publlc Infomarion counter Nonday through Frtday from 8:00 a.m. unttl 4:00 p.m. TRACT 21818, EA.32269, ts an application submitted by Kaiser Development Company for property located tn the Rancho California Area and Ftrst Supervtsortal Dtstrtct ~htch proposes to dtvtde 33.82 acres tnto 29 lots on property generally described ms Nest of Vta Notre, north of De Rap, so. TINE OF IE. ARIN6:1:30 p.m. BItllIle~TAL ~!F~ -m I1i~: STMeMD EVALUATION ERVlRO~NTN. ASSEssqENT (E.A.) NL~ER: 32269 mOUSE NL~BER(s): PR0dECT CASE TYPE(s) MD NW~ER(s): Vesttnq Tentative Tract 21818 lINE OF KitSON(s) ~[P~ING E.A.: G]orJa 119 A. OESCRI~ION {tholed· proposed adstam lot stm and uses is iiNJllceble): To SutxJtvtde 33.82 acres tnto 29 lots tn the Rancho California Area I. TOTAL PI~[CT M~A: ACRES 33.8~ ; or SQUN~ I~r c. ~s~n's P~K NO.(s): 919-3~2 D. [XZ;Zm ~ZK: R-A-~ ZS ~[ ~ ZN ~C;? Yes E. ~ ~I~: IS ~ ~ In ~C[? F. S~ K~REKES: West Vte notre a~ ~rth of ~ Re~sa G. SECTION, TOWSHIP, IL4NGE DESCRIPTION AND/O~ SHOIT LEGAL O[SCRIIFr/ON: T7S, R2g Sectton 35 H. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TH~ EXISTING ENVIRONBENTAL SETTING OF T~ PfWOECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS: Subject stte ts currently vacant wtth sme Gently ro111n~ htlls Check ~he &pproprtlte option(s) helm and procoud accordingly. 1'1 All or pitt of the I)roject stte ts tn 'Ado~tnd Spectftc Plans,' 'RLq~o' or 'IMKho Vtlleges Cmmuntty Pollc~ Ams.' Caplets S~cttofis 111, IV (IInd C only)o V end Vt. ~( All or pitt of the project sloe 1s In 'Areas Not Restg~ltnd Is 01an SHcI.' Ca~lete Secttons IV (A, J oral D ofily), V end Vt. [] All or pitt of the project stt4 his In 0Nn Space ind Conservation destination other thin those antteNd ·boys. Cm~lete Secttoss ]3J, BY (A, l, ind [ only), V end VZ. A. Indtcite Mth · 3~$ (Y) or m (N) shethor ·~y efivtremwntll resource and/or lizard tssu~s my st~11flcl#tl~ ·fflct or be ·ffKtld b~f tim WSI1. AII refar~ced ftgures ire CoutatNd tn the Ct . ;·~lnStve GIMrll Plan. For lg/Jssue irked Rs (Y) ~rtt4 ·ddltJoM1 dlhi sources, &ponctes comultml, flndtngs o¢ ¢Kt md I~ Bttt~lttM mlSures under Se~lo~ V. ]. Y_. ~,~culture (F~o. vi.34. vl.]s) u~nt. que_ .7.._q_ sce,~c mghutj, s (F~o. vl.4s) 2. N In or Near In Agriculture1 Press ~r~erlme ~alltli~. N Irisfslic Resources (Ftg. Y1.32 - VZ.23) (Rtv. Co. Agriculture1 Lind Conservation COUtrocU HipS) 3.~Nldtldllfe (FIg. Vl.36 o V1.37) 4. ~Nveget~t~o~ (F~B. Vl.3O - VZ.40) S. N RIneral liesources (Ftg. V1.41 - VI.42) B.N~Energy Resources (FtB. Vl.43 o VZ.44) 9. N ArckNologtc·l Resources (Ftg. Vl.32 - VI.33 & Vl.46 - VI.48) 10. N Pale·hi·logical Resources (Pi1~tologtcil Resources Mop) II. N Other 12. N Other 111. B. IV. A. Zndtcate the nature of the proposed land use as dateruined fram the descriptions as found tn Ce,~rehenstve General Plan FIgura VI.3 (Ctrcle ON). NA - Not AOpltclble Crtttcal EsNntlal Norual-Ntgh atsk Nortl-Lov Rtsk Catplate the renalrider of this sectton ustng the Instructions stated ~der Sectton 111.A (above). Also, uhera Sho~, ctrcle the appreprtate land use setSAbility or notse acceptability rating(s). Land Use Suttab111~ SatJnll~Oeftnttlofis NA - Not Applicable, $ - knerelTy Suitable, PS o Provisional1), SuttJble, U - GeNre11j~ Unsultible, R o Restricted L N AlmtstoPrlolo SNctll Similes or ~. Z. N 7.__.N e.N ~. N 1o. N County Fault NLMrd Zone (Ftg. Vt.]) HA PS U S (See Fig. VI.3) Ltqeefactto~ Potential Zones (FIg. VI.I) NA S PS U R (See Ftl. Vl.4) Greundshaklng Zone (Fig. VI.!) Class lI HA S PS U R (S~ ~! .VI.S) SloNs (R~v. Co. BOO Sclla Slope Nips) Lindsl~de R~sk lofts (R~v. Co. ~QO Stile Se~s~c Nips or Qn-s~te Inspection) HA S PS U S (S~ ~g. Vl.S) Nockfsll Hiserd (On*s~te Inspection) F~ns~ve So~ls (U.S.D.A. So~1 Cofise~vl~on Service So~1 Surveys) Eros~ofi (U.S.D.A. So~1 Co~servitto~ Service So~1 Surv~s) End [ros~o~ S SlMind (F~. VI.1, Ord. 4i0, Sec. 14.~ &Ord. 4M) Di~ Inundltlofi Ares (~1S. Vl.7) ~1ood~l~ns (F~S. Vl.7) HA U R (S~ F~S. Vl.8) N AttTiort Notse (Ftg. 11.18.S, 11.18.11 & Vl.12 & 1984 AICIIZ lieport, #.A.F.8.) HA A S C O (SN Ftg. VI.11) 13. N Nelltoed IMtse (Ftg. V~.I3 o Vl.16) NA A I C D (See Ftg. VI.11) 14. N__ Htghuiy Notse (Irlg. Vl.17 - VI.29) IA A I C D (See Ftg, Vl.ll) IS. N OtMr liolse HA A B C D (See Ftg. VI.11) 16, N ANJacent Noise Sensitive Uses 17, Y_._project Generated No~se (Irlg, Vl.I1)- .durtng 18, N Noise bns~t~ve Project (Fig. Vl ll~°rqcr'uCt~ 19, Y__ Air QualJt~ Impacts Frae Project. cul~lu]atJ¥ 21, NO lister Quality laq~cts Free ProJect 23, N Nizsrdous Net~'~sls and Nestes 24, ~ Nezerdous Ir~re Area (F~g, Vl,30-VI.31) ~s. Y__ Oth~ #~. Pa]omr Observatory ~S, -- Other ~-~ LNI) USE DETEXHIHATION Complete thts part ufiless the I~O~eCt ts located In 'Mopted SINCtftc Pl&ns,' 'RDIAP' or 'lbncho Vtlliops Community Pollc~ Areas.' I. OPEN SPACE ANO CONSERVATION IMP DESIGNATION(s): Not designated Open Space 2. LANO USE PLANNING AREA: Southwest Territories 3. SUBME:A, IF MY: Rancho rA11~rnta CONNINIT~ POLICY ANEA, IF ANY: S. CONCNITY PUUI, IF ANY: 6. COIVIMIl? PLAN OESIGNATION(s), IF ANY: 7, SIJNqAItY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL: S..for &11 proJ~c. Is, tndl_cate utth a 3~s (V) o~ no (N) ukether an/ imbllc facilities ind/er servtces 1s .sW~.. i.~.SlgntfJcsntl~ af.fKt_er be affocted_b~ the PreNsel, All re¢erencnd figures ore coMJ!ne4 sn the CmlpreMns~va ieeerel Plea. Per IvY Issue irked )15 (Y), urtte dlta sources, Igenctes comlWl, ftndtngs of fact, IM ultilitlm aNseres under Sectton V. PUIL!C FACILITIES MO SLrWICES I..!l. Ctrculatto~ (Ftg. IV.l-lV.ll. 0tscuss t# Sec. V Existing, PloMed & Noqulred toads) 2, N like Tretls (Ft9. iV.IZ - IV.t3) 3, N iditer (Age~c~ Litters) see S. F*~e brvqces (Ir~9. IV.IS * IV.IS) S. JL. She~tff Setviols (Ft9. IV.IT - IV.18) 7..IL Schools (Ft9. lV.17 * IV.II) 8.-H. Solld Nests (Ftg. IV.l?- IV.li) 9. N Porks Sad Recreation (Ft9. IV.19 - lV.ZO) secondary rtdtng &!~htktng tratls lO. Y.~ E~uestrIan Tretls (Ftg IV.I)-IV.Z4/RIv, Co. I00 Scale Equestrian Trat1 Nips) 11. N Utilities (FI9. IV.2S * IV.26) IS. N Ltbrertes (Ftg. IV.IT - IV,IS) 13. N Neolth Servtces (Ftg. IV.I? - IV.18) 14. N Airports (irtg. 11.18.2 - II.18.4, I1.16.8- fl.18.10 & 1V.27 * IV.36) IS. N Otsest~r Preparedness 16. N Ctty SObers o¢ lnfluMIcl l?. Other -2- X¥. C. L.4ND USE OLrTEBIqiNATION (contlmled) If all or part of the ~roJect ts locited tn "Adopted Spectflc Plans,' '~OqAP' or 'Rancho Villages Cmmuntt~ Pollc~ Areis,' revtew t8 data11 the spectffc pollcles Ippl~tng to the proposal, end co~lete the follo~ng: 1. State the relevant lind ~se designation(s): 2. ksed o~ thts efi~troglBfitll isNss,~fit, t$ the pro~o$11 consistent wtth the paltotes Ind designations of the &~G~lite documnt, end the~fore consistent ~tth the ¢empreMnslve k*erll Plan? ]f ill of pe~t of the IfoJect $1te 15 tn 'Areas let kstlNt*d is 0~en Space,' camplate the foll~tng: ~. kqut~d I,M use category(tea) for the pr~osed project: Categor~ Z~! Z. Cgfllnt land use Gi~gor~(tes) for the s~tl: ~ego~y ZZ! .' 3. Ifill tie stte have the cawbt11~y te w4m~t tie in~o#d project it tts ~qutm~. rat~lOr~ at the tlee of develolmnt? Yes k~erll flirt? Yes fallwing: 1. State the designation(s): 2. Is the proposal carlslatent ~th tM destination(s)? 3. Based on thts envtromental easesstunt, 15 tM proposal consistent vlth the Comrehenslve Mneral Plan? Vo INFOIUaATION SOUItC~S, ir!llDINSS OF FACT NO NITIGATION I~JLSOItES For #oh ttsue irked ~s (Y) under Secttons Ill.A, !11.! and IV.L, tdefi**tfy the Sectton and Issue Number end do the falloutrig, tn the YorBa** os shoem balM: (AttaCh eddtttofi41 sheets.) 1. LtSt all additional relevant dl~l sourceS, Including a#ucIos consulted. 2. Sti~e ftndt~s of fact r~4rdtng envtromlnfJ1 3. State spectftc Idtllitto~ iasu~$, tf td~ttfllble m~thout f~qu~rang on e~vtwntal ftpor~ (E.Z.R.). 4. ~f &dd~ttofill lnformttofi ts rNutred before the envtr~mntal assessment can be .-~,.~;~,.,.c**ton B. SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGEWCIES CONSULTED. FINDINGS OF FACT, HITIGATION I(ASURES: I. NOITIONAL INFOItHATION REQUITED BEFO~ ENVIRONI~WTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE CONPLFTED: DATE DATE INFONJqATION SECTION/ IlIFOIUMTION INFOtiHATION 1NFORI~TION N)EQUATE ISSUE NO. REDUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO) VI. OlVlJlOfl~lT~L II~ACT BLrTEI~NATZ~N: .3- ~ Ve INFQIHATZCll SOURCe, FZlI)INGS OF FALl' NI) lGTZGATXQII ~ (cmmttmmmmmed) ISSUE #0. IIIA-1 IVB-10 SOURCES. ~MCIESCX)NSULTLrD. FINDII~S OF FA~. MITIGATION~SURES: Site is surrounded by restdenttml develoix~ent therefore not feasible for agricultural use Equestrian trails are incorporated into the tract's desiqn V. 111FOlIHATI~11 SOURCES, FINDINGS OF F~CT NI) KITIG&TIQII I~J~JRES (cmltlmed) SECTXON/ XSSUE #0. IIIA-1 IVB-10 SOURCES, AGE#CIES CONSULTED, FItlDzNGS OF FACT, ~ITIG&TXON HEI. SUR£S: Site is surrounded by residential development therefore not feasible for agricultural use Equestrian trails are incorporated into the tract's desiqn _ CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT FINAL VESTING TRACT NO. 21818 DATE May 7, 1991 IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL 8 LABOR SECURITY SECURITY Streets and Drainaqe $ 367,500.00 $ 184,000.00 Water $ 74,500.00 $ 37,500.00 Sewer $ -o- $ -o- TOTAL $ 442,000.00 $ 221,500.00 *Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) *(or Bonds if work is completed) $qq,500.00 Monument Security City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFC Drainage Fee Due Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD # Road and Bridge Benefit Fee Other Developer Fees $ $ s s 14,500.00 68,328.00 q, 350.00 -0-- Plan Check Fee Due Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee Fee Paid To Date (Credit) Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due s $ s s 19,784.00 16,014.00 468.33 36,266.33 A:FVT21818 ITEM NO. 1 1 APPROVAI~ CITY ATTORNEY'-~ ~ ~'~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department ~ June 25, 1991 Final Parcel Map No. 2tt038 PREPARED BY: Doug Stewart RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council APPROVE Final Parcel Map No. 2~038 subject to the Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~t038 was initially reviewed by the City Council as a Receive and File item in May of 1990. Because of concerns regarding parcel size and configuration, the map was continued off calendar until a plot plan application could be considered with the proposed parcel map. On June 21, 1990, Plot Plan No. 76 was submitted to the City of Temecula to be reviewed with Tentative Parcel Map No. 2q038. The two projects were reviewed at the Preliminary Development Review Committee on August 2, 1990. The project was reviewed and conditioned at the Formal Development Review Committee on November 8, 1990. On December 3, 1990, the Planning Commission Reviewed Plot Plan No. 76 and Tentative Tract Map No. 2q038. The project was continued due to unresolved concerns of the Planning Commission regarding traffic impacts and project visibility. After submitting revisions and corrections, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 and Plot Plan No. 76 on January 28, 1991. This project involves the subdivision of a ~.99 acre parcel into three {3) commercial lots. A Motel 6 currently exists on proposed Parcel No. 1. The remaining two parcels will be considered for separate uses under Plot Plan No. 76, but is not a requirement for recordation of the parcel map. A:FPM24038 1 The project is located at the southerly leg of Moreno Road, on the south side of the street. The applicant is Leland/Sung Development. The following fees have been paid {or deferred} for Final Parcel Map No. 2q038: * Area Drainage Fees {paid) * Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees {deferred to building permits) * Stephen's K-Rat Fees {at grading permit) q,511.00 5,650.00 9,730.50 The posting of Securities is not a requirement of this project since all street, water, and sewer improvements currently exist at the site. FISCAL IMPACT: Not Determined. SUMMARY: That City Council approve Final Parcel Map No. 2~038, subject to the Conditions of Approval. BY/DS:ks Attachments: e Development Fee Checklist Planning Commission Memorandum dated January 28, 1991 Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes dated December 3, 1990. Resolution Approving Tentative Parcel Map Conditions of Approval Fees F, Securities Report A: FPM24038 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Parcel Map No. 2#038 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. 16 (County of Riverside) N/A Condition No. 31 (Planning) Condition No. 30 (Planning) N/A Condition No. (Planning) Condition No. 13 (Planning) A:FPM24038 I PM 24058 ~ R-R C-P-S I EXI$-I IN~ \ SP. 180~ 180 · V IS'T'A -q:'L_. IN TIlE CITY OF' TEId~CULA. COUNTY Oir RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 2 OF' 2 SHEETS PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF BLOCKS 2 & 18 OF' Ttt~ PAUBA LAHO AND WATER C(3t~°ANY SUBDIVISION MAP OF THE TEMECULA RANCHO IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FILED IN 8C)O~ 11 OF MAPS, AT PAGE ,507. RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA. AND A PORTION OF BLOCK 1 OF TIlE TCTMI OF TEMECULA IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FILEO IN OF MAPS. PAGE 720. RECOROS OF SAH OIEGO COLI~TY. STATE OF CALIFORNIA UASSARO AND W~:L~11 ~ CIVIL ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS APRIL. 1991 .. ~ ~t.~ .¥,,2---(,..~..,;~*-'- \ ~' eI"r . .- '/~L'--~o )' ,~ ~to 'c~ ~e~ a m~4' i~ ~ I -- ..... ~)~. '~ · PARCEL 2 \\ Ronald J. Par~ Mayo~ Patricia H. Birdsall Mayor ~o Tem Karel F. Lindemarts Councilmember Peg Moore CounolmemDer J. Sal Mur~oz Councilmember David F Dixon City Manager j714) 69,4-1989 FAX 1714) 694-1999 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive .Ternecula, California 92390 1991 Massaro ~ Welsh 1572 North Waterman Avenue San Bernardino, California 92~0~ SUBJECT: Final Conditions of Approval For Tentative Parcel Map No. 2q038 Dear Applicant: On February 26, 1991, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 subject to the enclosed Conditions of Approval. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2q038 is a proposed three [3) lot subdivision of ~.99 acres located 3n ',h_~ ~outh side of Moreno Road, between Mercedes Street and Interstate 15. This approval is effective until February 26, 1993 unless extended in accordam:e with Ordinance 460, Section 8.4. Written request for a time extension must be submitted to the City of Temecula a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. If you have any further questions regarding this subject, please contact the Planning Department at J71q) 69~-6~00. S~ror~ly. Gary Thornhill Planning Director MRIGT:mb cc: Leland/Sung Development P] ng\L122 Mayor~ Mayor Pro Tem Karel F. Lindemaas ')ate ~,-q'q I CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 (714) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 Councilmembers Patricia H. Birdsall Peg Moore ). Sal Mu~ioz TO: SUBJECT: Final Conditions of Approval o. I th. City Council approve~, T ~~ ~ubject to the enclosed Conditions of Approval. ~~. ~ ~ ~~ is a proposed ~ ~ ~~v!~ This approval is effective until ~'~'~-UA~el~_~;~lqq~ unless extended in accordance with Ordinance ~60, Section 8.#. Writ~ten request for a time extension must be submitted to the City of Temecula a minimum of 30 days prior to the expiration date. If you have any further questions regarding this subject, please contact the Planning Department at J71#) 69q-6~00. Sincerely, C~~ e Planner Gary Thornhill Planning Director __1 GT: TO: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission FROM: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director DATE: January 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Plot Plan No. 76, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~4038 This item was (:ontinued 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 110) foot wide planter strip will be adjacent to the wall on the park side. At least six 16) 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 16) 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 2q" 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; e ADOPT Resolution 91 - recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 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 STAFFRPT\PP76 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEEI'~ · 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 Sfibject: 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) du.ring 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 · BAL11MO~. MD * C,,AgK). EGYPT · CHARt. ESTON. SC · COI. UMBIA. SC · COLUMBUS, OH · FALLS CHUre,.,H, VA HONG KONG · HOUSTON, 'iX · ISELIN. N.J · JAC~LLE. FL · KNOXVILLE, TN · LEXINGTON, KY · LONDON, ENGLAND · LOS ANGELES. CA I,.";'-,M Fl. · MINNEAmO(IS MN" NEENA~a. V;: * NFV',' HAVEN, CT · O['~I.ANOO. FL * PI"IOENIX. AZ · PITTSBU~'GH. PA · PORTSMOUTH. NN · PI"~OV1DENCE, R 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. Tra.~w 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 Assogiates 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 16wer 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. Conclusions And Recommendations It is clear 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 3 pLANNZNG COMI~XSSXON MINUTES DECEMBER ............ II ................ Itm '-'' " 13. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24038, PLOT PLAN 76 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. STEVE JXANNINO provided the staff report on this item. COMMISSXONER 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 -ll- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMIf~f~ION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 added that they concluded the traffic generated by the motel would be distributed throughout the day and off- peak. COMMISSIONER ROAGLAND 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 CHINIAEFF 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. JOHN JOHNSON, 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 PL~TNIN~ CO~MI55ION HINUTES DECEMBER 3, Condition No. 21, they proposed to construct a decorative block wall with wrought 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 BACARELLH, 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 HOHGLAND questioned staff's comments to the applicant's request for the amendments to the Conditions of Approval. GARY THORNHILL stated that they would prefer to see the conditions remain as written. COMMISSIONER HOHGLAND questioned the possibility of increased incident of graffiti on the wall if left a solid block wall. GHRY 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. CHAZRMANCHINIHEFF 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. PCMIN12/3/90 PLAh'NIN~ CONNI~5ION ~INUTES DECENBER 3, 1990 COMMISSIONER FORD clarified that the approval for the restaurant was going to come back to the Commission at a later date. G~qA~Y 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 HOAGLAND 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. GARY THORNHILL stated that if it was~ the issues of compatibility, height, etc., then they were looking at a major re-design. COMMISSXONER 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 FAHEY stated that what the Commission was saying is that they did not like the way this project fit the map. STEVE JIANNXNO stated that staff would prefer that it not be approved. JOHN C&V~NAUGH 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. PCH~N~2/3/90 ~2/?/90 PLANlqZN(~ COMMXBBXON MINUTE8 DECEMBER ~, ~.ggo COHMXSBXONER FORD ?oved to close the pu. blic hearing at 8:55 P.H. and continue this item and direct staff to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. JOHN CAVANAUGH 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 CHINIREFF 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 F~HEY 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 HOAGL~ND 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. COMMIB8IONER 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 CHINIAEFF. G~/~Y 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 ~2/7/90 PL]~,L'lqXN~ COIOIX~SION MINUTE8 DECEHBER 3, xggo for a 90 day time extension. COMMXSBXONER BLAIR withdrew her motion, and the 2nd concurred. CHAIRMAN CHINI~EFF 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. H~RY THORNHILL stated that staff could bring it back on the second agenda for the month of January. COMMISSIONER 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&HLAND moved to reconsider the motion to continue, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINI~EFF. ~HAXRMAH CHXNX~EFF 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 '~'~ PCMINX2/3/90 -16- 12/7/90 S I AI:F I,tEPLJR I - PLANNINg CI I Y OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 3, 1990 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 2~038 Plot Plan No. 76 Prepared By: Mark Rhoades Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 90- approving Plot Plan No. 76 and Parcel Map No. 2q038 '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 q.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-$ North: South: East: West: (Scenic Highway Commercial) C-1/C-P IGeneral Commercial) R-3 I General Residential) Park 1-15 Freeway R-3 { General Residential ) N/A Parcel 1 - Motel 6 Parcel 2 - Vacant Parcel 3 - Vacant Structure North: Motel South: VacantJ 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 Au9ust 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 {2) spaces for a resident manager. Under this requirement, the motel would be required to provide 9t~ parking spaces. The proposed project is providing spaces which includes the three 13) 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 18.12.71e). 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 proposed 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\PP7$ 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 exceed the requirements of Ordinance 348. 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 2~" 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 !~8'6". 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 restaurant use. Such elevations proposed will require additional Planning Commission approval. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP The tentative parcel map is an application to subdivide 4.99 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. I 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. Reciprocalr access agreements between Parcel Nos. 2 and 3 will ~ also be recorded under the project CCSR's.,' GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: STAFFRPT\PP76 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 existi.ng 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. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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 rplzf~pc~ l~r~jtsct site is not within a flood zone, ow.~ver, it is in ~ fee aF~.~ The fees will be paid to L;ounty ~-Iooc~'[~on[rol for the future improvements within the drainage basin. Impacts to endangered species I 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. 24038 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 8e ke Conditions dedication recordation. of Approval ' 'require prior to final, ._map 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. ko 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. Ae 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. Re 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 e e 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. 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. 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. Re Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the Initial Study and Conditions of Approval. STAFFRPT\PP76 10 10. The project is compatible with surroundin land uses. Re 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. CCF, 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. 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. 2q038, and Plot Plan No. 76; 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 o~ the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. MR:ks Attachments: Resolution 91- Recommending Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2t1038 Resolution 91- Approving Plot Plan No. 76 Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 76 I nitial 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. 21~038 TO SUBDIVIDE A 11.99 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 02q. WHEREAS, Leland/Sung Development filed Parcel Map No. 2~038 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. makes the following findings: That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby 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: {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: I1) 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. 24038 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. It60, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: STAFFRPT\PP76 lq. 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 Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Zoning Code. Ao 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. 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. Re All three {3) proposed parcels include sufficient southern exposure. STAFFRPT\PP76 16 h) That said findings are supported by minut maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. A. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support the Staff recomme,dutiof~. 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. 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. 2q038 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 CHA IRMA N 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: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP76 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No: 24038 Planninq Department '5. e 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. 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., .hall 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 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 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. ~ 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: 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 end 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 de fe he k® STAFFRPT\PP76 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 110) 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. 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. 22. 23. 25. 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 paleontologlcal 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. 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. 2q038, 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. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars {$1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .#{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.#{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. ~60. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL: 28. ~he 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 ~' from centerline on the final map. 30. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, 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 CCgR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCt~,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 CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. STAFFRPT\PP76 6 Zoning Area: Temecula First Supervisorial District E.A. Number: 34277 PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Planning Commission: 02-07-90 Agenda item No.4-1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer/Rep.: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: e Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Recommendations: 12. Letters: 13. Sphere of Influence: Motel 6 Operating L.P. Massaro & Welsh Subdivision of 4.99 acres into three commercial lots with a minimum lot size of .73 acres. The site is located northerly of Mercedes St., easterly of Moreno Rd., and southwesterly of Interstate %15. C-P-S C-l/C-P, R-3, Interstate #15 The site currently supports an existing, operating, Motel 6, and an existing vacant building. The area is a combination of commercial and residential uses adjacent to Interstate #15. Southwest Area Community Plan Land Use: "C" (Commercial) Category II, Open Space/Cons: Areas not Designated as open Space. Total Acreage: 4.99 Total Lots: 3 See letters dated: Road: 11-16-89 Health: 11-09-89 Flood: 11-14-89 Fire: 11-29-89 Bldg. & Safety- Land Use: 12-06-89 Grading: 11-16-89 opposing/Supporting: None Within the City of Temecula. ~lfAT.YSTg: Tentative farcel Map No.24038 is an application to divide 4.99 acres into three commercial lots, 2.73 acres, 1.53 acres and 0.73 acres in the Temecula area. The site is located northerly of Mercedes St., easterly of Moreno Rd., and southwesterly of Interstate %15. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Staff Report L~nd use and ~onlnll The site currently supports an existing, operating, Motel 6, and an existing vacant building. Surrounding land uses are primarily commercial/retail, and residential. This site is also within the newly incorporated City of Temecula. Surrounding zoning includes Interstate %15 to the north and east, R-3 to the south, and C-1/C-P to the west. 1~; v~rsi de Co-nty Co~rehens; ve C~nera 1 p1 ~: The site is located within the Southwest Area Community Plan and its land use designation is commercial. The project is a Category II land use which requires a full range of public services including water distribution, sewage collection, an adequate circulation system and utilities including natural gas and/or electricity and telephone service. The project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan. Envi~oDment~l ~ssessment: The initial study conducted for Environmental Assessment No. 34277 has indicated impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. The site is also located within a potential Liquefaction Zone. All environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval. FTNT~TN~S: 1. The applicant proposes to divide .78 acres into two commercial lots, .45 acres and .33 acres in the Temecula area. 2. The site currently supports an existing, operating, Motel 6, and an existing vacant building. Surrounding land uses are primarily' commercial/retail, and residential. The site is zoned C-l/C-P, surrounding zoning is Interstate J15, R-3, and C-1/C-P. 3. The site is within the Southwest Area Community Plan, and is also within the newly incorporated City of Temecula. 4. Environmental concerns include impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. The site is also located within a zone of potential liquefaction. 1. The project is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan, and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan and Ordinanc~ No. 460. 2 TENTATrgE PARCEL M~P NO. 24038 Staff Report 2. The project is compatible with area Development. 3. All environmental concerns have been' mitigated. ~C~.N~ATTONR- · ~OPTTON of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 34277 based on the findings that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and ~PPROV~T. of TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.24038 based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the staff report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. JSA: 1/24/90 jP leO6 VAC. I Tilt I~,A VISTA -CZ 4~39 !'.':;.~a.'.[*;li=!,l.i:*]:;:q;t'..-1T~rt.~ LP- JOHN [I~.-"~!,]['JI,];~F~T~ AC. INTO ¢MtFo ® e PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 24038 The following conditions of approval are for PM 24038 Amd.#l. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, 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 County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Board of Supervisors approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act. Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460. 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 county Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the' Riverside County Surveyor. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel map boundary to a County maintained road. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Conditions of Approval 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Prior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter .70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the County Department of Building and Saftey. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recomendations outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated 11-16-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 11-09-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County District's letter dated 11-14-89, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside county Land Division Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordation of the final map or waiver of parcel map. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 11-29-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department= Land Use Section's transmittal dated 12-06-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittal dated 11-16-89, a copyof which is attached. Prior to ~he issuance of grading permits, the a~:~licant shall oos~ly w~th Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provision of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County Ordinance or resolution. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24038 Conditions of A~proval 17. 18. 19. 20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Riverside County Flood Control Environmental Health Fire Department Building & Safety - Grading Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the C-P-S zone. All existing trees on the subject property with a trunk diameter greater than four (4) inches shall be preserved. Removal shall be at the discretion of the Planning Director. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be from low pressure soduim lamps that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminare. JSA: kcb revised 8-04-89 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR November 16, 1989 COL~ AOI~TIV!~ ~',f'!'~ P.O. BOX 1090 I~ CAI..I~!A (714) 7~7-6554 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Ladies and Gentlemen~ PM 24038 - Amend #1 Schedule E - Team 5 - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road ImpLovm~ont Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q' s, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true ~eaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Con~tssioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties fr~ damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i,e. concentration of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilitiee and/or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows~ 'Drainage Ease~ent - no building, obstructions, or encroacha~nts by land fills are allowed'. The protection shall be as approved by the Road Deparlunent. e Th~ landdlvid~r shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the ~vent the Road Cosmisstoner permits the use of streets for drainage proposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road De~nt. COUNTY ADMINIS1KATIVE ~ * 40~0 LDiON STRII"T · l/V!3t%l~, CALIFORNIA 9~SO! PM 2~038 - Amend t! November 16, 1989 Page 2 e Be 10. 11. 12. Major drainage is involved on this project and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. Moreno Road shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 32 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; r~cons~ruction; or resurfacing of existing paving u determined by the Road Con~issioner within a 44 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile e~cending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade amt alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Co~missioner. Completion of road Improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by County. The developer/owner shall sub~t a detailed soils investi- gation report addressing the construction requirements within the road right of way. Asphaltic emulsion (fog sea1) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform ~o Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho California Wa~er District prior to the recordation of the final map. The maximum centerline gradient and the ~tn/mum centerline radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of Ordinance 461. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County St~n~rd No. 400 and 40X (c~x'b sidewalks). Al1 driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be shown on the street Improvesent plans. A ~tnt~ ot four feet of full height curb shall be constru6ted between driveways. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riv~rside County Road Departsent, a cash sum of $2,500.00 per gro~s acre as ~/tigation traffic signal Impacts. Should the developer to defer ~ time of palvaent, a written aw~nt may be entered into with the County deferring said palment to the time of issuance of a building pez~tt. PM 24038 - Amend #1 -November 16, 1989 Page 3 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Blectrtcal and conununications t=enches shall be pzov£ded in accordance with Ozdtnance 461, Standazd 817. Lot access shall be restricted on Moreno Road with the exception of the two driveways u shorn on PP 9838 and so noted on the final map. The street design and Improvement concept of this project s~all be coordinated with PP 9838. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) ~bninistratordetermines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file, after receiving tentative approval, for an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment District' in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the st.t~et improvement plans. A striping plan is required for Moreno Road. The removal of the existing striping shell be the responsibility of applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. The applicant shall provide CC&R's to insure access to all parcels. Any landscaping within public road rights of way shall c~ply with Road Deparlm~nt standards and require approval by ~ Road Co~alssioner and assurance of continuing ~aintenance ~hrough the establish~ent of a landscape ~aintenance district/maintenance a,u~.. -~nt or stmilar ~echanism as approved by the Road Cos~tssioner. Landscape plans shall be sulmait~d on standard County Plan sheet £oz~at (24' x 36'). I~xi~cape plans shall be subm£tted w~th the stzeet ~zove=ent plans and shall depict such land~caping~ ~gat~on and related facilities as to be placed with~ the public road =~ghts-of-waff. PM 2~038 - Amend tl 'November 16, 1989 Page 4 21.. Shou/d this project lie within .any assessment/benefit district, ~he applicant shall prior to recordation make application for and pay for their reapportionment of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit. County of Riverside 'O: RIVERSIDE COUI~I'Y PLANNING DEPT. DATE: November 9, 1989 FROI~: $AH HAR~f~NEZ, ~v ~O~~ R~ SPEC~IST IV RE: P~CEL ~ 2~038, ~~ NO. 1 Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No. 1 dated November 3, 1989. Our current comments will remain as stated in our letter dated September 25, 1989. SM:tac fiOV 13 1~ RNERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPN~ENT GEN. FORM 4, (Rev. 8/87) · OUNTY oF RIVERSIDE "."'-"" DEPARTMENT ,, of HEALTH .,.,,-..,.,,- ,....V~L~........~September 25. 1909 t[~.~-',"~t;,'~- ' ' '~ ""'"'""' JAN ~ 3 1990 ~JTT II~¢TC~* CIr H~AL~M RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLAI~ING DE~T. 4000 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 RIVER61DE COUNTY PLANN I'NG DEPARTMENT L:~: PARCEL HAP 24038: See attached legal description. C3 Lot) Gentlemen: 0SS RAMSEY STREET 4 IdqOA~WAY · ,A 02225 -RGUERITA ~, CA 0250d ;OJ~O~A. CA SIP0 titleT I0 NORTH STATE ST. *Edd~T. CA 0J343 IlOlO · 6-20! OASIS STREET ~OIO. CA 82E01 .&El ILlllOI! ,fillill 37 #OlqT# 'O' STII~ET The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative HaD No. 24030 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans &nd specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prinks of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along wlth the oriqinal drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves &nd ·fire hydrants= pipe and ~oint specifications,~)~nd the size of the main at the ~unction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in respects with Div. 5, Part l, Chapter ? of the California Health and Safety Code, C&liforni& Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 10, and General Order No. 10S of the Public ~tilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. IffIlIJll! SI0 LINDEN S~IEET tUllSOUl Ill IdlSSIOll ILVD. 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 expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage ~nd distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such parcel map. This certification does not constitute & guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel map at any specific quant/ties, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose".This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company.._~_~_R!ans must be submitted to the Coun~y_~!¥or's Office to review at lea'st two ~_R£ior to the request 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 wiAA 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 doint specifications and the size of the sewers at the dunction 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 ~lans and profiles. Paqe Three ATTN= Mike McCabe September 25, 1969 The plans shall be signed by a registered enaineer and the sever district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map 24098 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the E~stern 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 .Rlans must be submitted to the County. Surve¥or's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final m~R. 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 KENNETH L.. EDWARDS 1995 MAR, KET ST'REET P.O. BOX 1033 TEL.El)HONE (714) FAX NO. ('714) RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County Planntng Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regtonal Team No. Planner/~//k~ 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 /This project ts tn t . Area drmtnmge plmn fees shall be paid in mccordanbe with the applicable rules and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to implied density. hazards. Some flood fully develop to the The Dtstrtct'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 I~.v;hb~enPr°ject will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached co~laents apply. Ver~.~y. ul y yours, _~_ ~ JOHN H. KASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET. ~UITE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 (619} 347-8886 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 DEPARTHENT JEFF ADAHS RIVERSIDE OOUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEI~ PARCEL NAP 2&038 - AHENDED ~1 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 Hercedes Street and 6th Street, and fire hydrant in cul-de-sac on 6th Street to a super fire hydrant (6x4x2½x2½). 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 Nantwe11, 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~arestrUly yours, Senior Land Use Technician /sn Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT GRADING SECTION HOWARD MILLS November 16, 1989 LDC Parcel Map 24038 AMD #1 NOV ? 2 1989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, ~he "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 b~ provided with shrubs and/or trees per count ordinance 457, see form 284 _ 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. :lit E:I iDE countu. PLArlrlirIG DEPA:KC!TIEnC API~LICA TIOH FOR LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT USE P~RMIT N(~. ¢ ,c ;'--r-'~g,~ D G~t~3E O~ ZC)NE NO. D CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. ,l~ PARCEL ~P NO. ~~ D ~ ~N NO, & APPLJ~KNT INFORMA~ON 1. AMM~InTi Nime: ToloOMw~ No.: ~.. Ownm'8 Name: TeleMmne No.: ~. ~-Ip .11,dtitM: Tellphone Hotel 00peratLnf LP - (John Beene) NOT1: ff mort lhln Ofil pollOff il IFs)Ired in the oiw~rlhip OI the lYOPlrly bll~O clodloped · liPIfil! poge mull ~ Itllched tO thil 8pplJCltiOn wNch lilts the filmos and idclfl~ of I# IplfJofi8 hlvtrlO in interest in the ovmeFship of , w,~-...~-.d.-,,,,~-~.2~.&y.,""""'~"'"~ .,- . Russe11 D. Htller. ,lr. HOTEL 6 OPERATING L.P. Aumod~ml vp~c~b~ i~V~n:Pre~'~e~t' Developrant mNATURE OF PllC)p~IIITy C)WNIR ~) I('V ~1"0 ~0 J~). · ' Russell D. Ntller, Jr. HOTEL 60PERATZriG L.P. Vtce President, Development dO80 LEMON STREET. g~" FLOOR ~VE~SIDE, CALIFORN~ g2SC)1-3657 C714) 787-6181 OASIS BTI:IEET, ROOM 304 IND)O, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 ~7 REQUIRED PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIOATION INFORMATION ItAIIC~L MAI~ ZONE CHANGES WIND ENEMY 1&$0 PL.OT PLANS I~ecluk~ Eh~kon.jml* Indush~l) V~IANCES TEMPORARY USE t~RMIT~ 1. ~ Identical I~CABGeS to be iniw1ecl in Iepirlte I~' x l~"ml/dll efiv~kx)e$.These efiveiM~tl Ihell iKICIte the c~le flutuber Ind the wo~ 'tlbell."ind 81~11 corbin the lc41ow~ng: I. One lYl)ld let M eumi~ed libell i/~liclting II1 the IN~X)If~/WMtIfl '111m$ IKI the mili~ id(l~ thel i~ ~hin i ~004oM lidJul C~ the IxlehM M Iheir IX~Ccild Dr01eCt ~ illt I~# be ilce~tilne~l horn the IISl eQUll~zecl A I)~otoco~ M the IfMt..l~li0nld libell. ¢. One lllNI ~(x' the IINMiGIM MngMeer. d. One libel !~ Ule w. IK)N I. AND DM$1ON CASES ONLY :Ah S~'X 11' IlducUM~ M the tentltn~. real}. ~. FM~' t,/I)ed letl M gummed libIll (M the IIX)iic4nt, ~vher .engiheer.ln(I/Iprellntlt,vl w~h their mIilin~ ICI~TI~e$.DO not ilV:bcle dulM~4te lets where IIX)liclnt and owner.ere.am the ~me.~ ahouk~ t)e i,~e~e~ m · lltte~.~ize~ envelope and Ill!~ed tO the ou/I/de M one c4 the SErge rainill ehvelM)el mentioned in item 1 itx)ve. 3. Cenilicltion 1=ythe titIt compeny,engineer.ocWll~lt the lbove llt lltOml)lete aKllccuilte.TheTax Al&eslor ~lOffce will not I)~l)ere M cerll/y the I)K~erty owner list {lee ciftlficltion form below). 4. C)n · copy M your exhibit M tentltive ff4p Show iii Dl~lil within ~00Met. On the mlp,~hnt the himes c~ Ifi ~'oc)eny owners within 300feet M they are lilted ~n the g~med lid)ell. The 10Ove Wed ~onnat~n my be c4~inecl by Ix)ntlctk~ · flue inlu/Inc4 C0m~ny in the I=livef~cle County Ima. PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION TITLE I F~O~ST~A~ON.: · DDf~8$: PHONE: IIGN~J!qE: DATE: :IiVE:L iDE county PLAnI1iI1 DEP, A:ICITIEIIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: '~/"/~-----'~' MODULE NUMBER(s): PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): NAME OF PERSON(8) PREPARING E.A.: ~ /. I. PROJECT INFORMATION STANDARD EVALUATION DESCRIPTION (include propoeed minimum lot Iize and uaes an, applicable): B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s): D. EXISTING ZONING: (~J~ IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? E. PROPOSED Z9NING: ~-------~P~' IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? ¥~- F. STREET REFERENCES= h~~~,CI ~ Hp'~/~--'~i==s~! F'~N,=-,-~'T.,'p~ OF G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: H. BRIEF DESCRIFTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETriNG OF THE PROJECT SITE AJ~ ITS SURROUNDINGS: IL COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND COI~ERVATION DESIGNATION [] All or part of'~he project Ilte M in "Adopted ~mcific Plans," "FIEMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and Vl. I All or part of the project Iite il in "Ames Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV (A, BInd D only), V IIXl Vl. [] All or I~d of th~ project ~i~ h~ an ~ ~ and Conservation designation oeter than those mentioned above. Ccn,tl;IM~ ~e4:lions III, IV (A, B, and E only), V i~l Vl. III. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES AS~E&SMENT A. Incli~lte the nature of Ihe ~ I~nd t.~e ~ determine<l from Ihl dlec~tionl as found in Co,,,pr~l.4rmive General Plan Figure VI.3 (Circle One). Thi, inforrr~tion is nec~ to cl~ine Ihe ~ lancl use luitlbiiJty rilings i~ection IILB. B. Im:licate wfih · yes (Y) or no (N) whMher any anvimnmantaJ hlzerd and/or raseurge I~ue~ may Mgnificantly affect Or ~ ifilted by Ihe 1~31x3eal. All refLranc~ figurea are contained in !he C,o~,~hanaive General Plan. For any i,~ue marked yes (Y) write additional data ~ agencies c,~,-,lulted, finding~ of fact and any ,,dll~ltion mellufll under Section V. Alse, where indicated, HAZARDS 1..._~ Aiquist-PrioloSoecialStudiasorCountyF&ult 12._~_L. Alrport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5,11.18.11 H,zerd Zones (Fig. W.~) &W.~= & ~a4 AICUZ ~mx)rt, M.~.F.B.) 5- H Land~ide Ri~k Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale NA A B C D (Fig, VI.1 Seilmtc/~$ or On-lite Inal:~-tion) 16. ~ Project Generated Noise Affecting NA ('S./ PS U R (F~. ~n.6) Nomsen~t~Uass(ng.~A.~) 6- kJ Rocldall'Razerd(On-~.elnK)ection) 17..!~__ NoiseSe~itivePToject(Fig. Vl.11) 7_ ~ Expansive Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil 18. I~ Air Ouldity Impacts From Project Conservation se~tce 8otl Sunrays) 8U~_ Eroaion (U.$.D.A. Soil ~tion ~.~.l~'Z.- g._.~_.. Service Soil Surveyl) Wtlr~l Ello~:)n & Blowsand (Fig. V!.I, :Ord. 480, Sec. 14.2 & O~. 484) 10Dim Inundation Area (Fig. Vl.7) 11~nl(~. VI.7) R 19. I~ 20. kt 21. . 22. . Project sen~ive to Air Quality Water Quality Iml:~'-ts From Project Project Sen~tive to Water Ouality Hlzlrdoul IV~teril18 and Wastes 23. ~ H~.mk=u~ Rre Are~ (F~. V~.30 - Vl.31 ) 24. Olher 25. Other (Fig. W~) Definitions for Lind Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings NA - Not Al~)licable S - GenerMly Suitable PS - Prov~ly Suitable U - Generally Llrmuitable R - nl~ld~i~ :1 A - GenMldly Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Ur~lc~ei, table D - Land I.Me DiKouraged LAND LrSE DETERMINATION 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): /~,("~.E~':~ SUBAREA, IF ANY: · COMMUNITY POLJCY AREA, IF ANY: 6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION($~ IF ANY: 7. SUMMARY OF POUCIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL: For all projects, inidcate with a ye~ (Y) or no (N) whether any public facilities and/or ~rvi(3e6 i~4Je6 may significantly affect or be affected by the proposal. AH mf~e, rice~ tf~,lr~ are confined in the C,~ General Plan. For any issue PUBUC FAClUTIES AND SERVICES 1. Y Cimulation (F~. Iv.~-Iv.~ ~. O~cuss ~ _~ Sec. V ExJsUng, Flanned & R~ Rinds) 2 Bike TmJl~ (Fig. fV.~ 2 - IV.13) 1~- ~ ~, water(~l.etws) ~2- /~ 13 Fire SeVces (FIG IV.16 - IV.1 e) 14 7. N 8ch:x~lFie.~/.'~7-~V.'m) ~s 14 Parks and noo, a-Van (Fig. IV.10- IV.20) '17, Equestrian Trails (Fig. N. lg - IV.241 Riv. CAt 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps) Uam~ (1:'~. N25 - N26) Ubrark~ (Fig. N.I? - IV.18) HmJU~ Se~:m (Pig. IV.l? - Iv.~ e) AkTwrts (Fig. ,.182 - ,.18.4, IL16.B - 11.18.10 & IV.27 - IVY6) Diealter r,~_l:'~ L.tY___,~_ Ce If ill or part ol the project il IoMded in "Adopied SI3ecific Plink", "FIEMAP" or "Rancho ~ Community Policy A,~.", mview in deta, the a~:.ic poa:M .pply~ to ~he IxoPm~ md mmp~te ~ ~: 1. 8late the relevant land u~e designation(s): 2. OMed on this initial Itudy, is the progaeal consistent with the policies and designations of ~ ~~te ~u~t. and tl.irefore ~t with the (~oi1~mhenNve Genmll Plan? ff not, explain: IV. LAND ~ DETERMINATION (oontin~ld) D. ff all o~ part of the project site is in "Areas not D~~ ~ ~ Sl~c~", ~nd i~ not ~ & Community Plan, compl, ' questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Compl~e questions 4, 5, 6 ~ 7 if it is in ~ Community, Plan. , Current land use category(ies) for the ~te based on existing oonditions. Also indicate land use type 3. If D.1 differs from D.2, will the dlffemnc~ be ~ st 1~ development stage? Explain: 4. Community Plan designation(s): O.~t, AlU, r.-:IZZ.~.A/I.- . 5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies and designations of the Community Plan? If no{, explain: Is the proposal compatible with existing and propoeed ~urrounding land' uses? ff not, explain: ~'~ - ff noL, rarefanta by Section mtd i~ue Number tho~e i~s, ues icMntifying k~: "~-~--'> If MI or ~ of Ihe project ~ iff, in ~n Open ~ and Conllervl~:m designation, complete the tollowing: 1. 8late the designation(s): 3. ~ On Ibis in'~ial study, is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive Ge~teral Plan? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those ~ identifying incxx~Mencies: V. INFORMATION ~OURCF..8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURE5 A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: DATE DATE ADEQUACY SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION DE/ERMINATION I~e~UE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YIES/NO,DATE) For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B and N.B, identify the Section and i~ue number and do the following, in the format as Mx)wn below: 1. L.ist all additional relevant data ~ource$, including ngertcie8 conaulted. 2. State all findings of fact regarding environmental concerns. 3. State specific mitigation measures, if identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report (E.I.R.) 4. If additional information i8 required before the environmental as~easment can be completed, refer to Subsection A. 5. If aclclitional sheets are needed to complete this ~ectlon, check the box at the end of the section and attach SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (~ontlnu®d) SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: Vl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINAllON: lib The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be I-I The project c~ld have a ~ignificant effect ~ the environment; howew. r, them will not be a significant effect in this ~ase because the mitigation measures ~llc.lL~d in ~ V have been applied to the IXOject ~nd · 'Negative Declaration may be prepared. C] The project may have a eignlf'~nt effect on the e~vironment and an Environmental Impact liepod Prepared by CITY OF TEMECULR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP NO. 2~038 DATE June 12, 1991 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS Streets and Drainaqe $ -o- $ -o- Water $ -o- $ -o- Sewer $ -o- $ -o- TOTAL $ -o- $ -o- *Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) *(or Bonds if work is completed) Monument Security City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs RCFC Drainage Fee Due Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD #~ Road and Bridge Benefit Fee Other Developer Fees -0- ~,511.00 5,650.00 Plan Check Fee Due Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee Fee Paid To Date (Credit) Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due $ $ $ $ $ 810.00 250.00 1,060.00 -0- A: FPM24038 ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJEC~ CITY OF TEMECU1.A AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Attorney June 25, 1991 Agreement with the County Redevelopment Agency to Improvements to Sam Hicks Park Fund R£COMMENDA TION: That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Temecula. DISCUSSION: This project will construct road improvements around Sam Hicks Park, including the installation of 800 feet of curbs, gutters and sidewalks along Moreno Road and Mercedes Street which border the park. The project includes the construction of an adjacent parking lot to serve the park, fire station and museum. It was anticipated that this project would be funded with Federal Funds, however, it was determined that the Redevelopment Agency provides a more feasible alternative. At the same time this would allow Community Development Block grant funds to be available for appropriate projects in Temecula. Additionally, financing through the RDA will allow more flexibility since we are not required to adhere to federal regulations. SFF:swj 06x20x91 89:42 07:3? COUNTY COU~EL 7147555648 BW$ OC 02 I 2 3 5 6 ? 9 10 I1 11 13 14 15 16 I? 18 19 10 21 22 23 26 2'7 AGI~EEMENT THIS AGRE~/~ENT, made and entered into this _. _ day O£ .. , 1991, by and between the Redevelopment Agenc~ o~ the County of Riverside, herein called "Agency" and the City of Temecula, he£ein called 'Contractor". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Board of Superviso£s of the County of Riverside by Ordinance NO. 658 has approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 1-1988; and WHEREAS, the improvements contemplated by this Agreement are a bene£it to the project area and th&t no other reasonable means of financing such improvements are av&ilable to to construct the the cQmmunity; and WHEREAS, Contractor is qualified imp~ovements contemplated he~e£n; and WHEREAS, Contra~or also possesses p=ofessional skills with ~e~pect to various community development p~o~ects; and WHEREAS, the Agency desi£es to assist in providing such improvements; WHEREAS, the A~ency is authorized by the ~edevelopment Plan £o~ Redevelopment Project Area No. ]-)988 and by California Community Redevelopment Law (SeCtion 330~0 e~ ~ o~ the Cali£ornia .Health and Safety Code) to provide a~ststance for ~he constr~ction o£ said improvements; NOW, THRRRFORE, in consideration o£ the Covenants, conditions, an~ pzoviSion~ herein contsined, it ~s agree~ as £o11ows: 06~28x91 09:4~ " ~U~i ~0 ~91 07:~7 COUNTY COUI'ISE~I. 7147555648 BW$ 0C P.@ ! 2 4 $ 7 9 10 12 13 14 16 17 19 2/ :26 ~ection ~.. Con=factor agrees to perform certain general serviCeS and special p=o~ect services, in. acoordanc~ with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. $ectign 7. In connection with said performance by Contractor, the Agency agree~, at its expense to be mad~ available the necessary fun~s to perform the services re~ui~e0. The agency-shall provide necessary informat~on sn~ assistance to Contractor that orderly and progressive completion of the s~rv~ce provided h~re~n are accomplished. ContraCtor shall provide the services as set forth on Attachment #A' ~0 this agreemen~ which is hereby ~ncorporated herein as ~hroug~ £ully set forth herein and he=~at within Redevelopment Pro,sot Area No. ~-19~, a map of which is attsched hereto as Attachment ~ctian 4. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Contractor sha~l commence performance under this Agreement on the date .of execution of =his Agreemen2 and shall have fully performed all things on their part to be hereunder on or before .~ulv ~. ~9~. R%~ti~j~.}. COMPENSATION 'AND PAYMENT A. As full compensation for services rendezed hereunder, Contractor shall be pai~ the lttmp sum o[ ~100.000.00 which compensation shall be paid to Contractor upon execution of this Agreement. Such comp~nsation shall be pai~ by the Agency ~from Agency's R~evelopment ~F~pct Ar-~ Nq, 1-~g88 ~-~ subject - 2 - 06x20x91 09:43 ~TUIq 26' '91 07:~ COUMTY COU~SEL 7147555648 BWS OC P.4 84 I 2 3 4 $ 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 to the provisions set forth in this Agreement. ?he proceeds o£ payment will be used to construct the improvements set £orth in the Scope oK services in Attachment 'A' Of this Agreement. B. CONTIb~CTOR sh&ll not be responsible for making any repayment of the compensation made by the Agency. R~g~on 6. QUALI~5~ OF WORK Contractor agrees tha~ the per£ormance of work and services pursuant to the ~equiremen~ o~ this Agreement sh~11 conform to high pro£essional ~tandaras. S~etion.7. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT Notwithstand~ng any other provis~ons contained in this Agreement, any and ~11 modifications or amendments to this Agreement shall .be incorporated as written amendments in~o this Agreement. '~tion 8. MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS AND R~CORDS Contractor shall maintain and keep books and records on a current basis reCor~n9 all transactions in a form in accordance wi~h generally acceptable accounting principles. Said books and records shall b% made available to the Agency, the State of Cali~ornia, the Federal OOverrunent and tO any &uthor~zed representatives thereo£ for the purposes of audit at . all ~imes &l~ places. All such books Ind records shall be ~tained ~or such periods of times as required by law, provided, however, notwiths~anding any sAcrear periods o£ retention, oll books, records and sugport~ng de~ail shall be ret&tned for a period of at least three (3) ~ears ~fter the expiration of this term of this Agreement. - 3 - 06/20/91 89:44 3Uht '91 07:39 COUI~TT COUH~EL 7147555648 BWS OC P.5 05 1 Section 9. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY During the t~rm of this Agreement, Contractor agrees as follows to comply with all provisions of Califo~nia Community 4 Redevelopmont Law. Se~on ]0L NO BEneFIT TO ARISS TO LOCAL EMPLOYEE 6 No member, officer, or employee of the County, or their 7 designees or ag~n~s, no member of the governing body of the Agency, and no other public official who exercises any functions 9 Or responsibilities with respect to the program during this 10 tenure o~ for one year thereafter, shall have any inter~t, ~irect or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the p~oceeds thereof, for work to b~ performed in connection with ~his Agreement. 13 Neither AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereO~ is 16 responsible for any damage or liability occur'ring by reason of ]7 anything done or om~tte~-to be done by CONTRACTOR under or in 18 connection with any work, au~hority or jur~sdiction delegated to 19 CONTRACTOR under this AVreement. It ~s ~nd~stood and agreed ~0 that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CONTRACTOR ~1 shall fully deZ~nd, indemni~y an~ s~ve harmless the'-State o£ 21 California, all officers end employees from a11 claims, suits or 23 actions of every name, kind and description brought' for or on 24 account O~ injury (as defined in Government Cod~ Section 810.8) 15 .occurr~n~ by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by 26 CONTRACTOR under or in connection with any work, authority or 27 jurisdiction delegate4 to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. --4 - 06-~20/$ ! 09~45 .TIJH ~0" '~1 1~7:40 C. OLII4TY ¢OIJl'~EL 7147555648 BW~ OC t 2 3 4 7 9 10 It 12 17 18 20 21 22 ?.3 2? Neither CONTI~ACTOR nor any o~ficer or employee thereof is responsible ~or any damage or li&bility occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or ~u=isdiction delegated to AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State o£ California, all oEficers and employees from all claims, suits Or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to AGENCY under this Agreement. ~ctiRp ~. ATTORNEYS' FEES If any action is brought to enforce the provisions this Agreement, the prevaflin~ party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable a%torneys' fees, costs an~ necessary disbursements. Ka~l~.~n 1~ INDEPENDENT CAPACITY CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees and agents shall act in an independent capacity during the term o£ this Agreement and not aS officers, employees or agents of AGENCY. Neither shall they hav~ authority to contract for o~ on behalf of, or ~ncur obligations on behalf of COUNTY. ~_~ctton ~4. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ExCep~ as may otherwise be provided for herein, ContraCto~ shall be fully and completely responsible' for - 5 - 06x20x91 18:17 ~UR ~' '91 0?:40 COUNTY COUNSEL 7147555648 BWS OC P.7 I 4 5 6 ? $ 9 10 1! 12 13 14 I$ 16 17 19 :20 21 23 26 27 28 expenses involved in their performance under the ter~s of provisions of this Agreement. ~ct~Q~.15. NOTICES All notices herein requested shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid° addressed as follows: city of Temecula P.O. BOX 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 County of Rive:side Redevelopment Agency P.O. BOX 1180 Riverside, CA 92501 ~tion 16. NON-ASSIGNABILITY This Agreement shall not be assigned by Contractor without prior written consent of the Agency. ~ectigQ 17. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Contractor an~ their agents, servants, employ=es shall act at all timem in an independent cap~city during the terms of ~his Agreement, and shall not act as, and shall not be, nor shall they in any man~er ~e construed to be, agents, officers or employees o~ the Agency, and C0ntracto: does hereby Covenant and agree that they' are not, an~ shall not become, and shall in no manner claim to be or to have become, an employee of Agency either permanent or temporary, as a result of or arisi~ out of the/~ engagement as an independent contractor for Agency hereunder. ~ction ]~ DEFAULT Any violation of the terms of this Agreement, any failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement or any refusal to accept conditions imposed by the Loan Agreemen= shall be considered a default under this Agreement and all reme~iea, legal o~ equitable, to cure such default shhll apply, including, - 6 - 86/20x91 18:17 JUN 2~''91 07:41COUN?Y CC~.IHSEL 7147555648 8ws oc P.8 1 2 4 $ 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 ~? 18 19 :2O :26 ~8 but not limited to a declaration bhat all sums owing by this Agreement are immediately due and payable, o: an in~unc~ion, or the appointment of a receiver. ~ecti,gn ]9. WAIVER Any waiver by the Agency of any breach of any one or more of the terms o~ this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other term thereof. Failure on the p&=t o£ the Agency to :equire exact, full and complete compliance with any terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing the terms Of ~his Agreement, or stopping the Agency from enforcing hereof. R~ti~R ?t^ 8EVERABILITY If any provi~ion in =his Agreemen~ is held by a cour~ of competent ~uri=diction to be invalid, void o£ unenforceable, ~he remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in £ull force withOu~ being impaired or invalidated in any w&y .... a~ction .~1. ~O~RNIN~ LAW This Agreement .will be governed by and construe~ in acQord~nc~ with the laws of the State of Calilornie. The - ? - 06/20/9! 10:18 SUM ?~' '91 07:4Z C0~qT¥ C0UNSFL 7147555648 BWS OC P.9 1 2 4 5 6 9 10 11 14 I$ 16 17 lg 19 22 25 26 ~arties expressly agree to the ~urisdietion and venue o£ the appropriate courts California. Section in the County of Riverside, State of AGREEMENT This Agreement contains thB entire agreement and understanding between the parties. There are no oral understandings, terms, conditions or promises, and no party h~$ reiie~ upon any representation, ~xpr~ss or im~lled, not Gontained in this Agreement. This Agreement may b~ modified or amended only by a writing signed by th~ pa~ty ~o be cha~ged. /// /// - 8 - $UH 21~~ '~ 07:4~ CC~..I~TY 1 2 4 I0 11 12 14 15 17 2O 21 23 2~ 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ~e parties have execute~ this Ag=eement on the dste first hereinabove written. Dated: __ REDEVELOPMENT AOENCY OF TIt~ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By_ Chairgersono Board of Directors 'AGENCY' ATTEST: Clerk of the BOard BY (Daputy) (SFJ~L) CITY OF T~M~CULA By _ "CONTRACTOR" LV:RE:&s 6-14-91 (o2x5 ) - 9 - ./ ~6~20/91 10:~9 $'~-~'~' '~'~--~: 43 COUI, ITY C~EL 7147555648 BW$ OC P.11 OG £XHIGIT A Page 1 FILE NO: 1.051 SUPPLEMPNTAL AGRF~J~MENT Cooperative Agency: City Of Teaec~la .. Address: p,o, ~Bx 488. Temecu]~. CA ~?3gQ _ Project Tttle: Sam Ht~ks Park Zaprovements Location: Corner of Moreno Road_R~d I~rcedea~treet In Downtown ?e~ecula Description: 1) 2) 3) This project wtll Improve access to and on Sam Htcks Park by: Installation of 800 11near feet of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, match up asphalt and street 11phis along HotenD Road and Mercedes Street Construction of a parktng lot to serve the park, ftre starton and proposed ~useua. Provtde access to the park's playground equipment. Project Budget: Cost CDBG Approved 1) Archttect/£ngtneer Design Costs ~ 2) Admtntstrattoncosts 14.000 3) Planntng Costs 4) Acquisition Costs 5) Construction COsts _ 100.700. 50.000 6) ReiDcation Costs 7) Equ4pment Costs 8) Other Costs 9) Operation/Maintenance 10) Con~t~ency (5%) ~ ~0000 TOTAL (0739U 4-6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ( ~,~ / FINANCE OFFIC_~E.R ,~ ~ CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT- City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer June 25, 1991 Award of Vehicle Bids RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Award the bids for purchase of four (4) vehicles for use by Building and Safety staff. Adopt Resolution 91- amending the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Budget to accomplish a budget transfer. DISCUSSION: In accordance with the City's purchasing ordinance, we advertised for bids on six (6) vehicles, two (2) for TCSD and four (4) for City Building and Safety. The lowest responsible bid was received from Schumacher. The City expenditure is $67,512.32. Staff anticipates converting one (1) vehicle to propane fuel after we take delivery of the vehicles. Schumacher Auto is located in Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: The Building and Safety budget requires a $25,000 transfer from the following accounts to Vehicles: Salaries $10,000 Benefits 5,000 Consulting 10.000 Total $25,000 ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 91- amending the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Budget to accomplish a budget transfer RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TH~ FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO ACCOMPLISH A BUDGET TRANSFER The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That the FY 1990-91 Annual Budget of the City of Temecula is hereby amended as detailed in Attachment A. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 25th day of June, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] ATTACHMENT A BUDGET TRANSFERS TRANSFER FROM: A/C No. 001-163-999-42- 5248 001 - 163-999-40- 5100 001-163-999-40- 5102 Total Descrip. Consulting Salaries TRANSFER TO: Amount A/C No. $10,000.00 001-163-999- 44-5608 $12,000.00 Benefits $6,000.00 $28,000.00 Descrip. Amount Vehicles $28,000.00 TOTAL $28,000.00 ITEM NO. 14 / ~ . /~ APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer June 25, 1991 Resolution Establishing City's Temporary Gann Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 1991-92 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 91-__ establishing the City's Temporary Gann Appropriations Limit for the Fiscal Year 1991-92 of $11,546,536. DISCUSSION: The City Attorney has recommended that the City Council adopt a "temporary" Gann limit, until the City establishes a permanent Gann limit at the 1992 municipal election. Using cost of living data provided by the State of California and population data provided by the City Planning Department, the City's Temporary Appropriations Limit for FY 1991-92 has been computed to be $11,546,536. This computation considers the effect of Proposition 111 in that the California CPI was used instead of the lower United States CPI. Appropriations subject to the limitation in the FY 1991-92 Budget total $7,927,307 which is $3,619,229 less than the computed limit. Additional appropriations to the budget funded by nontax sources such as services charges, restricted revenues from other agencies, grants or beginning fund balances would be unaffected by the Appropriations Limit. However, any supplemental appropriations funded through increased tax sources would be subject to the Appropriations Limit and could not exceed the $3,619,229 variance indicated above. Further, any overall actual receipts from tax sources greater than $3,619,229 from budget estimates will result in proceeds from taxes in excess of the City's Appropriations Limits, requiring refunds of the excess within the next two fiscal years or voter approval of an increase in the City's Appropriations Limit. FISCAL IMPACT: As indicated in the attached schedule, the City's appropriations subject to limitation as proposed in the FY 1991-92 Budget are $3,619,229 less than the computed limit· Any supplemental appropriations funded through nontax sources would be unaffected by the Appropriations Limit. However, supplemental appropriations funded tax revenues in excess of budget projections would be subject to limitation and could not exceed the $3,619,229 margin indicated above· Further, any overall increases in tax sources greater than $3,619,229 from budget estimates will result in proceeds from taxes in excess if the City's Temporary Appropriations Limit, requiring refunds of the excess within the next two fiscal years of voter approval of an increase in the City's Temporary Appropriations Limit. In implementing the provisions of SB 1352 as they relate to the Gann Initiative, it is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution establishing the City's Temporary Appropriations Limit for FY 1991-92 of $11,546,536. ATTACHMENTS: Schedule "1" - Classification of Revenue Sources and Calculation of Limit Margin 2. Resolution No. 91- Limit for FY 1991-92 Establishing City's Temporary Gann Appropriations 3. Exhibit "A" Computation of Temporary Appropriations Limit Classification of Revenue Sources and Calculation of Limit Margin FY 1991-92 Schedule 1 Non-tax Proceeds Wsx Proceeds Property tax Other taxes Sales and use Property transfer Transient occupancy Business license Franchise fees Licenses and permits Fines & forfeitures Intergovernmental Cigarette tax Motor vehicle in lieu Gas tax County transportation Grants Overhead reimbursement Investment interest Appropriations subject to limitation before Prop. 111 exclusions Prop. 111 exclusions: Federal mandates Appropriations subject to limitation Temporary Gann Limit Margin 452,822 3,394,400 110,000 534,360 1,225,336 213,250 5,930,168 $ 1,090,000 4,500,000 63,750 536,868 38,000 54,362 1,154,025 250,000 286,750 7,973,755 7,973,755 (46,448) 7,927,307 11,546,536 $ 3,619,229 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING THE TEMPORARY APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY1991-92 WHEREAS, the voters approved the Gann Spending-Limitation Initiative (Proposition 4) on November 6, 1979, adding Article XIII B to the Constitution of the State of California to establish and define annual appropriation limits on state and local governmental entities; WHEREAS, SB 1352 provides for the implementation of Article XIII B by defining various terms used in this article and prescribing procedures to be used in implementing specific provisions of the article, including the establishment by resolution each year by the governing body of each local jurisdiction of its appropriations limits; WHEREAS, the required computations to determine the Temporary Appropriations Limit for FY1991-92 have been performed by the Department of Finance and are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, and available for public review; WHEREAS, these computations are provided on the two pages of Exhibit "A" which is herein incorporated by reference and attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Temporary. Appropriations Limit for the City of Temecula for FY1991-92 SECTION 2. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] Reso 188 06/17/91 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA COMPUTATION OF TEMPORARY APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FY 1990-91 Temporary Appropriations Limit ................ $9,785,200 California Consumer Price Index Changes ' ~ ..................... 5.9% Population Change ~ .................................... 11.4% Cumulative Compound (1.059 X 1.114) ....................... 18.0% FY 1991-92 Temporary Appropriations Limit ............... $11,546,536 *Source: **Source: City of Temecula, Planning Department. State of California, Department of Industrial Relations. ITEM NO. 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager June 25, 1991 Item No. 15 - Award of Bid for Purchase of Breathing Truck PREPARED B~ City Clerk June S. Greek BACKGROUND: The staff will finalize the staff report on this item and forward it to you under separate cover. JSG ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFI C.E~R~ ~ ~- CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer June 25, 1991 Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 91 and Salary Ranges. providing for Authorized Positions, Titles 2. Adopt Resolution No. 91-~ to amend the FY 1991-92 Budget. DISCUSSION: The attached resolution and list of Authorized Positions and Titles are presented for adoption in conjunction with the adoption of the FY 1991-92 Operating Budget on May 28, 1991. At this time the City Engineer is recommending that we add two (2) Senior Public Works Inspectors which will enable the City to immediately transition from a permit/inspection process that is being provided by a consultant to an in-house service. FISCAL IMPACT: All positions/salaries are included in the FY 1991-92 operating budget except for the two Senior Public Works Inspectors. Therefore, we are recommending a transfer of $75,000 from Engineering Consulting to Engineering Salaries. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 91- to adopt Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges Resolution No. 91- to amend the FY 1991-92 Budget Schedule "A" Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges Basis # of For Exempt/ Positions Exempt Non-exemPt CITY OF TEMECULA Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary RanQes Title Schedule "A" Minimum Maximum RanQe # 2 NE 1 NE 1 NE 1 A E 7 NE 1 E E 0 NE 0 NE 3 NE 1 P E 1 E E 1 E E 1 NE 5 Elected E 1 E E 1 E E 1 NE 1 A E I E E 1 E E 1 NE 1 A E 1 E E I E E 1 E E 3 NE 0 A E 1 E E .5 NE 1 A E 12 NE 1 P E 3 NE 1 P E 2 NE 1 E E 1 NE 1 P E 2 NE 1 E E 1 NE 2 A E 3 A E 2 NE 1 P E 1 NE 76.5 Account Clerk Account Technician Accountant Finance Administrative Assistant Administrative Secretary Assist. City Mgr./Dir. Admin. Serv. Assistant Planner Associate Planner Building Inspector Chief Accountant Chief Building Official City Manager Code Enforcement Officer Councilmember City Clerk City Engineer/Dir.of Public Wks Development Assistant Deputy City Clerk Director of Community Services Director of Planning Duplicating Technician Executive Secretary Finance Officer Maintenance Superintendent Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Worker Management Analyst Manager of Information Systems Minute Clerk Network Administrator Office Assistant Permit Engineer Planning/Building Technician Principal Engineer Recreation Leader Recreation Superintendent Secretary Senior Accountant Senior Building Inspector Senior Development Assistant Senior Maintenance Worker Senior Management Analyst Senior Planner Senior Public Works Inspector Traffic Engineer Traffic Technician $1,6O0 $1 993 $2 498 $2 105 $1 702 $5 763 $2 464 $2,885 $2,431 $3,377 $5,236 $2,193 $ 300 $4,148 $5,763 $1 926 $2 414 $5 236 $5 236 $1 303 $2.285 $5 236 $3.331 $3.331 $1.667 $2,498 $4,148 $1,454 $2 498 $1 303 $3 047 $2 193 $3 794 $1 424 $3 331 $1 454 $2,788 $2,675 $2,193 $1,926 $2,807 $3,424 $2,675 $3,047 $2,105 $1,993 $2,481 $3,111 $2,621 $2,120 $7,176 $3,068 $3,592 $3,027 $4,205 $6,519 $2,731 $ 300 $5,165 $7,176 $2 398 $3,006 $6~519 $6.519 $1,624 $2,846 $6,519 $4,148 $4,148 $2,076 $3,111 $5,165 $1,811 $3,111 $1,624 $3,794 $2,731 $4,725 $1,774 $4,148 $1,811 $3,471 $3,331 $2,731 $2,398 $3,495 $4,236 $3,331 $3,794 $2,621 1164 1196 1229 1204 1173 1351 1227 1250 1225 1273 1337 1210 1303 1351 1191 1224 1337 1337 1134 1216 1337~, 127 1271 1170 1229 13~3 1134 1258 1210 1290 1147 1271 1150 1245 1239 1210 1191 1246 1275 1239 1258 1204 Basis For Exemption: E = Executive A = Administrative P = Professional rev.6/17191 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 BUDGET The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That the FY 1991-92 Annual Budget of the City of Temecula is hereby amended to transfer $75,000 from Engineering Consulting to Engineering Salaries. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 25th day of June, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SE^L] 4~Re~189 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 91- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 25th day of June, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4kReao~189 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS, TITLES AND SALARY RANGES WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority under Chapter 2.08.060 of the City's Municipal Code, the City Manager has the authority to hire, set salaries and adopt personnel policies; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended and the City Council now wishes to adopt authorized positions, rifles and salary ranges; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: SECTION 1. The attached list of Position Titles and Salaries (Exhibit A) is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 45001 of the California Government Code. Such list is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The list of Position Titles and Salaries shall become effective immediately and may be thereafter amended. SECTION 3. The City Manager shall implement the above list of Positions Titles and Salaries and has the authority to select and appoint employees in accordance with the City's personnel policies. SECTION 4. All prior resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby rescinded. PASSED, AND ADOFFED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of June, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 190 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOF~: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 3/Resos 190 ORDINANCE 91-22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ADDING CHAPTER 12.02 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACILE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 12.02 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER: 12.02 Speed Limits Sections: 12.02.010 Speed Limits 12.02.010 Speed Limits (a) It is hereby determined that the speed permitted by State law as applicable upon the following streets set forth in this Section is other than is reasonable and it is hereby declared that the prima facie speed limit shall be as herein set forth on those streets, or parts of streets, herein designated where signs have been erected giving notice thereof. (b) The prima facie speed limit for vehicular traffic on the following streets, or portions of streets, is hereby established as hereinafter set forth, effective when signs have been erected giving notice thereof. (c) Provided, further, however, that in any instance, where the prima facie speed limit as fixed by the Vehicle Code of the State of California is less than the prima facie speed limit hereby determined and fixed, then the prima facie speed limit which is provided in the Vehicle Code shall be applicable. (d) The streets, on portions of streets, within the City of Temecula limits affected, and the declared prima facie speed limit shall be as follows: 3/Orda 91-22 -1- Name of Street and Portion Affected De Portola Road - Jedediah Smith to Margarita Road Del Rey Road - Via Norte to Avenida Del Reposo Diaz Road - Winchester Road to Rancho Calif Road Front Street - Via Montezum to Rancho Calif Road Front Street - Rancho Calif. Rd to Santiago Road Front Street - Santiago Road to Route 15 Jefferson Avenue - North City Limit to Winchester Rd. Jefferson Avenue- Winchester Rd., to Via Montezuma La Paz Street - Route 79 to Ynez Road La Serena Way - Margarita Rd., To Calle Medusa Margarita Road - Solana Way to South City Limit Moraga Road - Margarita Rd. to Rancho Calif Rd. Nicolas Road - Winchester Rd., to Ca. lie Medusa Declared Prima Facie Speed Limit, Miles Per Hour 50 35 45 45 25 45 50 45 35 45 40 40 50 3/Ords 91-22 -2- Pauba Road - Ynez Rd. to East City Limit Rainbow Canyon Road - Pala Rd. to South City Limit Rancho Calif Road - West City Limit to Diaz Rd. Rancho Calif. Road - Diaz Rd., to Moraga Rd. Rancho Calif. Road - Moraga Rd., to Margarita Rd. Rancho Vista Road - Ynez Road to East City Limit Santiago Road - Front Street to Ynez Road Solana Way - Ynez Road to Del Rey Road Via Norte - Solana Way to Avenida Del Reposo Winchester Road - Diaz Road to Jefferson Avenue Ynez Road - Winchester Road to Rancho Calif. Rd Ynez Road - Rancho Calif. Rd. to Jedediah Smith Rd 50 40 50 40 50 45 45 45 35 40 45 45 SECTION 2. 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 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. 3/Ords 91-22 -3- SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (3) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) after its passage, together with the names of the City Councilmembers voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3lOrds 91-22 --4- STATE OF CLAIFORNIA) 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. 91-22 was dully introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 11th day of June, 1991, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 3lOrds 91-22 -5- ITEM NO. 18 APPROVAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department June 25, 1991 Change of Zone 11, Parcel Map No. 26852, Plot Plan 224 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Steve Jiannino Staff recommends that the City council Adopt a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852, and Plot Plan No. 22L~; Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Change of Zone No. 11 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report; Conduct 1st reading of Ordinance No. 91- read by title only adopting the proposed Change of Zone contained in Change of Zone No. 11; Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Parcel Map No. 26852 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Plot Plan 22[~ based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. A:224PP.CC 1 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Bedford Development Co. REPRESENTATIVE: J.F. Davidson Associates and Herron $ Rumansoff P R OPOSA L: Change of Zone from R-R ( Rural Residential) to C- P-S- (Scenic Highway Commercial) on 2~ acres of a 97.3 acre site, construction of a 1~49,500 square foot commercial center on 19.7 acres and subdivide 19.3 acres into 13 parcels with two remainder parcels. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. EXISTING ZONING: R-R (Rural Residential) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: R- R South: R- R East: R- R West: R- R Rural Residential ) Rural Residential ) Rural Residential ) Rural Residential) PROPOSED ZONING: C-P-S { Scenic Highway Commercial ) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant/Industrial Commercial Vacant Vacant Vacant SWAP DESIGNATION: C ( Commercial ) PROJECT STATISTICS: Project Area: No. of Lots: Proposed Zone Change: No. of Buildings: Total Building Square Footacje: Total Parking Provided: Total Parking Required: Buildings are Proposed on Lots: 97.32 acres 13 + 2 remainders C-P-S on Lots 1 - 13 3 1~9,696 sq.ft. 859 spaces 7~9 spaces q, 7, and 13 BACKGROUND: On July 17, 1991 the City of Temecula Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on Change of Zone No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852, and Plot Plan No. 22~. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Change of Zone No. 11 and Parcel Map No. 26852 by a ~-0 vote with Commissioner Fahey absent. The Commission also recommended approval of Plot Plan No. 22~ by a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Blair voting negative and Commissioner Fahey absent. The Commissioners expressed concerns with the proposed landscaping and R:224~P.CC 2 architecture of the project. The Commission added two Conditions of Approval to Plot Plan No. 224 to address their concerns; Condition No. 11.b and Condition No. 17.a. Condition No. 11.b requires that the landscaping plan be redesigned and submitted to the Planning Commission for review. The revised plans shall be reviewed, approved, and installed prior to occupancy of the first building. Condition No. 17.a requires the developer to add architectural elements to the building to down scale the appearance of the large building bulk. These are to be cosmetic changes and will not involve a change in the building structure as submitted· The Commissioners also expressed concerns with traffic impact of the project especially the intersection of Winchester and Margarita Roads. The Commission felt that a signal should be installed prior to the opening of Costco whether or not Caltrans feel that the warrants for a signal are met. The Commissioners understood that the signal was controlled by Caltrans and felt frustrated with not being able to have more control over the traffic at the intersection. The Commissioners decided to address their concerns by adding a Condition of Approval to the Parcel Map and the Plot Plan requiring the City Engineer to review the traffic situation and develop alternative mitigation methods such as the use of Traffic Directors or q-way stops until a signal is installed and operating at the intersection. These mitigations will be required for the opening of the proposed Costco which the Commissioners expect to draw additional traffic to the intersection. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City council Adopt a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852, and Plot Plan No. 224; Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Change of Zone No, 11 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report; Conduct 1st reading of Ordinance No. 91- read by title only adopting the proposed Change of Zone contained in Change of Zone No. 11; Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Parcel Map No. 26852 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and Adopt Resolution No. 91- approving Plot Plan 224 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. Resolution approving Change of Zone No. 11 Ordinance Change of Zone No. 11 Resolution approving Parcel Map No. 26852 Conditions of Approval Parcel Map No. 26852 Resolution approving Plot Plan No. 224 Condition of Approval Plot Plan No. 224 Planning Commission Staff Report Dated June 17, 1991 ~: 224PP. cc 3 ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 11 TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 24 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 11 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS. said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on June 17 1, 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 Change of Zone; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Change of Zone on June 25, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Change of Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. the following findings: Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes 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.t. hat 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 R: 224PP. cc 4 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 City Council in approving the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. e There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding proposed development, zoning, and SWAP. e 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, due to the fact that the project is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. R:224PP.CC 5 The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists or is being provided in the area including commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. e The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C ( Commercial ). The zone change will be beneficial by providing an area for needed services and employment. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project when determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Change of Zone No. 11 to change the zoning on 24 acres of land from R-R to C-P-S along the north side of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Rancho California Water District Well Site No. 108. Resolution. SECTION 4._:. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR 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 2Sth day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: R:224PP.cc 6 AYES: COUNCI LMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A:224PP.CC 7 ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION No. 11 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ALONG THE NORTHSIDEOFWlNCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT WELL SITE NO. 108. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 11 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. SECTION 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1991. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] A: 224PP. CC 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO: 5 CHANGE OF ZONE NO: ORDINANCE NO: 91- 11 ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: ATTACHMENT NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26852 TO SUBDIVIDE A 97.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO 13 PARCELS AND 2 REMAINING PARCELS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROADS. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Tentative Parcel Map No. 26852 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 June 17, 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 June 25, 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. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A: 224~P.cc 10 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. 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 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. 26852 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 18.30(c), no plot plan may be ~,: 224PP. CC ]. ~L 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. 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 City Council, in approving the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findings, to wit: The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Mitigated 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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding proposed development, zoning and SWAP. e ' 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,due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding proposed development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. q60, Schedule E. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and sufficient building area. ~: 224PP. cc 12 The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat 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 due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure with passive or active solar possibilities. 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 Winchester and Margarita Roads. 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. 11. 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 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 was performed for this project when determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. A:224PP.CC 1 3 SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 26852 for the subdivision of a 97.3 acre parcel into 13 parcels and 2 remainders located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. Resolution. SECTION ~. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June, 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 25th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCI LMEMBERS NOES: ABSENT: COUNCI LMEMBERS COUNCI LMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK /%: 224PP. CC 14 ATTACHMENT ~ CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Parcel Map No: 26852 Project Description: 1~ Lot Commercial Subdivision with 2 Remainders, on 97 acres located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Marqarita Roads. Assessor's Parcel No.: 911-180-026 Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance q60, 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. e This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance q60. The expiration date is . 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 tt60 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. Provide reciprocal access, parking, drainage and maintenance agreements between all the parcels through an REA or CC&R's prepared by the applicant, reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Attorney. Document to be recorded with the final map. e The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated April 2~, 1991, a copy of which is attached. ~,:224/e.cc 15 e The applicant shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated April 15, 1991, a copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance ~60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. 10. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated March 7, 1991, a copy of which is attached. 11. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the Southwest Area Plan. 12. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the 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. 13. 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 Department. 1~. The following notes 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." be "A Liquefaction Hazard Report {County Geologic Report No. 793) has been done for this site and is on file in the Planning Department." Ce Construction excavation has high potential to impact significant, nonrenewable paleontologic resources. A qualified vertebrate paleontologist must be retained to develop a mitigation program prior to issuance of grading permits. 15. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING 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 A:224PP.CC 1 6 16. 17. 18. Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. ee Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. fe All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 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. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated May 6, 1991. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae 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. be Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a: 224PP. CC 17 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2~4. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. 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. 26852, 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 subdivi~ler shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Within forty-eight (qS) 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 lq Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {~8) 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 .~(c). Dedicate right-of-way along Winchester Road along remainder parcel. The applicant shall comply with recommendations set forth in the County Geologist transmittal dated April 23, 1991. ~:22~,.cc 18 25. A 25 foot wide transportation corridor easement shall be dedicated along Winchester Road. 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. 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 RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 28. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District: Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department: Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise: CalTrans; and Parks and Recreation Department. 29. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. 30. Margarita Road from Highway 79 to the proposed bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek shall be improved with full improvements or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 {86'/110'). 31. In the event that Winchester Road (Highway 79) is not constructed by Assessment District 161 prior to the final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 18 foot lane per CalTrans Standard { 110'/13~'). The improvements shall be constructed per CalTrans letter dated March lq, prior Z~: 224PP. CC 19 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. to occupancy. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66t~62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Winchester Road (Highway 79) and Margarita Road and so noted on the final map with the exception of access points and public street intersections as approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Final Map. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. A Notice of Intention to form and/or join the Landscape and Lighting District shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in District information shall be borne by the developer. Notice of Intention to join the median island Landscape Maintenance District shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in District information shall be borne by the developer. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. A:224PP.CC 20 e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering Department. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. 46. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 48. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 50. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards as determined by the City Engineer and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 {curb sidewalk). 51. The subdivider shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 52. 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 53. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and A:224~e.cc 21 submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 55. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 56. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 57. As deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. 58. The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article Xl of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. 59. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 60. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula regarding flood damage protection for development within a Flood Zone "A", which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. 61. The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the area within the 100-year floodplain. 62. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 63. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's A: 224PP.cc 2 2 Office. 65. 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. 66. Prior to any work being performed, an application for a Development Permit shall be submitted per Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula. All requirements of this ordinance shall be complied with as directed and approved by the City Engineer. 67. 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. 68. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Winchester Road (Hiqhway 79) 69. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. 70. Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make application for and pay for their reapportionment of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 71. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 72. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 73. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public a:m4~P.cc 23 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ~1~¥~ 1~1~Ir C&LIl~Ol~hll~ April 15, 1991 J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 340 Temecula, CA ~2390 Attention: David B. Saar~ Ladies and Gent]amen: Re: Parcel Nap 26852 Plot Plan 224 City of Tamecule You have sent us material regarding these cases for our "review as a Land Use case and as a land subdivision". We do not make floodproofing recommendations or wr%te flood hazard reports for projects in incorporated cities. But it is appropriate that we comment on Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel since we are involved with :he flood control aspects of Assessment D~str~ct 161. ~e have recently approved the plans for Santa $ertrudis Creek Channel. The channel will capture and safely convey the 100 year storm runoff in that stream when it has been constructed ~n its entirety according to plans, and when surrounding land developments have been brought up to grade as proposed. If the project is constructed ~n stages, as we understand ta now being considered, additional stud~ would be necessary ~o determine its aerformance. It should also be noted that Assessment District 161 has not yet made application for & Conditional Letter of Nap Revision (CLONR) ~rom the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FENA). Properties w~thin the F£NA mapped floodplain will remain subject insurance requirements until FENA has tseued & letter of Nap Revision (LONR), and the Otstrtct cannot guaran:ee the% FENA w111 find :he proposed improvements acceptable. The Dtatrt~t wtll not accept the Santa ~ertrudta Channel for operation and until tt has been comp]eted, all necessary ~radtng ad]acen~ to the channel has been completed, approval by FEMA. C: City of Temecula Engineering Department Bedford Properties Attn: Grog Erickson EANPAC Attn: Chuck Collins H. KASHUBA enior Ctvil Engtneer JHK:pln Eli!/ EI.iT'; F'L~iI(i~.l~5 I:,EF'T, :IiVE:I)iDE corJrl .U April 23, 1991 Ranpa¢ Soils, Inc. 41710 Enterprise C&r¢le South Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Christopher Krall Won S. Yoo subject: Gentlemen: Liquefaction Hazard Work Order No. 690-161 Plot Plan 224 A.P.N.: 910-110-029 County Ceologic Report No. 793 City of Temecula We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of ,'Preliminar~ Geetechnical Investigation, Commercial Center, Winchester and Margarita Road, Temecula, dated November 1, 1990. your report entitle Margarita Meadows CA," Your report determined that: '--- 1. The potential for liquefaction el the subsurface soils at this site during a seismic event is considered to be moderate. The most significant effect of liquefaction at the site would be settlement of the ground surface. Indicated settlement on the order of one inch would be possible on localized areas of the site. Differential settlement at the site from zero to one inch is likely to occur across distances of 300 feet or more. 3~ OCher effects of liquefaction including loss of bearing capacity, sand boils and lateral spreading are considered unlikely. Your repor~ reconmended that: of recompaction shall foundation,perimeter. All foundations shall be constructed entirely in compacted fill. The depth of fill shall extend a minimum of ~wo footing widths beneath the base of the footing witha minimum of 2 feet and maximum of 8 feet. The area ex~end five feet' outside the STREET, ~'H FLOOR I~:OR! "~ 92" ;79733 COUNTRY' CLUB' DRIVE "~ BERMUDA DUNES, CALIF~RI',, . 92; (£'~ .'~2-8: FLu .:~I).IG [',EF'T, ¢uo~ ~aoXogic ~epo£~ f~ge ~ preocur~ ~y be lncrea~ de;~ vp ~o maximum Concrot~ slabs -off- ~rad~ shall o$ ~ imphem nomina% ~or light&y Loaded fioo~. · he reQomm~ndd~onl ~ ~ your report tot m~%lgat~on of T[ OF CALIFO~Ji~A -~U$INE$$t~RAHSPO~TATIOII AH[, HOU$IN0 AGENCY P~TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTR~CT 8,P.O. BOX 231 SAN BE~A~INO, ~ ~2402 TDD (714) 383-4609 Apr11 16, 1991 08-Rlv-79-R2.86/R3.18 Planning Department Attention: Steve Jiannino City of Temecula 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 Your Reference: Plot Plan 224, Parcel MaD 26852, Change of Zone 11 Dear Mr. Jiannino: An Encroachment Permit will be required for the proposed Grading, Signage and Landscaping within the State R/W. In addition, Caltrans'~ Development Review branch has the following concerns: · ~he connection to State Highway 79 (SH 79) called out as a 50' Driveway, approximately 1200 feet southwest of Margarita Road, must be a street connection, not a driveway, as shown on Permit application 90-1868 and as agreed to in several previous meetings between Caltrans personnel and JF Davidson engineers. Access to the proposed development must be taken off this local street, not off of the State highway. Perhaps the developer might consider a cul-de-sac configuration to accomplish this. The Traffic Study done for Assessment District 161 (widening of Winchester Road) by Kunzman and Associates did not study this intersection to determine the need for signalization. If signals are to be constructed, warrants must be met. The access shown approximately 500 feet southwest of margarita Road is intended to serve the Rancho California Water District property only. It may not be used as an additional access to the proposed development· Also, it must conform to the configuration shown on Permit application 90-1868 (see attached, highlighted mockup of that access point). The Water D~strict access shall be a Caltrans standard NS-A, Case A, type of driveway. Curb returns are not permitted. Details and elevations of the proposed Pylon Signage at the Slte Entry from SH 79 must be submitted a part of the Permit application package. In addition to the above-noted concerns, this office must see the following: a) b) c) d) e) f) Conditions of Approval Grading and drainage Plans (not conceptuals) A copy of any documents providing additional State R/W A copy of the Traffic Study A check print of the Parcel Map (not Tentative Map). The map need not be signed and recorded, but must be stamped with the City's "Stamp of Approval". A check print of any plans for improvements within the State R/W (including Landscaping Plans) If you should have any questions, please call Mr. Ahmad Salah or Mr. Mike Sim at (714) 383-4384. Thank you for your cooperation· Sincerely, Tim Chowdhury District Development Review Engineer STATE OF CALIFO41NIA--IUSINESS, TRANSPOITATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPART/~EN? OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 TDD (714) 383-4609 March 14, 1991 PETE WILSON, Governor Development Review 08-Riv-79-R3.180 Your Reference: PP 224/PM 26852/CZ 11 Planning Department City Hall City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed PP 224/PM 26852/CZ 11 located northwest corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road near Rancho California area. 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. I'f 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. Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only. Final approval will be determined during the Encroachment Permit process. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro Saoud of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384. Chief, Development Review Branch Art YOUR I~FERENCE PLAN CHECKER DATE RTE 1rs REQUEST TN~T THB ZTEHS CHEC~D BELOW BE INCLUDED ZN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT: / NO~t~L STREET Z#PROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE ~ HALF--MIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHgAY. CURB AND GUTTER, STATE STANDARD /~'/,~-,~;, TYPE /7~_-~ ALONG THE STATE NIGHMAY. PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGHMAY BY PAINTING THE CURS RED AND/OJ~ BY THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS. RADIUS CURB RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS MITH THE STATE HIGHMAY. STATE STANDARD MHEELCHAZR RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CURB RETURNS. A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LIMIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHMAY. VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHWAY · VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHMAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHMAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY VEHICULAR ACCESS SkiALL NOT BE P~OVIDED MITHIN Of THE INTERACTION AT STANDARD DRIVEgAYS. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHMAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTION. VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST WITHIN THE STATE HIGH!/AY RIGHT OF WAY. ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHgAY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FC)~ MPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHMAY. LANDSCAPING ALO~.G THE STATE H!GHMAY SHALL PROVIDE FOIl SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE, CG~PLY MITH FIXED O~JECT SET BACK AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS. A LEFT--TURN LANE~ INCLLK)ING SHOULDERS AND ANY NECESSARY MIDENING~ SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HlGHMAY. A TRAFFIC STI~)Y INOICATING ON ANO OFF--SITE FLOM PATTERNS AND VOLUHES ~ PRC)~ABLE IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE PREPARED. PARKING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A HANNER THAT MILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHICULAR MOVEMENT CONFLICTS ~ INCLUOI#G PARKING STALL ENTRANCE AND EXIT, HITHIM OF THE ENTRANCE FROM TNE STATE HIGHMAY. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN MHEN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE STATE HIGHMAY. PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ClJ, IJLATIVE INCREASED STORM RUNOFF TO INSURE THAT A HIGifi~AY DRAINAGE PROOLEM IS NOT CREATED. /PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL COHI4ENTS. PROVIDE TO APP'r.IC~NT. CONSTRUCTICIN/DENOLITION UITHIN RRESENT OR PROPOSED STATE RIGHT OF MAY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS b/ASTE ( I · E · ASBESTOS ~, PETROCHENICALS I ITC · ) AND NITIGATED AS PER REQUIREHINTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES / /~t~HEN PLANS ARE SUBIdlTTEDw PLEASE CONFORN TO THE REQUIREHINTS OF THE ATTACHED #HANDOUT". THIS ~/ILL EXPEDITE THE REVIEk/ PROCESS AND TINE REQUIRED FOR PLAN CHECK. PI:~OVTDE TO APPL];CANT. ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHgAY SYSTENv CONSIDERATION NUST BE GIVEN TO THE CUHULATIVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED DEVELOPNENT IN THIS AREA o ANY NEASURES NECESSARY TO NITIGATE THE CUHULATIVE INPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR gITH DEVELOPHENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEN. CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION v OR FUTURE PROVISION r OF SIGNILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE INTERSECTICN OF ~ THE STATE HIGiF,~Y M4EN kiMUb~NTS ARE HIT. //J~T APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHgAY SYSTEN OF THE AREA. ,~Y NEASURES TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE INPACTS SHALL BE INCLLJOED UITH THE DEVELOPNENT · THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHgAY IS INCLUDED IN THE CALIFORNIA ~[ASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGHgAYS ELIGIBLE FOR OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHgAY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY HAY gISH TO HAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHgAY. THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHgAY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY I AND DEVELOPHENT IN THIS CORRIDOR SHOULD BE CONPATIBLE UITH THE SCENIC HIGHWAY CONCEPT. ~T IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVELLE. HIGHgAYS. LAND DEVELOPHENT ~ 1N ORDER TO BE COHPATIBLE UITH THIS CONCERN~ HAY REQUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTENUATION NEASURE~. DEVELOPHENT OF THIS PROPERTY SH(XILD INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTENUATION. PLEASE BEND TR~E TTEHS CHBCI~BD BBLOW TOI CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 DEVELCIR!4ENT ]:~EVIE~ ]~RANCH P.O. ]~:)x 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402 ~ C~Y OF ANY ~TTI~S OF ~PR~AL ~ REVISED APPR~AL. ~/~ C~Y OF ~Y ~_~NTS PR~IDING ~OlTi~AL STATE HIG~AY RIGHT OF ~Y ~ RE~DATI~ OF THE ~P. ~Y PR~ALS TO ~THER DE~L~ THIS PR~ERTY. COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRONNENTAL STUOYo CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT ~//A CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY 114PROVEHENTS VlTHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE STATE NIGHk~AY RIGHT OF MAY. CHECK PRINT OF THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS RRGPERTY IllHEN AVAILABLE Date: March 13, 1991 Riv-79-R3.180 (Co-Rte-PM) PP 224/ PM 26852 / CZ 11 (Your Reference) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: We need cross-sections at 50 ft intervals, from 100 ft each side of the project limits, within state Right-Of-Way (R/W). The cross- sections must conform to the requirements of the attached "HANDOUT" The Caltrans Right-Of-Way (R/W) line must be shown and labeled on the next submittal. The driveways connections should be compatible with the existing and future road system of the area. The centerline of proposed driveway shown approximately 520 ft southwesterly of Margarita Road must be located and constructed as shown on PERMIT NO 90-1868, SHEET NO 5. The Rancho California water district property shall not have a separate access to state 'highway. Show the existing state 'stationing along the highway centerline according to the stations shown on PERMIT NO 90-1868. The Right-OF-Way in the Vicinity of Rancho California water district property does not agree with our record. The proposed driveway shown northwest of Winchester Road (HWY 79) must accommodate the DETECTOR SETBACK requirements (See attached sheet)· State law requires Outdoor Advertising clearance for signs proposed adjacent to interstate and primary highways. Clearance must be obtained form: Highway Outdoor Advertising Branch California Department of Transportation 1120 N street Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 445-3337 D N~F9 I -l~r9 ~ 0 0 ~ m o ~ zr.J GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 March 7, 1991 TO: ATTN: RE: City of Temecula Planning Department CZ 11 & PM 26852 The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments regarding the above referenced projects. All fire protection requirements will be addressed on related Plot Plan 224. 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/tm O INDIO OFFICE Countr~ Club Drive, Suite F, lndio, CA 92201 (619) 342,~6 · FAX (619) 77~.2072 PLANNING DIVISION 1-1 RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Sm:et, Rivenick, CA 92~01 ~ TEMECULA OFFICE 41002 County Cgmcr Drive, Suite 225, TemecuL~, CA 92390 (714) 694-.5070 · FAX (714) 694-.5076 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO: CITY OF TEMECULA A TN: Steve .Jlannino F'A~ECL MAP NO. 26e.~$2 DATE: Health S~ecla!:st IV 04-24-91 The Environmental Health Services Division has reviewed the Parcel Maw No. 26~52 for this project and cannot make any recommendation% until a sanltatlon letter is filed. The requirements for a SAN $3 letter are a~ follows: satisfactory soils pefco!at&on te~t to preve the prcject feasible. A clearance letter frcm the ar~proprlate C~1iforni~ Pe~lonal Water Oualit¥ Controi Bo;rd. NOTE: For projects within the San Plea. c. Water Quality Control Board sphere of influence. a written clearance shall be required p.r:%..~,.r. to issuance of a SAN 53. 3. Two copies of the Parcel Map. A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies servinq potable water. Should the project be served sanitary sewer services, this Department would need only: A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water and sanitary sewers. 2. One copy of the tentative map. If the oroject is to be served water by e~istlng wells, pumps and w~ter tanks. a water supply permit will be required Crontact the EHSD, Enqineering Section at 275- ~9~0). The requirements for a water supply permit are a$ follc, ws: City of Temecula F'age Two ATTN: Steve 3iannino April 24, 1991 Satisfactory laboratory tests (bacteriological, organic, inorganic, aenera] physical, and general mineral) to prove the water potable. A complete set of plans showing all details of the proposed and existing water systems: sizes and types of pipe and calculations showing that adoqua. to quantity and pressure can be maintained (California Waterworks Standards - California Health and Safety Code and California administrative Code, Title 22). /?~ese plans mu~t be signed by a registered civic engineer. SM:dr \..~,t,l,~,/'_..COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM ,. ~/)/~'~ GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY ., ........ -_. :._:..... -... ........_'_ ...,, I--~:'t'-~' m ' Nay 6, BCI General Contractors attn: Rick Finken 28765 Single Oak [)rive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 re: ~A~ON'Z'O~OG[C ASS~SSM'ENT, ~ARCE~ MAP # 2~36[, RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY Dear Mr. Finken, At your request, the San Bernardino County MuseLm~ has conducted a paleontologic assessment, including a search of pertinent geologic literature, a review of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, and a field survey for parcel # 21361, a 29- acre parcel in Rancho California, Riverside County. The parcel is on the northwest side of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Franklin Avenue. Specifically, the parcel is within Township 7 South and Range 3 West and if projected, falls within the southeast quarter of section 21, as shown on the Murrieta, CA 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadran.~le map. BackEround Previous EeoloEic mappinE by Mann (1955) and Kennedy (1977) indicate that the parcel is located on recent alluvitm~ and on or 'near the Pauba Formation. These authors report fossil Pleistocene horse. The Pauba Formation overlies .the Bi..~hop Ash and thus is less than 700,000 years BP. Review of the Le&ional Paleontolo~ic Locality Inventory at the San Bernardino County Museum does not indicate that previous paleontologic resource assessments have been conducted for the Temecula parcel and that no paleontolo.~ic localities are recorded within one mile of the parcel. However, more than 200 F, aleontoloEic resource localities are known from the Pauba Formation in the Murrieta-Temecula area. The Pauba Formation unconformably overlies the Unnamed Sandstone. The faunal a.~semblaEe from the Pauba Fozm%ation in the Temecula- Murrieta area, sun~arized below, suEgests a late Jrvingtonian/early Rancholabrean LMA in contrast to the ear]y- late Irvin.~tonian fauna from the Unnamed Sandstone ill the California Oaks area (Reynolds and Reynolds, 1990). J. mp~.: rot o ~'. imperial m~%nm~oth mastodon large camel 1 lama pronghorn deer large horse small horse Jack rabbit cottontail shrew squirrel kangaroo rat l:,,:,cket gopher deer mouse wood rat. v¢,l e king snake rattlesnake pond turtle toad chub fish land snail Methods The field asse:~sment was c,:,nducted on May 3, 1991, by Ouint. in Lake, Mu~ekuu Tech I I of the San Bernardino County Museum. He has had previous experience in paleontologic resource assessments and salvaze in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Parcel # 21361 was inspected by foot traverses at. appro:.:imatel¥ 30 meter intervals. Recent alluvi~m~ was verified to occur o,% the [:.arcel in association with the Santa Gertrudis stream bed as was the presence of coarse to mediums-grained sands interpreted to · represent the Pauba Formation. Results and Recommendations Available geologic literature describes the Pauba Formation as fossiliferous. Resource localities in the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory indicate that the Pauba Formation is very fossiliferous in the Murrieta-Temecula area. Construction excavation has high potential to impact significant, nonrenewable paleontologic resources on the Temecula parcel. The developer must x. etain a qualified vertebrate f, aleontologist to ~'~develop a program of mitigation fox' the parcel which will conform to the guidelines of CEQA and Riverside County. The impact mitigation program must include, but not be limited to: 1. Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to x'emove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil mammals. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. The most cost-efficient method of salvage of small fossils is to remove sediments containing the fossils to stockpiles offsite. The fossils car, be removed by screen washing elsewhere while excavation continues on site. 2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, including washing of sediments to recover small vertebrates. This will allow the fossils to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens being stored. 3. Identification and curation of specimens into an established museum repository wit]] retrievable storage. ~. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency, signifies completion of the ~:.ro.~ram to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. References cited Kennedy, M.P. , 1977. Elsinore fault zone in southern Riverside County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 131: 12 p. Mann, J.F., 1955. Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California. California Division of Mines Special Report ~3:22 p. Reynolds, R.E. and R.L. Reynolds, 1990. Irvingtonian? faunas from the Pauba Formation, Temecula, Riverside County, California, ~1! Abstracts of Proceedings, 1990 Mojave Desert. Quaternary Research Symposi%m~. Redlands, San Bernardino  ount¥ Musem~ Association Quarterly, 37(2):37. Kathleen Springer%~ Project Manager Earth Sciences Recency and character of faulting along the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM ~024 O,,nge T,.~.I~[I~ '6~edt~l~fA 92374. 1714)798-8570 * 422-1610 COUNTY OF SAN BERNAROINO GENERAl. SERVICES AGENCY DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMEFI INVOICE: ~050.0§06.! To: BCI General Contractors attn: Rick Finken, Project Manager 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92390 For: PALEONTOLOGIC RECORDS SEARCH, PARCEL 21361, RANCHO CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY Regional Pale,:,ntolo~ic Locality Inventory access fee and first hour: Field survey, 3 hrs @ $32./hr Mileage, 115 mi @ .38/h~ Report, 3 hrs @ $32./hr TOTAL $50.00 96.00 ~3.70 96.00 $285.70 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 22~ TO CONSTRUCT A 111.9,500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER ON 19.7 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROAD. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Plot Plan No. 22q in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on June 17, 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 Plot Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on June 25, 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; 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. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: ~:224~,.cc 25 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 Plot Plan 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 Plot Plan No. 224 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 18.30(c), no plot plan may be a:z~4~P.cc 26 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. 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 City Council, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 224 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3t~8, 460; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 (Planning and Zoning Law). The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping are provided; as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the proposed structure, reference proposed Plot Plan No. 224, Exhibit E of the Staff Report. 5. The project, as designed and conditioned, a:=~P.cc 27 will not adversely affect the public health or welfare; nor will it adversely impact the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment of this proposal. Reference the attached project Conditions of Approval and Initial Environmental Study. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations, and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposales general vicinity. e The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project site~s primary frontage is on Winchester Road, a dedicated CalTrans right-of-way. Improvement of the abutting roadways shall be as per the City Engineering Department and CalTrans. e The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. None are exhibited on the underlying parcel map, nor are easements evident on deed{ s) describing the property in question. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. 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 was performed for this project when determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of A:224~P.¢¢ 28 Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No. 22t[ for the operation and construction of 149,500 square foot retail center located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION ~.~, The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of June. 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 25th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCI LMEMBERS NOES: COUNCI LMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCI LMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK I~: 224PP. CC 2 9 PP-22q ATTACHMENT 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 22~ Project Description: Retail Center of approximately 150,000 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-110-029 and 910-180-019 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for 3 buildings for 115,280 square feet; 23,916 square feet; and 10,500 square feet. 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. 22~. 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 beginning 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. 22q marked Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. e 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. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the ,~::Z2~t~.cc 3 0 PP-22~ provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated March 11, 1991, a copy of which is attached. e Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 15, 1991, a copy of which is attached. e Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 5z~6 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated April 23, 1991, a copy of which is attached. 10. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County Geologist's transmittal dated April 23, 1991, a copy of which is attached. 11. Prior to the issuance of 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. 3t~8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. Landscape plans shall conform to conceptual landscape plans marked Exhibit G. ae 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. be Prior to occupancy the developer shall redesign the conceptual landscaping plans to include increased landscape area along the flood channel, increase landscaping along the Winchester side of the Costco building and to add Canopy trees to the landscaping plan. The applicant is to investigate using a Canopy tree instead of the Crepe Myrtle tree on the street frontage with the proposed Palm trees. The plans must be resubmitted for Planning Commission approval prior to installation. The landscape shall be installed prior to occupancy of the first building. 12. 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 {10} feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty {30) inches. 13. A minimum of 7~9 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~8. 7t~9 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit E. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~ inches of Class II base or as may be recommended by a qualified Soils Engineer. ~:224PP.cc 31 PP-22~ A minimum of 9 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit E. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 15. 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 Rancho Water District CalTrans School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Eastern Municipal Water District 16. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. 17. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit F. The building elevations are to be revised by adding architectural features to try to minimize the visual impact of the massive building. These elements could include the use of color strips, accent tile or other cosmetic additions. Revised elevations to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. 18. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit F I Color Elevations). 19. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. 20. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy ~:224~P.CC 3 2 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. PP-22~ permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with 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. 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. This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction or subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one- half {1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 23 Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. The area does not have to be enclosed. 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, walls, 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. a:224PP.CC 3 3 PP-22~ 30. 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.q(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 lq Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (L~8) 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 .q(c). 31. A minimum of seven (7) loading spaces shall be provided as shown on approved Exhibit E. 32. A plot plan application must be processed for any approvals for any additional buildings other than the three approved by this plot plan. 33. Dedicate a 25 foot wide transportation corridor easement along Winchester Road prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated May 6, 1991. 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: 35. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District: Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; ~:22,~I~.cc 3 4 PP-22~ CalTrans; and Parks and Recreation Department. 36. The developer shall submit two {2 ! 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~t"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 37. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 38. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 39. Prior to any work being performed, an application for Development Permit shall be submitted per Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula. All requirements of this Ordinance shall be complied with as directed and approved by the City Engineer. 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. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer and all appropriate agencies. q2. 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. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer and all appropriate agencies shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-of-way. Prior to any work being performed on the private parking areas or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineerms Office. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. ~7. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all A: 224PP. CC 3 5 q9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. PP-22~ times with adequate detours during construction. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way. Winchester Road (Hiqhway 79) The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards, Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District. A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. 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. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from Riverside County Flood Control District to outlet storm flows directly into the flood control channel. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. As deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. A:2~4~P.cc 36 PP-224 56. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 57. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. 58. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula regarding flood damage protection for development within a Flood Zone "A", which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 59. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 60. 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. 61. If deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be recorded, 62. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Winchester Road {Highway 79) and Margarita Road with the exception of access points and public street intersections as approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans. 63. In the event that Winchester Road (Highway 79) is not constructed by Assessment District 161 prior to the final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 18-foot lane per CalTrans Standards (110'/13¥ ). The improvements shall be constructed per CalTrans letter dated March lq, prior to occupancy. Margarita Road from Winchester Road (Highway 79) to the proposed bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek shall be improved with full improvements, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 {86~/110'). 65. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 66. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of A:z~4PP.cc 37 PP-22~ payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact. fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 67. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.S0 percent. 68. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 69. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards as determined by the City Engineer, and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard ~00 and q01 (curb sidewalk). 70. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. q61 and as approved by the City Engineer. 71. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. q00 and ~01. 72. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 73. This minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. 75. Construct all street improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 76. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these A:224~P.cc 38 PP-22~ conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 77. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 78. A signing and striping plan shall be under design by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by CaITrans and the City Engineer for Winchester Road (Highway 79) and Margarita Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans as determined by the City Engineer. 79. Plans for a traffic signal shall be under design by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by CalTrans and the City Engineer for the intersection of Winchester Road {Highway 79) and Margarita Road and shall be included for reference with the second plan check submittal of the street improvement plans. 80. Plans for a traffic signal shall be under design by a Registered Civil Engineer for approval by CaiTrans and the City Engineer for the intersection of Winchester Road (Highway 79) and the approved entry point, and shall be included for reference with the second plan check submittal of the street improvement plans. 81. Traffic signal interconnect shall be under design by a Registered Civil Engineer to show 1 1/2" rigid conduit with pull rope, and #3 pull boxes on 200 foot centers along the property fronting Winchester Road ( Highway 79). This design shall be shown on the traffic signal plans and must be approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 82. All signing and striping shall be installed and functional per the approved plans and as approved in the field by CalTrans and the City Engineer. 83. The traffic signal for the intersection of Winchester Road ( Highway 79) at the approved access point shall be operational and complete per the approved plans. The traffic signal interconnect shall be installed in place per the approved plans. 85. Interim traffic control shall be provided at developer's expense for the a:z~4~P.CC 3 9 PP-22~ intersection of Margarita Road and Winchester Road (Highway 79) as warranted after review of the intersection and an Amendment to the approved traffic study has been provided as directed by the City Engineer. ~:224PP.CC 40 County of R verside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TD: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: Steve Jiannino F DDM: A~~M MARIN '~~Envir°nmental PLOT PLAN NO. 224 DATE: 03-11-91 Health Specialist IV The Environmental Health Service~ ha5 reviewed Plot Plan No. 224 and has no ob.jection$. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in this area. Prior to any building plan submittals, the following items will be required: "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan eM&miner$ at (714) 358-5172). A ..c~.~aL~.~_._..kg_%k.9~ from the Hazardous Materials Management Branch Services (3on Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be reguired indicat[ng that the project has been cleared for: a. Underground storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185). d. Waste reduction Management. SM:dr cc: Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch RIV SIDE COU 2re WEST SAN' I~INTO AVENUE e GLEN J. NEWMAN ~p:il 23, 1951 PLOT PLAN 224 With respect :c the condi:io=s of a~prov~i re~ardin~ the above reierenced ~lct pla~, the Fire Depar:ment recc~men~ ~he fo!lowimg fire protection ~scoanlzed fire p~ote¢~ion 1. The ~ire Dspa~tme~ Xs require~ ~c s¢~ s minimum. firs flow for ~he ramode! or cozs=ruc~io~ of ell ccm~ercia! buildings usin~ ~he procedure established in Ordi~ance Provxde ~:' show ~here exists J wa~er ays:~ c~pabie of d~l£verin$ ~000 g.~ for a 3 hour ~ura~ion a~ 20 ~$: residual operating pressure~ wh£ch ~ust be available before amy c,.~ou~ible mater~el is p~ace~ on the Job ~ite. ~ lo~pad system (6"x~"2jx2~)o will be loca~e~ nc~ less ~han 25 f~et or m~ra ~ha~, 165 fss~ frc~ any po~tlvn of the building as measured a~om~ ap;~ovs~ vebicula~ trays!ways. The ze~uire~ f~re flOw shall be available from any adJace~ hydrant(s) in the system. THe zsquire~ f~re flow ~y he ad~s~e~ a~ a later poin~ in lthe process ~e reflect chan~ss in desi~. construction type. area separation or b~Alt-iu ~ire pro,action measures. the F~re Departann for review. Plans shall con~or~ to fire hydrant requirements. Pla~e shall be signs~/approvad by a resiste~ed civil easiness and the l~cal water comgany wi~b the fol!owin~ ceT~ifica~iou: "l oew~ify ~he~ the desisn of the w&~ar system is in accordance with ~e r~q~ireme~s preecri~eg by ~hs ~vereida County Fire J.TI~4EmJLA 01002 C4muty Oefi~ !~ Su~ lJS. Tem~uk, CA 02390 (7t4) ~/,a.~O$: · FAX (714~ 694S0t6 PLOT PLA~ 22/~ PA~E 2 ~ndicater valve and fire department connectlou shall be l~c ted to the ~ronc, w~c~a S~ ~eec e~ abydranco and a mtn~n~m o~ 25 fes~ from the plane. 7. Z~sc·11 · supervised wa~erf~w m~nicozi~s ~ra slat= eyeten.' Pla~s ~.ec be e~bmiCce~ co the Fiwe ~e~arrm..e~t for approval /nsceilation~ as pew mue~ appea: o~ the title pa~e of ~He baildim6 plans. Occupancy separa~io~ will be ~equire~ as per ~he Ur, X~orm ~uAl~i~S CoJe. e ~ns~all panic ~dw~ze an~ exit siena eo per Chapter 33 o~ the Uniform Co~Cgc: a certified o~in~ulBheg company ~o~ propt~ ~l~cememc o~ equipment. 13. Pwior :0 the issuance o~ ~uxldxn~ pe~ics, the a;pltcau~/dcv~lcpez shell be responsible to e~bmic a check. or money order In the ·mount o~ ~558.00 CO Cha [lve~side :o~n~y Fire Depar~men~ =or plan check fees. Prior to the issuznce o[ buildl~s pe:~Lce, c~e develops: shall deposit, with the Ci:y of Temecu:a, a c~eck or money o:det etuallng 2}C pe~ ~qua~e /oct as me:lea:Ion for gl~e protection ~paccs. T~ls ~n~unc muS~ be submi~ad separately from c~e plan c~eck review fees, ~he ~uil~iz~ and $a~e~y O~ice. c~e Pia~nin$ and En$iuee~ln~ e~af~. XAlq~OND H. REGIS ~ef Fire Dep~rcme~C F~.anner Laura Cab~al, Fire Sa~e~y Spscial~st RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Apri~ 15, 1~gl "J.F. Davidson Annociatms, Inc. Pos~ OfFice Box 340 Tamecuba, CA 92390 Attention: Day10 B. Saari Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Parcel Map 25852 Plot Plan 224 City of Temecula You have sent us material regarding these casee for our "revtew as a Land Use case and as a land subdivision". We do not make floodproofing recommendations or write flood hazard reports for projects tn Incorporated cities. But it iS appropriate that we comment on Santa Ger~rudis Creek Channel since we are tnvolved with %he flood control aspects of Assessment Distrtct 161. We have recently approved the p~ans for Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. The channel will capture and saCely convey %he 100 year s~orm rundle in that stream when it has been constructed entirety according to plans, and when surrounding land developments have been brough~ up to grade as proposed. If the Dro~ec[ iS constructed in st&gas, as we underetand ia now being considered, additional study ~ould be necessary to determine its performance. It should also be noted that Assessment District 161 has not yet made application for a Conditional Letter of N&~ Revision (CLOMR) from the Federa~ Emergency Management Agency (FENA). Properties within the F£NA mapped floodplain will remain subject %o flood ~nsurance requirements until FEMA has t$sued& le~ter of Hap Revision (LOMR), and %he District cannot guarantee that FEMA ~tll find the proposed improvements acceptable. The D{atrtct ~ill not accept the Santa Ger[rudta Channel for operation end maintenance until it has been co~pleted, all necessary grading adjacent ~o ~he channel has been completed, and the improvements have been approval by FENA. C: City of Temecula Engineering Department Bedford Properties Attn: Grog Erickson RANPAC Attn: Chuck Collins H. KASHUBA enior Ctvil Engineer JHK-Dln April 23, 1991 Ranpac soils, Inc. 41710 Enterprise Circle south Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Christopher Krall Won $. ¥oo Subject: Gentlemen: Liquefaction Hazard Work Order No. 690-161 Plot Plan 224 A.P.N,: 910-110-029 County Geologic Report No. 793 City of Temecula We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled "Preliminar~ Geotechnical Investigation, Margarita Meadow--- Commercial Center, Winchester and Margarita Road, Temecula, CA. dated November 1, 1990. Your report determined that: The potential for liquefaction of the subsurface $oi1~ this site during a seismic event is considered to ~oderate. The most significant effect of liquefaction at the site would be settlement of ~he ground surface. Indicated settlement on the order of one inch would be possible on localized areas of the site. Differential settlement at the site from zero to one inch is likely to occur across distances of 300 feet or more. Other effects of liquefaction including loss of bearing Capacity, sandboils and lateral spreading are considered unlikely. Your report recommended that: LEMON STREET, ~JTH FLO~)R l~OR~:'~' ~:':' All foundations shall be constructed entirely in compacted fill. The depth of fill shall extend a minimum of two footing widths beneath the base of the footing withe minimum of 2 feet and maximum of 8 feet. The area of recompaction shall my%end five feet' outside the foundation.per~meter. ' ~"F/'33 COUNTRY' CLUB' O~iVF~U~ BFRMUDA DUNES, CALIFC' A 9; ((-, ~?.! FFiOI'I RIU F'LA).ItII!,I6 2. · ~ni~um of two, feet o~ rec~p~ted native ~oil~ ond/or · tatio live 1oado ~S 2000 ~Sf. A) lowable be.ring pre=cure m'~y be incroa~ ~ lO dap%h Up to maximum ~ 3500 p~. Concrot~ slab~ -on- ~ra~t~ shall ~av~ a ~n~um th;ckncso Ot 4 ~n(:hes nominal for lighCAy lo.,led It. is our oFin{on tna~ ~ re~or~ was m~ner and sat)~fies ~ho additional lnform-tion rcque~ted un~or California ~xv(ro~on%a% 9-~lity Aot rmvl~. Final aI~t,roval Ln Lhe act cone%ruction of ~h~ p~o~ct. ~ MENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8,P.O. BOX SAN I[~A~XNO, ~ 92402 TDD (714) 383-4609 PEri W]L.~O::, April 16, 1991 08-Riv-79-R2.86/R3.18 Planning Department Attention: Steve Jiannino City of Temecula 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 Your Reference: Plot Plan 224, Parcel Map 26852, Change of Zone 11 Dear Mr. Jiannino: An Encroachment Permit will be required for the proposed Grading, Signage and Landscaping within the State R/W. In addition, Caltrans' Development Review branch has the following concerns: ~he connection to State Highway 79 (SH 79) called out as a 50' .Driveway, approximately 1200 feet southwest of Margarita Road, must be a street connection, not a driveway, as shown on Permit application 90-1868 and as agreed to in several previous meetings between Caltrans personnel and JF Davidson engineers. Access to the proposed development must be taken off this local street, not off of the State highway. Perhaps the developer might consider a cul-de-sac configuration to accomplish this. The Traffic Study done for Assessment District 161 (widening of Winchester Road) by Kunzman and Associates did not study this intersection to determine the need for signalization. If signals are to be constructed, warrants must be met. The access shown approximately 500 feet southwest of margarita Road is intended to serve the Rancho California Water District property only. It may not be used as an additional access to the proposed development. Also, it must conform to the configuration shown on Permit application 90-1868 (see attached, highlighted mockup of that access point). The Water Dlstrict access shall be a Caltrans standard NS-A, Case A, type of driveway. Curb returns are not permitted. Details and elevations of the proposed Pylon Signage at the Slte Entry from SH 79 must be submitted a part of the Permit application package. In addition to the above-noted concerns, this office must see the following: a) b) c) d) e) f) Conditions of Approval Grading and drainage Plans (not conceptuals) A copy of any documents providing additional State R/W A copy of the Traffic Study A check print of the Parcel Map (not Tentative Map). The map need not be signed and recorded, but must be stamped with the City's "Stamp of Approval". A check print of any plans for improvements within the State R/W (including Landscaping Plans) If you should have any questions, please call Mr. Ahmad Salah or Mr. Mike Sim at (714) 383-4384. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Tim Chowdhury District Development Review Engineer STATE OF CALIFC~NIA~USINESS, TRANSPO~TATION AND ttOUSIt4G AGENCY DEPARTt~ENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT L P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 9240~ TDD (714) 3~3-~09 March 14, 1991 Planning Department City Hall City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 PETE WItSON. G4)~mmor Development Review 08-Riv~79-R3.180 Your Reference: PP 224/PM 26852/CZ 11 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed PP 224/PM 26852/CZ 11 located northwest corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road near Rancho Calif.ornia area. Please refer to the attached materi'al on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under additional comments. l'f 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. Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only. Final approval will be determined during the Encroachment Permit process. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro Saoud of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384. TII~ CHOWDHUR~ Chief, Development Review Branch Att ~lLTJX~,~*148 !~1~lT~I)~4~X~ it~VXmW FO3U4 I~TE ~F~ ItE~UEST THAT THE 'rTEHS CHECKED BE~W BE INCLUDED IN THE CO~ITION8 OF ~PPROV~L FOR THI~ PR~ECT~ / N~L STRUT IHPROVEHENTS TO PROVIDE ~ NALF--~IDTH ~ THE ~TATE HIGHWAY. CURB AND GUTTER, STATE STANDARD /~'/~-A, TYPg ,67~.--~ ALONG THE STATE HZGHWAY. PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGHMAY BY PAINTING THE CURB RED AND/C~ BY THE PROPER PLACEHENT OF NO PARKING SIGHS. RADIUS CURS RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS MITH THE STATE HIGHMAY. STATE STANDARD WHEELCHAIR RAHPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CURB RETURNS. A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LI#IT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHMAY · 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 STANDARD DRIVEWAYS. VEHICLR.AR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE PROVIDED WITHIN OF THE INTERSECTION AT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A ROAD-TYPE CONNECTION. VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST MITHIN THE STATE HIGHMAY RIGHT OF MAY. ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHMAY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A NANHER THAT WILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR NPH ALONG THE STATE NIGHMAY. LANDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHMAY SHALL PROVIDE FOR SAFE SIGHT DISTANCEv C~PLY MITH FIXED OSJECT SET SACK AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS· A LEFT--TURN LANE I INCLUDING SHOULDERS AND ANY NECESSARY MIDENINGi SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HIGHMAY . A TRAFFIC STIJOY INDICATING ON AND OFF--SITE FLON PATTERNS AND VOLLINES I PROBABLE INPACTS AND PROPOSED #1TIGATION NEASURES SHALL ~E PREPARED. PARKING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A NANHER THAT MILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHICULAR NOVENENT CONFLICTSI INCLUOING PARKING STALL ENTRANCE AND EXIT I MITHIN OF THE ENTRANCE FRON THE STATE NIGHMAY. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN I,'HEN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE STATE HIGHMAY. PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CUI4ULATIVE INCREASED STORN RUNOFF TO INSURE THAT A HIGHMAY DRAINAGE PROBLE# IS NOT CREATED. //PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL COHNENTS. PROVIDE TO APPLICANT. CONSTRUCTION/DENOLITIOR b/ITNIN PRESENT OR PROPOSED STATE RIGHT OF ~AY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS bIASTE ( I.E,ASBESTOS; PETROCNEMICALSI ETC, ) AND NITIGATED AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES. WHEN PLANS ARE SUBIdITTED/ PLEASE CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTACHED #HANDOUTfl. T#IS I~ILL EXPEDITE THE '-RE¥IEbr PROCESS AND TIME REQUIRED FOR PLAN CHECK. PROVTD1~- TO APP*r,TCAN~. ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THiS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICAHT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHgAY SYSTEM/ CONSIDERATZOR M~ST BE GIVEN TO THE CUHULATIVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. ANY MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE CL%4ULATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR UITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEM. CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIOR/ OR FUTURE PROVISION/ OF SIGNILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE INTERSECTIOI OF AND T~ STATE HIGHLY ~ I~TS AJ~ I~T. ~/TT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEH OF THE AREA. AHY MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAIHAGE IMPACTS SHALL BE INCLUDED b/ITH THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHgAY IS INCLUDED IN THE CALIFORNIA Z/-.ASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGHgAYS I~-LIGIBLE FOR OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHUAY ~SIGNATI~ AND IN THE FUTURE Y~R AGENCY ~Y UZSH TO HA~ THIS R~TE OFFICIALLY~- DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY. THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHgAY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC #IGHVAY I AND DEVELOP#E#T IN THIS CORRIDON SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE UITN THE SCENIC NIGHWAY CONCEPT. ~T IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVEL! ~-~ HIGHWAYS. ~ND DEVELOPMENT, IN ORDER TO BE C(3dPATIBLE gITH THIS CONCERN, HAY REQUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTENUAT. MEASURES. D~VELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTENUATION. CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 D~VELOPHENT REVlE~ BRANCH P.O. Box 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402 ~ A COPY OF ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL . //A COPY OF ANY DOCUMENTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATE NIGHWAY RIGHT OF ~AY UPON RECORDATION OF THE HAP. d~ // ANY PROPOSALS TO FURTHER DEVELOP TNIS PROPERTY. A CoPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRORHENTAL STUDY. ;/ A CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT NAP. //A CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE STATE NIGHWAY RIGHT OF UAY. //A CHECK PRINT OF THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY U14EN AVAILABLE. Date: March 13, 1991 Riv-79-R3.180 (Co-Rte-PM) PP 224/ PM 26852 / CZ 11 (Your Reference) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: We need cross-sections at 50 ft intervals, from 100 ft each side of the project limits, within state Right-Of-Way (R/W). The cross- sections must conform to the requirements of the attached "HANDOUT". The Caltrans Right-Of-Way (R/W) line must be shown and labeled on the next submittal. The driveways connections should be compatible with the existing and future road system of the area. The centerline of proposed driveway shown approximately 520 ft southwesterly of Margarita Road must be located and constructed as shown on PERMIT NO 90-1868, SHEET NO 5. The Rancho California water district property shall not have a separate access to state highway· Show the existing state stationing along the highway centerline according to the stations shown on PERMIT NO 90-1868. The Right-OF-Way in the Vicinity of Rancho California water district property does not agree with our record. The proposed driveway shown northwest of Winchester Road (HWY 79) must accommodate the DETECTOR SETBACK requirements (See attached sheet). State law requires Outdoor Advertising clearance for signs proposed adjacent to interstate and primary highways· Clearance must be obtained form: Highway Outdoor Advertising Branch California Department of Transportation 1120 N street Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 445-3337 D I .,,,,~,,~, ,.,..., ........ ,.. \~1~1~1/_ COUNTY OF SAN $ERNARDINI SAN BERNArDiNO c, uu, /y nnu t:u ,. GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY "'" "=' ' ' CA 23'4' ' =4 9 7 · 1714l 7911-6570 · 42 - I ,] ! ~//-~.-.~'~'~'-'4~ 't I I' } DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMER BCI General Contractors attn: Rick Finken 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Mr. Finken, At your request, the San Bernardino County Musetm~ has conducted a paleontologic assessment, including a seaz'ch of pertinent geologic literature, a review of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, and a field survey for parcel # 21361, a 29- acre parcel in Rancho California, Riverside County. The parcel is on the northwest side of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Franklin Avenue. Specifically, the parcel is within Township 7 South and Range 3 West. and if projected, falls within the southeast quarter of section 21, as shown on the Murrieta, CA 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadran.~le map. l Background Previous geologic mapping by Mann (1955) and Kennedy (1977) indicate that the parcel is located on recent. alluvitm~ and on or 'near the Pauba Formation. These authors report fossil · Pleistocene horse. The Pauba Formation overlies the Bi..~hop Ash and thus is less than 700,000 years BP. Review of the Le~ional Paleontolo~.ic Locality Inventory at the San Bernardino County Museum does not indicate that previous paleontologic resource a~sessment. s have been conducted for the Temecula parcel and that no paleontolo.~ic localities are recorded within one mile of the parcel. However, more than 200 paleontolo~ic resource localities are known from the Pauba Formation in ~he Murrieta-Temecula area. The Pauba Formation unconformably overlies the Unnamed Sandstone. The faunal a~sembla~e from the Pauba Formation in the Temecula- Murrieta area, $%m~arized ~,elow, suggests a late ]rvin~tonian/early Ranchola~,rean LMA in contrast to the ear]y- late Irvin~tonian fauna from the Unnamed Sandstone in the California Oaks area (Reynolds and Reynolds, 1990). imperial manm%oth mastodon large camel llama pron6horn deer large horse small horse Jack rabbit. cottontail shrew squirrel kangaroo rat pocket gopher deer nlOklse wood rat. vole king sna]¢e rattlesnake pond turtle toad chub fish land snail Methods The field assessment was conducted on May 3, 1991, by Quintin Lake, Museuuu Tech I I of the San Bernardino County Museums. He ha-~ had previous experience in [:,aleontoloEic resource assessments and salvage in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Parcel # 21361 was inspected by foot traverses at. api:,ro:.:imatel¥ 30 meter intervals. Recent. alluvi%m~ was verified to occur on the parcel in association with the Santa Gertrudis stream bed as was the presence of coarse to mediums-grained sands interpreted to · represent the Pauba Formation. Results and Recommendations Available geologic literature describes the Pauba Formation as fossiliferous. Resource localities in the ReEional Paleontolo~ic Locality Inventory indicate that the Pauba Formation is very fossiliferous in the Murrieta-Temecula area. Construction excavation has high potential to impact significant, nonrenewable paleontologic resources on the Temecula parcel. The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to- ~develop a proEram of mitiEation for the parcel which will conform to the Euidelines of CEQA and Riverside County. The impact mitiEation program must include, but not be limited to: 1. MonitorinE of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitor. The monitor should be equipped to salvaEe fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil mammals. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert e~ipment to allow removal of abundant or larEe specimens. The most cost-efficient method of salvage of small fossils is to remove sediments containinE the fossils to ~ stockpiles offsite. The fossils can be removed by screen washi elsewhere while excavation continues on site. Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 17, 1991 Case No.: Change of Zone No. 11 Plot Plan No. 22~ Parcel Map No. 26852 Prepared By: Steve Jiannino That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 11, Plot Plan No. 22~, and Parcel Map No. 26852; 0 ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 11 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report; ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Plot Plan No. 22~ based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Parcel Map No. 26852 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: A: PP22~ Bedford Development Co. J.F. Davidson Associates and Herron F, Rumansoff Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C- P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on 2~ acres of a 97.3 acre site, construction of a 1~9,500 square feet commercial center on 19.7 acres and subdivide 97.3 acres into 13 parcels with two remainder parcels. Northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: SWAP DESIGNATION: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: R-R (Rural Residential) North: R-R South: R- R East: R-R West: R - R ( Rural Residential) ( Rural Residential ) ( Rural Residential ) ( Rural Residential) C-P-S ( Scenic Highway Commercial) Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant/Industrial Commercial Vacant Vacant Vacant C I Commercial ) Project Area: No. of Lots: Proposed Zone Change: No. of Buildings: Total Building Square Footage: Total Parking Provided: Total Parking Required: Buildings are Proposed on Lots: 97.32 acres 13 + 2 remainders C-P-S on Lots 1-13 3 149.696 sq.ft. 859 spaces 749 spaces and 13 The Change of Zone, Parcel Map and Plot Plan were submitted to the City Planning Department February 20, 1991. The Plot Plan was requested previously, but could not be processed without the zone change due to the fact that the proposed use was not consistent with the R-R zoning. The project has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee {DRC), both at a Pre-DRC and a Formal DRC meeting. This site is within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 161. Construction has begun on the first phase development of the Assessment District. This construction includes the widening of Winchester Road between Margarita and Ynez Roads, along with the Santa Gertrudis Creek Flood Channel improvements. The project has involved negotiations with CalTrans on the location and access to driveways along Winchester Road. CalTrans has also been involved A:PP224 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: in the discussions involving the signalization of the two intersections shown on Plot Plan No. 22L[. The applicant has received approval of the proposed improvements and signalization for Winchester Road as proposed for Plot Plan No. 22~. This project proposes a Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential) to C-P-S {Scenic Highway Commercial) on 2q acres, on proposed Lots 1-13 of Parcel Map No. 26852, to subdivide 97.3 acres into 13 parcels with two remainder parcels and to construct three retail commercial buildings totaling 1~9,696 square feet on Lots ~, 7 and 13 of Parcel Map No. 26852 located on the northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads. Chanqe of Zone No. 11 Change of Zone No. 11 proposes a change in zoning classification from R-R to C-P-S on 2~ acres fronting the north side of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and RCWD well site No. 108. The Southwest Area Plan {SWAP) designation for the area is C, Commercial. The proposed C-P-S zoning is consistent with the SWAP designation. An industrial park development has been constructed to the northwest of the site and the proposed regional mall is being processed to the south across Winchester Road. Winchester Road is being improved as part of Assessment District No. 161 to a 13~ foot right-of-way urban arterial. The Assessment District is also responsible for the construction of flood control drainage ways and main sewer lines, The first phase of the construction has begun with major infrastructure being done around this site, Parcel Map No. 26852 Parcel Map No. 26852 is a proposal for a 13 lot commercial subdivision of the 2~ acres fronting the north side of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and RCWD well site No. 108 with two large remainder parcels on a 97 acre site. The 13 parcels cover the same area as being proposed for Change of Zone No. 11, The remainder parcels are separated from the other lots by Santa Gertrudis Creek and Margarita Road, A: PP22~ 3 The site is within the boundaries of Assessment District No. 161. The Assessment District was formed to provide major infrastructure improvements along Winchester road within the City and County boundaries. The first phase of construction for the Assessment District is already under way. The first phase improvements include construction of Winchester Road from Margarita Road to Ynez Road, the channelization of Santa Gertrudis Creek, and portions of Margarita Road. These improvements provide necessary infrastructure for the construction of the proposed commercial center within the proposed Parcel Map boundaries. The proposed access points for the parcels have been tentatively approved by CaITrans. The remainder of the frontage along Winchester Road would have restricted access. The access points also provide access to Rancho California Water well sites. The developer will also record reciprocal access and maintenance agreements between the parcels for access, drainage and parking facilities. The proposed Parcel Map conforms to the proposed development for Plot Plan No. 22~ and possible future development along the Winchester Road frontage. Development is currently being proposed for Parcels ~, 7 and 13, with the other parcels being available for future development. The City is requesting a 2S feet wide easement along Winchester Road for a future transportation corridor as required by SWAP. The applicant is protesting this requirement since it does not exist on current developments and will not be easily obtained in some areas. The 25 feet is not a requirement of CalTrans, it is a part of the adopted SWAP Transportation Plan. Plot Plan No. 22q Plot Plan No. 22~ proposes the construction of a 1~9,696 square feet commercial center. The project consists of 3 buildings with a major building being 115,280 square feet. The proposed tenant for this building is Costco. The other buildings are 23,916 and 10,500 square feet. The proposal provides for two access points on Winchester and Margarita Roads. The access points on Winchester Road have been tentatively approved A: PP22~ ~ GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: by CaITrans with the access drive closest to Margarita providing access to RCWD well site No. 110 and the project. The proposed development complies with current code development standards in regards to parking and interior traffic circulation. The site design has been reviewed by City Staff at Pre and Formal Development Review Committee meetings. The applicant has addressed Staff~s concerns regarding the site design for the project. The applicant made modification to the parking layout and eliminated the proposed development along Winchester Road at StafPs request. Staff had concerns regarding the free standing pad concept originally proposed along Winchester Road. A Plot Plan application or other appropriate City application will be required to be processed and approved prior to any building construction on any parcels other than Parcels ~, 7 and 13 of Parcel Map No. 26852. The overall circulation and access points to Winchester and Margarita Roads are being established with this development. The proposed architecture for the project is Neo Mediterranean incorporating the use of stucco, concrete tile roof treatment, concrete block, parapet wall and archways. The applicant is providing architectural treatment to the building by the use of plant-on features to provide movement in the flat building face. The increased architectural treatment is being provided on the elevations that face the public right-of-way. The project is consistent with the SWAP designation of C [Commercial) and 2-5 DU/AC Idwelling units per acre). The area encompassing Change of Zone No. 11 and Plot Plan No. 22t~ is designated C ~ Commercial ), while the area designated 2-5 DU/AC is the remainder portion of Parcel Map No. 26852. The remainder area designated as 2-5 DU/AC is a part of Specific Plan no. 255 which is currently being processed by the City. The proposed Parcel Map, Zone Change and Plot Plan are consistent with other proposed developments along Winchester Road. As such, it is likely that Change of Zone No. 11, Parcel Map No. 26852 and Plot Plan No. 224 will be consistent with the ultimate City General Plan when it is adopted. A: PP22t~ 5 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMI NAT ION: FINDINGS: Pursuant to applicable portions of the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA), an Initial Environmental Assessment was prepared for the project. Based on the assessment, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is being recommended for adoption. Chanqe of Zone No. 11 The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Mitigated 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, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding proposed development, zoning, and SWAP. 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, due to the fact that the project is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists or is being provided in the area including commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C { Commercial ). The zone change will be beneficial by providing an area for needed services and employment. A: PP22~ 6 FINDINGS: Parcel 1. e Map no. 26852 The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Mitigated 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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding proposed development, zoning and SWAP. 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,due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding proposed development. The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. ~60, Schedule E. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and sufficient building area. The design 'of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat 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 due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure with passive or active solar possibilities. A:PP22~ 7 FINDINGS: 10. 11. 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 Winchester and Margarita Roads. 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. The lawful conditions stated in the project's Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Plot Plan No. 22q There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 224 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goats and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3q8, q60; and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 {Planning and Zoning Law). A: PP22q 8 Be e 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. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping are provided; as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the proposed structure, reference proposed Plot Plan No. 22~, Exhibit E of the Staff Report. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect the public health or welfare; nor will it adversely impact the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment of this proposal. Reference the attached project Conditions of Approval and Initial Environmental Study. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations, and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposal~s general vicinity. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project site~s primary frontage is on Winchester Road, a dedicated CaiTrans right-of-way. Improvement of the abutting roadways shall be as per the City Engineering Department and CalTrans. The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. None are exhibited on the underlying parcel map, nor are easements evident on deedi s) describing the property in question. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. A: PP22~ 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ~-~ Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 11, Plot Plan No. 22q, and Parcel Map No. 26852; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 11 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report; ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending approval of Plot Plan No. 22L~ based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and ADOPT Resolution 91- recommending approval of Parcel Map No. 26852 based on the Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SJ :ks Attachments: 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. Resolution for Change of Zone No. 11 Resolution for Parcel Map No. 26852 Conditions of Approval for Parcel Map No. 26852 Resolution for Plot Plan No. 22~ Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 22~ Initial Study Exhibits A. Vicinity Map B. SWAP Map C. Change of Zone No. 11 D. Parcel Map E. Plot Plan F. Elevations A:PP22~ 10 CZ-11 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ZONE NO. 11 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R IRURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO C-P-S ISCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-110-029, 031; 910-180-026, 027; AND 910-130-028, 029, 031. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Change of Zone No. 11 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Change of Zone application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Change of Zone on June 17, 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 Change of Zone; NOW, THEREFORE. THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE. DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findincls. That the City of 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: PP22~ 11 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 Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Change of Zone, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Change of Zone will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is compatible with the surrounding proposed development, zoning, and SWAP. c) 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, due to the fact that the project is compatible with surrounding development and improvements. A: PP22q. 12 CZ-11 d) The site is physically suited for the proposed Change of Zone in that required infrastructure exists or is being provided in the area including commercial roadways, drainage facilities, and main sewer and water lines. e) The proposed Change of Zone is consistent with the SWAP designation of C { Commercial ). The zone change will be beneficial by providing an area for needed services and employment. D. The Change of Zone is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project when determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which 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 recommends approval of Zone Change No. 11 to change the zoning on 2q acres of land from R-R { Rural Residential ) to C-P-S { Scenic Highway Commercial) on property located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads. SECTION i~. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN A: PP22~ 13 CZ-11 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof. held on the 17th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNI NG COMMISSIONERS A: PP22q. I ?~-26852 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 26852 TO SUBDIVIDE A 97.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO 13 PARCELS AND 2 REMAINDER PARCELS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROADS. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Parcel Map No. 26852 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 June 17, 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 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: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. 12) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: A: PP22~ 15 P~-26852 ~. a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed wilt 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 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. 12) 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. 26852 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. A: PP22q. 16 P~-26852 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: 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. A: PP22t~ 17 PH-26852 ~ (2) The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, makes the following findings, to wit: a) The proposed Parcel Map will not have significant negative impact on the environment, as determined in the Initial Study performed for the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for adoption. b) There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the General Plan being prepared at this time, due to the fact that the project is consistent with the surrounding proposed development. zoning and SWAP, c) 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,due to the fact that the project is consistent with surrounding proposed development. d) The proposed use complies with State planning and zoning law due to the fact that the project conforms to the current zoning for the site and to Ordinance No. ~60, Schedule E. e) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configurations, access, and density due to the fact that the project has access to public roads and sufficient building area. f) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as determined in the initial study. A: PP22~ 18 PH-26852 g) The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities due to the fact that the lots are large enough to provide sufficient southern exposure with passive or active solar possibilities. h) 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 Winchester and Margarita Roads. i) 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. 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. An Initial Study was performed for this project when determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because impacts will be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. A: PP22~4 19 P~-26852 ~ SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Parcel Map No. 26852 for the subdivision of a 97.3 acre parcel into 13 parcels located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 3, attached hereto. SECTION PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 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 17th day of June, 1991 bythe following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANN I NG COMMISSIONERS A: PP22~ 20 PH-26852 ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Parcel Map No: 26852 Project Description: 1L~ Lot Commercial Subdivision with 2 Remainders, on 97 acres located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Marqarita Roads· Assessor's Parcel No.: 911-180-026 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 t~60. The expiration date is . 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 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. Provide reciprocal access, parking, drainage and maintenance agreements between all the parcels through an REA or CCF, R~s prepared by the applicant, reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Attorney. Document to be recorded with the final map. A: PP22~ 21 ?M-26852 ~ 10. 11. 12. 13. The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated April 2t~, 1991, 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 15, 1991, a copy of which is attached. If the project lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of City of Temecula Land Division Ordinance ~60, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated March 7, 1991, 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: 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. 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 Department. The following notes shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: ae "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." be "A Liquefaction Hazard Report ~County Geologic Report No. 793) has been done for this site and is on file in the Planning Department." A: PP22~ 22 PN-26852 15. 16. 17. Construction excavation has high potential to impact significant, nonrenewable paleontologic resources. A qualified vertebrate paleontologist must be retained to develop a mitigation program prior to issuance of grading permits. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING 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: ao 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. All utility service areas view with landscaping treatments, as approved be placed underground. and enclosures shall be screened from and decorative barriers or baffle by the Planning Director. Utilities shall de Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. ee Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. fe All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 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. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated May 6, 1991. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: A: PP22~I 23 PR-26852 18. 19. 20. 21. 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. be Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. be All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. 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. 26852, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66t~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 utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. A: PP22q PM-26852 22. 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 I $1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4td){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 148) 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 711.41c). 23. Dedicate right-of-way along Winchester Road along remainder parcel. The applicant shall comply with recommendations set forth in the County Geologist transmittal dated April 23, 1991. 25. A 25 foot wide transportation corridor easement shall be dedicated along Winchester Road. 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. 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 RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 28. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water Oistrict; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; A: PP224 25 P~-26852 ~" 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; CalTrans; and Parks and Recreation Department. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Margarita Road from Highway 79 to the proposed bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek shall be improved with full improvements or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 ~86~/110'). In the event that Winchester Road IHighway 79) is not constructed by Assessment District 161 prior to the final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 18 foot lane per CaITrans Standard {110t/134t). The improvements shall be constructed per CalTrans letter dated March 14, prior to occupancy. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Winchester Road {Highway 79) and Margarita Road and so noted on the final map with the exception of access points and public street intersections as approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Final Map. A: PP224 26 37. 38. PN-26852 Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. A Notice of Intention to form and/or join the Landscape and Lighting District shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in District information shall be borne by the developer. 39. Notice of intention to join the median island Landscape Maintenance District shall be filed with the City Council. The engineering costs involved in District information shall be borne by the developer. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, 'curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping { street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. All trails, as required by the City~s Master Plans. f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in . accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. 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. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering Department. A: PP22t~ 27 PR-26852 ~8. ~9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards as determined by the City Engineer and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401 .I curb sidewalk). The subdivider shall submit two 12) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24~ x 36~ mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 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 A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The subdivider shall submit two {2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating ~Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions. ~' As deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. A: PP224 28 PH-26852 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. L~60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula regarding flood damage protection for development within a Flood Zone ~'A~, which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. The developer shall record an Environmental Constraint Sheet delineating the area within the 100-year floodplain. Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street improvements. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 63. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office. 65. 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. 66. Prior to any work being performed, an application for a Development Permit shall be submitted per Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula. All requirements of this ordinance shall be complied with as directed and approved by the City Engineer. 67. 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. A: PP22~ 29 P~-26852 68. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Winchester Road (Hiqhway 79) 69. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way, 70. Should this project lie within any assessment/benefit district, the applicant shall prior to recordation make application for and pay for their reapportionment of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the benefit district unless said fees are deferred to building permit. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT: 71. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 72. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 73. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EI R/ Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated |assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. A: PP22a 30 ~M-26852 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 75. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. 76. Asphaltic emulsion {fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~ days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section Nos. 37, 39, and 9~ of the State Standard Specifications. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 77. A signing and striping plan shall be under design by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by CalTrans and the City Engineer for Winchester Road I Highway 79) and Margarita Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans as determined by the City Engineer. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 78. All signing and striping shall be installed and functional per the approved plans and as approved in the field by CalTrans and the City Engineer. A: PP22t~ 31 _NNKT~ ~. FD',~.~,~ D" RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT April 15, 1991 J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc, Post Office Box 340 Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: David B. Saari Ladies and Gentlemen: Parcel HaD 26852 Plot Plan 224 City Of Temecula You have sent us material regarding these cases for our 'review as a Land Use case and as a land subdivision". We do not make floodproofing recommendations or write flood hazard reports for projects in incorporated cities. But it i$ appropriate that we comment on Santa Ger:rudts Creek Channel since we are involved with the flood control aspects of Assessment District 161. We have recently approved the plans for Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel. The channel will capture and safely convey the 100 year storm runoff in that stream when it has been constructed in its entirety according to plans, and when surrounding land developments have been brought up to grade as proposed. Zf %he project is constructed in stages, as we understand ia now being considered, additional study would be necessary %o determine its performance. c: City of Temecula It should also be noted that Assessment District 161 has not yet made application for a Conditional Letter of Na~ Revision (CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FENA). Properties within the FEMA mapped floodplain will remain subject ~o flood insurance requirements until FEMA has issued a letter of Map Revision (LOMR), and the District cannot guarantee t~a: FENA will find the proposed improvements acceptable. The Dtatrto~ will not accept the Sanl;a Gertrudis Channel for operation and maintenance until it has been completed, all necessary grading adjacent ~o the channel has been completed, and the i~rovemen%s have been approval by FEMA. 'trull~ ~=ry I~enior Civil Engineer Engineering Department Bedford Properties Attn: Greg Erickson RANPAC Attn: Chuck Collins JHK:pln F.'.IU C).IT? F'L~HNINI3 [:'EF'T, 04,2~, 19.%1 April 23, 1991 Ranpac Soils, Inc. 41710 Entergri~e Circle South Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Christopher Krall Won $. ~oo subject: Gentlemen: Liquefaction Hazard Work Order No. 690-161 Plot Plan 224 A..P.N.: 910-110-029 County Geologic Report No. 793 City of Temecula We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled .'Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Margarita Meadows Commercial Center, Winchester and Margarita Road, Temecula, CA," dated November 1, 1990. Your report determined that: 1. The potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils at this site during a seismic event is considered to be moderate. The most significant effect of liquefaction at the site would be settlement of the ground surface. Indicated settlement on the order of one inch would be possible on localized areas of the site. Differential settlement at the site from zero to one inch is likely to occur across distances of 300 feet or more. 3; Other effects of liquefaction including loss of bearing capacity, sand boils and lateral spreading are considered' unlikely. Your report recommended that: All foundations shall be constructed entirely in compacted fill. The depth of fill shall extend a minimum of ~wo footing widths beneath the base of the footing witha minimum of 2 feet and maximum of 8 feet. The area of recompaction shall extend five feet' outside the foundation,per,meter. " '40R~ LE~,'ON STREET, 'gTH FLOOR I~OR,~.;" 97" :79733' COUNTRY' 'CLUB' DRivE; 'suRE "" BERMUDA 'DUNES, CALIF~RNIA'922C (r..' ."': .~2.82T ' & ~n~nu~ o~ ~ua feet o~ zec~p~ted native ~oi~s ond/or Ct'mtinuouG footings shall ~ ~ minimum 12 inches wid~ and 1~ inohos ~1ow lowest adjacen~ grade. zs.l ated ~ooting~ d~p~h up ~. Concrete s~abs -0~- Fill ~1opes o~all b* 9:opeCl~ keye~, be.ch~8 and compactea with ~ain~ge deviceG u~s+.allc~ in ~(:cocdanco wl~h Chapter vO o~ th~ latos~ ~J fol~ Bulldi-~j Codc and Appe~d{w B ot ~0~ report, IL is our oFin{.on ~a~ ~e repor~ wa~ prepared in ~ compo~enk ~nner and sat i~fies ~ho addit CaliEornim ~tv~ co~on~a~ The roco~ndation~ ~d~ in your repOr~ ~or mitiga~ton of conc~ru~J. nn of ~e Vo~ ~ru~y ~ou~ do~oph A~ard~. ~',~q Dl~ctnr _ ~tev~. k~ ~up~o=~, ~n~ne~l.~ Oeoloqi.t cm-320~ / ~:: City or T~m~ula, ~lw,.Sng -'b~evo 3in.nifo EATQf CALIFOPd{~A -~U$IN~S. TRAN,~PORTATION ANf, HOUSING AGENCY PARTMENT OF TRANSP0~TATI~N DISTRICT 8,P.O. BOX 23~ SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402 TDD (714) 383-4609 April 16, 1991 08-Riv-79-R2.86/R3.18 Planning Department Attention: Steve Jiannino City of Temecula 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 Your Reference: Plot Plan 224, Parcel HaD 26852, Change of Zone 11 Dear Mr. Jiannino: An Encroachment Permit will be required for the proposed Grading, Signage and Landscaping within the State R/W. In addition, Caltrans' Development Review branch has the following concerns: ~he connection to State Highway 79 (SH 79) called out as a 50' Driveway, approximately 1200 feet southwest of Margarita Road, must be a street connection, not a driveway, as shown on Permit application 90-1868 and as agreed to in several previous meetings between Caltrans personnel and JF Davidson engineers· Access to the proposed development must be taken off this local street, not off of the State highway· Perhaps the developer might consider a cul-de-sac configuration to accomplish this· The Traffic Study done for Assessment District 161 (widening of Winchester Road) by Kurtzman and Associates did not study this intersection to determine the need for signalization. If signals are to be constructed, warrants must be met. The access shown approximately 500 feet southwest of margarita Road is intended to serve the Rancho California Water District property only. It may not be used as an additional access to the proposed development. Also, it must conform to the configuration shown on Permit application 90-1868 (see attached, highlighted mockup of that access point). The Water District access shall be a Caltrans standard N8-A, Case A, type of driveway. Curb returns are not permitted. Details and elevations of the proposed Pylon Signage at the Slte Entry from SH 79 must be submitted a part of the Permit application package. In addition to the above-noted concerns, this office must see the following: a) b) c) d) e) f) Conditions of Approval Grading and drainage Plans (not conceptuals) A copy of any documents providing additional State R/W A copy of the Traffic Study A check print of the Parcel Map (not Tentative Map). The map need not be signed and recorded, but must be stamped with the City's "Stamp of Approval". A check print of any plans for improvements within the State R/W (including Landscaping Plans) If you should have any questions, please call Mr. Ahmad Salah or Mr. Mike Sim at (714) 383-4384. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Tim Chowdhury District Development Review Engineer STATE Of CALIFOI~NIA--SUSINES~, TRANSPOI~TATION AND HOU~NG AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN ~RNARDINO, CALIFOI~NIA 92402 ?DD (714) 383-4609 March 14, 1991 PETE WILSON, Governor Development Review 08-Riv-79-R3.180 Your Reference: PP 224/PM 26852/CZ 11 Planning Department City Hall City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed PP 224/PM 26852/CZ 11 located northwest corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road near Rancho California area. 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 Calftans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only. Final approval will be determined during the Encroachment Permit process. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro Saoud of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384. TIM CHOWDHUR]~ Chief, Development Review Branch Art ~T.I~A,1L!IB DIL'VI~?."~lVlI~I~ .~IL'~XIL'W ]POP.]( YOUR ~;~.E FERENCE PLAN CHECKER DATE WE REC~UEST THAT THE TTRKS CHECKED BELOW BR INCLUDED IN TILB CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THT8 PRO~ECT~ // / NONHAL RIGHT OF ~AY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE ~*~' HALF--~dIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHlaAY. / NC~HAL STREET II4PROVEHEHTS TO PROVIDE .~" HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY. CURB AND GUTTER, STATE STANDARD /~/",,jO_/z~7, TYPI~. ,/q,~_--c~ ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY. PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE HIGIMAY BY PAINTING THE CURS RED AND/ON BY THE PROPER PLACEHENT OF NO PARKING SIGNS. RADIUS CURB RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS WITH THE STATE HIGHt~AY. STATE STANDARD WHEELCHAIR RAJ4PS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN T#E CURB RETURNS. A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVZDED TO LIHIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGmdAY. 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 HIGHtsAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY STANDARD DRIVEtiAYS. VEHIO. ILAR ACCESS S~L NOT BE PROVIDED WITHIN OF THE INTERSECTION AT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL. 8E PROVIDED BY A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTZON. VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST tilTHIN T#E STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF tiAY. ~/_/ ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A .ANNER THAT WILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FO~ ~' MPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHtsAY. /~-/"' ~[a~NDSCAPING ALONG THE STATE HIGHtdAY SHALL PROVIDE FOR SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE~ CONPLY WITH FIXED OBJECT SET 8AC~: AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS. A LEFT--TURN LANE, INCLIJOING SHOULDERS AND ANY NECESSARY WIDENING F SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HIGHWAY. -- A TRAFFIC STUOY iNOICATING ON AND OFF--SiTE FLOla PATTERNS AND VOLUHESv PROBABLE IHPACTS AND PROPOSED NITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE PREPARED. PARKING SHALL BE DEVELOPED iN A HARBER THAT WiLL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHICULAR HOVEldENT CONFLICTS~ ZNCLUOING PARKING STALL ENTRANCE AND EXIT, WiTHiN OF THE ENTRANCE FRON THE STATE #IGHVAY. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN ~EN DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE ANO PERPETUATE THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE STATE HIGHWAY. PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SGLD BE GIVEN TO CtJ!ULATIVE INCREASED STORH RUNOFF TO ZN~RE THAT A HIGIfi~AY DRAINAGE PRC)SLEH iS NOT CREATED. //PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL COII4ENTS. PI~OVTD~ TO APPT.~'C,~,)TT. CONSTRUCTION/DEHOLITION WITHIN PRESENT OR PROPOSED STATE RIGHT OF gAY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE ( ! .E.ASBESTOS; PETROCHENICALS; ETC. ) ANO NITIGATED AS PER REQUIREHENTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES. WHEN PLANS ARE SUBNITTED; PLEASE CONFORN TO THE REQUIRENENT$ OF THE ATTACHED IIHANDOUTIt. THIS giLL EXPEDITE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND TINE REGUIRED FOR ~LAN C.ECK. PROVIDE TO APPLICANT. ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEA~ TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEN, CONSIDERATION gUST BE GIVEN TO THE CUI~ULATIVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED DEVELOPHINT IN THIS AREA. ANY HEASURES NECESSARY TO #1TIGATE THE CUHULATIVE INPACT OF TRAFFZC AND/OR DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR gITH DEVELOP/dENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEN. CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISZON; OR FUTURE PROVISION; OF SlGNILIZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE INTERSECTI(:N OF AM) THE STATE HIGhMAY ~EN la%~JadTS A~ HIT. L/IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFZC AND/OR DRAZRAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HZGHWAY SYSTEN OF THE AREA. ANY MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE INPACTS SHALL BE INCLUDED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY Z$ IHCLUOED IN THE CALIFORNIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGHgAYS ELIGIBLE FOR OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHgAY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY )lAY giSH TO HAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHgAY. THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY; AND DEVELOP/dENT ZN THIS CORRIDOR SHOULD BE CONPATIBLE gITH THE SCENIC HIGHgAY CONCEPT. IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN AB(~JT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVELLED HIGHWAYS. T. AND DEVELOPMENT ~ IN ORDER TO BE CONPATIBLE WITH THIS CONCERN; MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES. DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTEguATZOR. CALTRANS DISTRICT 8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ]~RANCH P.O. Box 231 SAN B~RRARDI#O, CA 92402 COPY OF ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL . //A COPY OF ANY DQCUI4ENTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATE HIGIMAY RIGHT OF gAY UPON RECORDATION OF THE NAP. ANY PROPOSALS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY . A COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIR~NTAL SHY. // A CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT )lAP. //A CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY INPROVEHENTS WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE STATE HIGIMAY RIGHT OF gAY. /~t~ CHECK PRINT. OF THE (~RADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY gNEN AVAILABLEo Date: March 13, 1991 Riv-79-R3.180 (Co-Rte-PM) PP 224/ PM 26852 / CZ 11 (Your Reference) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: We need cross-sections at 50 ft intervals, from 100 ft each side of the project limits, within state Right-Of-Way (R/W). The cross- sections must conform to the requirements of the attached "HANDOUT". The Caltrans Right-Of-Way (R/W) line must be shown and labeled on the next submittal. The driveways connections should be compatible with the existing and future road system of the area. The centerline of proposed driveway shown approximately 520 ft southwesterly of Margarita Road must be located and constructed as shown on PERMIT NO 90-1868, SHEET NO 5. The Rancho California water district property shall not have a separate access to state highway. Show the existing state stationing along the highway centerline according to the stations shown on PERMIT NO 90-1868. The Right-OF-Way in the Vicinity of Rancho California water district property does not agree with our record. The proposed driveway shown northwest of Winchester Road (HWY 79) must accommodate the DETECTOR SETBACK requirements (See attached sheet)· State law requires Outdoor Advertising clearance for signs proposed adjacent to interstate and primary highways. Clearance must be obtained form: Highway Outdoor Advertising Branch California Department of Transportation 1120 N street Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 445-3337 l l 0 0 0 ~ 0 u~ ~J ~. CD C~ GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERKIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 March 7, 1991 TO: ATTN: RE: City of Temecula Planning Department CZ 11 & PM 26852 The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments regarding the above referenced projects. All fire protection requirements will be addressed on related Plot Plan 224. 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/tm [-'1 INDIO OFFICE 79.733 Country Club Drive. Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 · FAX (619) 775-2072 PLANNING DIVISION [~ RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Sm~ Rive~sidg, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 · FAX (714) 369-7451 [~ TEMECULA OFFICE 41002 County Center DHve, Suite 225, Tcmecula, CA 92390 (714) 694-5070 · FAX (714) 694-5076 ~ ~'/nted on recycled paper County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TI: C.[TY OF TEMECULA TN: . Steve .3~annlno NE: F'APECL ~AP NO. DATE: Health :SDec~ai:st [V 04-24-91 The Environmental Health Services Division ha~ reviewed the Parcel MaD ~o. 2~$2 for this prosect and c~nnot make ~nv ~ec©mmend~tlons tinill a sanlt~tlOn letter ~ flied. The requxrement~ for a SAN $3 letter A sat~factorv 50115 Derco!at~on test to A clearance letter from the appropriate :?a. ilforn*.a Feqional Water Oua!itv Control Board. NOTE: For pro.loots w~th~n the San Diego Water Quality Control Board 5Dhe~~ of ~ · _ .n, luence. ~ written clearance a SAN 53. Two copies of the Parcel Map. A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water. S o Should the pro3ect be served sanitary sewer services, this Department would need only: A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water and sanitary sewers. One copy of the tentative map, If the oroject l~ to be served water by existing wells, Dumps and water tanks, a water supply permit w~!l be required frontact the EHSD, Engineering Section at 275- 8980) . The requirements for a water supply permit a~ follows: C~t¥ ,?f Temecuia Page Two ATTN: Steve .31annlno Aprll 24. 199i SM:dr !Satz~facLorv laboratury te~t~ ~bac%er!olcglcal, or~lan~c, IrLcrganlc. General physical, .and qeneral m~neral) to Drove the water Dotable. A complete set of plans showing all ~e%a~ls of the proposed and existing water systems: slzes and tvpes of pipe and calculations ~how~ng that adequa-te cuantltv and pressure can be malntalned (Callfornla Waterworks Standards - Cal%fornla Health and ~Safety Code and California administrative Code, Title 2°) These plan5 must be s~gned by a rejlstered civ1¢ engineer. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM GE,ERAL SERV,CES AGE,C', ~ Orange ,,.. Line · ..dl.ds, CA 92374 (714} 798-8570 422-161C ,, -- ~~" 'I ~:. DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMER ~' I; ~/~//I.t[~% f. ~ : Director BCI General Contractors attn: Rick Finken 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 PALEONTOLOGIC ASSESSMENT, PARCEL MAP # Z1361, RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY Dear Mr. Finken, At your request, the San Bernardino County MuseLm] has conducted a paleontologic assessment, including a search of pertinent geologic literature, a review of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, and a field survey for parcel # 21361, a 29- acre parcel in Rancho California, Riverside County. The parcel is on the northwest side of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Franklin Avenue. Specifically, the parcel is within Township 7 South and Range 3 West and i~ projected, falls within the southeast quarter of sectio,] 21, as shown on the Murrieta, CA 7.5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle map. Background Previous geologic mapping by Mann (1955) and Kennedy (1977) indicate that the parcel is located on recent alluvitm~ and on or 'near the Pauba Formation. These authors report fossil Pleistocene horse. The Pauba Formation overlies the Bi.shop Ash and thus is less than 700,000 years BP. Review of the Legional Paleontologic Locality Inventory at the San Bernardino County Museum does not indicate that previous paleontologic resource a~sessments ]]ave been conducted for the Temecula parcel and that no paleontolosic localities are recorded within one mile of the parcel. However, more than 200 paleontologic resource localities are known from the Pauba Formation in the Murrieta-Temecula area. The Pauba Formation unconformably overlies the Unnamed Sandstone. The faunal a.Asembla~e from the Pauba Formation in the Temecula- Murrieta area, summarized below, suggests a late Irvinttonian/earl¥ Rancholabrean LMA in contrast to the early- late Irvingtonian fauna froin the Unn~%med Sandstone in the California Oaks area (Reynolds and Reynolds, 1990). imperial manm~oth mastodon large camel llama pronghorn deer large horse small horse Jack rabbit cottontail shrew squirrel kangaroo rat pocket gopher deer nlouse wood rat. vole king snake rattlesnake pond turtle toad chub fish land snail Methods The field assessment was conducted on May 3, 1991, by Quintin Lake, Musetun Tech I I of the San Bernardino County Museum. He has had previous experience in paleontologic resource assessments and salvage in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Parcel # 21361 was inspected by foot traverses at approximately 30 meter intervals. Recent alluvi%m~ was verified to occur on the [--,arcel in association with the Santa Gertrudis stream bed as was the ~ presence of coarse to mediums-grained sands interpreted to · rer,resent the Pauba Formation. Results and Recommendations Available geologic literature describes the Pauba Formation as fossiliferous. Resource localities in the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory indicate that the Pauba Formation is very fossiliferous in the Murrieta-Temecula area. Construction excavation has high potential to impact significant, nonrenewable paleontologic resources on the Temecula parcel. The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to' ~develop a program of mitigation for the parcel which will conform to the guidelines of CEQA and Riverside County. The impact mitigation program must include, ~at not be limited to: 1. Monitoring of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontolosic resources by a qualified paleontologic monitox*. The monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil mammals. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. The most cost-efficient method of salvage of small fossils is to remove sediments containing the fossils to ~ stockpiles offsite. The fossils can be removed by screen washi elsewhere while excavation continues on site. 2. Preparation of ~~ecovered specimens to a point of identification, including washinE of sediments to recover' small vertebrates. This will allow the fossils to be described in a ~-eport of findings and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens be~r,~ stored. 3. Identification and curation of specimens into an established museum repository with retrievable storage. ~. Preparation of a report of findings wit.]] an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and i,]ventory, when submitted to the approl:.riate Lead Agency, signifies completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. References cited Kennedy, M.P., 1977. Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in southern Riverside County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 131: 12 p. Mann, J.F., 1955. Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California. California Division of Mines Special Report ~3: 22 p. Reynolds, R.E. and R.L. Reynolds, 1990. Irvingtonian? faunas from the Pauba Formation, Temecula, Riverside County, California, in Abstracts of Proceedings, 1990 Mojave Desert Quaternary Research Sympositm~. Redlands, San Bernardino ounty Musetm~ Association Quarterly, 37('2):37. Kathleen Springer,~ Project Manager Earth Sciences SAN B RNARDINO COU TY MUSEUM Director INVOICE: ~050.0506.1 To: BCI General Contractors attn: Rick Finken, Project Manager 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, C~ 92390 For: PALEONTOLOGIC RECORDS SEARCH, PARCEL 21361, RANCHO CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory access fee and first hour: Field survey, 3 hrs @ $32./hr MileaBe, 115 mi @ .38/h~ Report, 3 hrs @ $32./hr TOTAL $50.00 96.00 63.70 96.00 $285.70 PP-22~ ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 22~ TO CONSTRUCT 1/~9,500 SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL CENTER ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 2~ ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER AND MARGARITA ROADS. WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Plot Plan No. 22~ 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 June 17, 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: PP22~ 32 PP-224 ~-~ (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. lb) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: {1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. |2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 22q 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. A: PP22q. 33 PP-22~ c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. {1) Pursuant to Section 18.301c), 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. 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 recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 22rt will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. The project, as proposed, conforms with existing applicable city zoning and development ordinances. Further, the proposal is characteristic of similar development approved by the City to date. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to, or interference with the City's future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The project is of insignificant scale in context of the broad goals and directives anticipated in the City's General Plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. Reference local Ordinances No. 3q8, ~60: and California Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009 {Planning and Zoning Law). A: PP22~4 PP-22~ ~ d) e) f) g) h) 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. Adequate site circulation, parking, and landscaping are provided; as well as sufficient area to appropriately construct the proposed structure, reference proposed Plot Plan No. 22q, Exhibit E of the Staff Report. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect the public health or welfare; nor will it adversely impact the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Environmental Assessment of this proposal. Reference the attached project Conditions of Approval and Initial Environmental Study. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a.significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations, and reflects design aspects currently existing in the proposalis general vicinity. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project sirens primary frontage is on Winchester Road, a dedicated CalTrans right-of-way. Improvement of the abutting roadways shall be as per the City Engineering Department and CalTrans. The design of the project together with the type of supporting improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through, or use of the property within the proposed project. None are exhibited on the underlying parcel map, nor are easements evident on deed(s) describing the property in question. A: PP22q 35 PP-22~ ~) That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Supporting documentation is attached. 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 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. SECT ION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 22q to construct a ltt9,500 square feet commercial center located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Margarita Roads subject to the following conditions: A. Attachment 5, attached hereto. SECTION I~. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of June, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHA IRMA N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 17th day of June, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS A: PP22~ 36 ATTACHMENT 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 22q Project Description: Retail Center of approximately 150,000 square feet. Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-110-029 and 910-180-019 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for 3 buildings for 115,280 square feet; 23,916 square feet; and 10,500 square feet. e 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. 22q. 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 beginning 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. 22~ marked Exhibit E, 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. A: PP22~ 37 DP-22~ e 10. 11. 12. 13. Water and sewera9e disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated March 11, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 15, 1991, 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 April 23, 1991, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County Geologist's transmittal dated April 23, 1991, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of 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. Landscape plans shall conform to conceptual landscape plans marked Exhibit G. 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. 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 {10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty ~30) inches. A minimum of 7~9 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~8. 7it9 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit E. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~ inches of Class II base or as may be recommended by a qualified Soils Engineer. A minimum of 9 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit E. 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, A: PP22~ 38 PP-22~ ~ 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 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 Rancho Water District CalTrans School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Eastern Municipal Water District A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit F. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit F I Color Elevations). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. 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 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. 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. A: PP22~ 39 PP-22~ 23. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction or subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on {the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) {the number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one- half {1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 23 Class I I bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. The area does not have to be enclosed. 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, walls, 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. Within forty-eight {~8) hours of the approval of the project, the applicantJdeveloper 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 lt~ Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {~8) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department A: PP22~ ~0 PP-22~ 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 .~(c). 31. A minimum of seven 17) loading spaces shall be provided as shown on approved Exhibit E. 32. A plot plan application must be processed for any approvals for any additional buildings other than the three approved by this plot plan. 33. Dedicate a 25 foot wide transportation corridor easement along Winchester Road prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated May 6, 1991. 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: 35. As deemed necessary by .the City Engineer or his representative, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control district; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; CalTrans; and Parks and Recreation Department. 36. The developer shall submit two 12) 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 2q"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A: PP22~ PPo22~ 37. 38. 39. The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. Prior to any work being performed, an application for Development Permit shall be submitted per Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula. All requirements of this Ordinance shall be complied with as directed and approved by the City Engineer. 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. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer and all appropriate agencies. 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. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer and all appropriate agencies shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-of-way. Prior to any work being performed on the private parking areas or drives, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer~s Office. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following right-of-way. Winchester Road {Hiclhway 79) A: PP22~4 ~2 PP-22~ ~ 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. f. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District. A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. 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. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from Riverside County Flood Control District to outlet storm flows directly into the flood control channel. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. As deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, a copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control District for review. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. A: PP22~ ~3 PP-22~ 58. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula regarding flood damage protection for development within a Flood Zone "A", which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 59. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 60. 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. 61. If deemed necessary by the Engineering Department, private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be recorded. 62. Vehicular access shall be restricted on Winchester Road I Highway 79) and Margarita Road with the exception of access points and public street intersections as approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans. 63. In the event that Winchester Road {Highway 79) is not constructed by Assessment District 161 prior to the final map recordation, the developer shall construct or bond for the improvements to provide for one-half street improvements plus one 18-foot lane per CaiTrans Standards 1110tJ 13t~). The improvements shall be constructed per CalTrans letter dated March lq, prior to occupancy. Margarita Road from Winchester Road l Highway 79) to the proposed bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek shall be improved with full improvements, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated right- of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 100 ~86~/110~). 65. Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City~s C.A.T.V. Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. 66. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing A: PP22~ PP-22~ this Agreement, developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 67. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent. 68. Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 69. All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards as determined by the City Engineer, and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard ~100 and ~01 {curb sidewalk). 70. 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. 71. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. ~00 and ~01. 72. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the City Engineer. 73. This minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. 75. Construct all street improvements including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior public streets. 76. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the A: PP22~ ~5 PP-22~ developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66q62.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 77. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 78. A signing and striping plan shall be under design by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by CalTrans and the City Engineer for Winchester Road [Highway 79) and Margarita Road and shall be included in the street improvement plans as determined by the City Engineer. 79. Plans for a traffic signal shall be under design by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by CalTrans and the City Engineer for the intersection of Winchester Road [Highway 79) and Margarita Road and shall be included for reference with the second plan check submittal of the street improvement plans. 80. Plans for a traffic signal shall be under design by a Registered Civil Engineer for approval by CalTrans and the City Engineer for the intersection of Winchester Road [Highway 79) and the approved entry point. and shall be included for reference with the second plan check submittal of the street improvement plans. 81. Traffic signal interconnect shall be under design by a Registered Civil Engineer to show 1 1/2" rigid conduit with pull rope. and ~3 pull boxes on 200 foot centers along the property fronting Winchester Road ~ Highway 79). This design shall be shown on the traffic signal plans and must be approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 82. All signing and striping shall be installed and functional per the approved plans and as approved in the field by CalTrans and the City Engineer. 83. The traffic signal for the intersection of Winchester Road [ Highway 79) at the approved access point shall be operational and complete per the approved plans. The traffic signal interconnect shall be installed in place per the approved plans. A: PP22q q.6 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH T0: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: Steve Jiannino FROM: . A~~M MARIN ,~__~Environmental PLOT PLAN NO. 224 OATE: Health Specialist IV The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No, 224 and has no ob.jections. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in this area. Prior to any building plan submittals, the following items will be required: "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan e~aminer$ at (714) 358-5172). A C~[L.~.~3_C_9_.._[_9_~.~9~ from the Hazardous Materials Management Branch Services (3on Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicat[ng that the pro3ect has been cleared for: Underground storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB d. Waste reduction Management. SM:dr cc: Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch GLEN $. NEWMAN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT WEST SAN I~CINTO AVENUE. ~J~S, CAL~ORNLA 92Lr~0 01() 68",.3183 R~: PLOT PLAN 224 With ~eepec~ ~c the ¢on~l~lo~e o~ ayproval ce~ardi~ the above ~eie~ence~ ~lot pla~, the ~i~e Depar~meu~ ~ecc~ends ~e fo!lowim~ ~ire protection measures be p~ovide~ lu accordance with ~£vereide County Or~inances aud/o~ 1. The ~ire Dapawtme~ zs ~equire~ to ee~ s minimum fire flow for the ramoae! o~ co~a~ruc~iom of el! ccmmarcia! ~ui!dings us~n~ the procedure established in Ordinance 2. Provxde or show there exists a we~er ays:~ c~pable o~ d~llvetia$ ~000 G.~q~ ~or a 3 hour tutation at 20 ~:$1 residual operating pressure, which must be available before amy ccm~,u~tible material is placed on the Job sits. 3. A =~mbina~ion of o~-~ite an~ o~-aice supez fire hrdrante, ~cn a leopa~ system (6"x~"2~x2~), will be loeate~ not less than 25 ~eet aloe& ap;:oved vehicular travelwars. ~.e :equire~ ~Lte fl~ shall be available from any adJace:c hya:~nt(s) in the system. A, ~e ~aquiraa ~re ~low ~2 Be adjusted at a later poin~ in the ~ocese to re~lect chan~ee in deaths, con~tructtcn type, area eeparation ~. App]izant/aevelopet ahal~ gur~iab one copy of the ~a:er ayetam plans ~e Fire DeparCman~ ~or review. Plan~ ~hall confo~ to the fire hydrant requirements. Pla~a ehall be ai~nad/approved by a registe~ed civil an~inee~ amd the 1.~cal water company with the fo~!ovi~ ce~tifica~iom: the raq~ireme~s prescribed b7 ohs ~verei~a Ceu~ey ?ire ~epartmeu:," ~ RI~r. RST. D~ omc.~ (714) ~{uTT: e FAX (,':&) ~(;.74.~, ~y ~2~ Tomecub, CA 92}90 (714) ~94.~0t: · ~AX (714)6{&1076 PA~E 2 £ronc, w~c~n 5~ ~aec ~ a ~yd~anc. and a ~tn~u~ o~ 2~ risc ~om ~he b~d~(~). A mt~e~c ~h~ the build~c~(s} vi~! be auto~Cically =m;S~ be e~bmitc~d co the ~i~e Dsparcm. ect f~r approval pri~r tc ineCalla~ion, as pec must appes: o~ zhe ~itl¢ pa~e of the buildim~ plans. Section ~03. 10. 12. in,call porCabie tl~ ex:in~ulshezi vXch a mi~m ~&cin~ o~ 2A-~09C. 13. Prier :o the issuemrs of ~uXldln~ ~e.~itt, the a~pltcant/dcv~l~pec be responsible ~o lugmir a check or momey order ~n ~he a~o~n~ o~ $558.00 CO the Xlverlide ~o~Cy Firs Deparcmem~ :~ plan check 14. Prior to the issuance o~ buildizi pe~m~cl, the developer shall deposit, v~th ~hs C~t2 ci Temscu~a, a c~eck or mo~s¥ o~de~ e~uali~g cite mum o~ 2~¢ ~ec square goo~ al miCisaci~ fo~ [l~e protection impacts. Tbil amount must be svb~cted separate!2 ~om c~a plan c~ec~ cev~e~ ~ees, and Sa~e~y O~{ice. All ques:ioM ~eiardias the ~ean!n$ o~ conditionl shall be referred to Chief Fire Deplrcment Pla~ner Laura Cab~al, ¥ice S~ecy Specialist LC/C~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT April 15, 1991 "J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 340 Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: David B, Saari Ladies and Gentlemen: Parcel Map 26852 Plot Plan 224 City Of Temecula You have sent us material regarding these cases for our "review as · Land Use case and as a ]and subdivision". We do not make floodproofing recommendations or write flood hazard reports for projects in incorporated cities. But i% is appropriate that we comment on Santa Ger:rudis Creek Channel since we are involved with %he flood control aspects of Assessment District 161. We have recently approved the plans for Santa Ger%rudi$ Creek Channel, The channel wi31 capture and safely convey %he 1OO year storm runoff in that stre&m when it has been constructed in its entirety according ~o p3ans, and when surrounding land developments have been brought up to grade as proposed. If the project is COnStructed tn s:ages, as we understand ia now being considered, additional study would be necessary %o determine its performance. Zt should also be noted :hat Assessment District 161 has not yet made application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLONR) from the Federal Emergency ~anagement Agency (FENA). Properties within %he FENA mapped floodplain will remain eub~ec[ to flood insurance requirements until FENA has issued & letter of Nap Revision (LONR), and :he Otttrtct cannot guarantee :ha% FENA wtll find ~he proposed improvements acceptable. The Dietrio: uill not accept the Santa Gertrudis Channel for operation and laain%enance until it has been completed, all necessary Bradtng adjacent to the channel has been completed, approval by FEMA. C: City of Temecula Engineering Department Bedford Properties Attn: Greg Erickson RANPAC A:tn: Chuck Collins end the improvements have been H. KASHUBA ~snior Clvi1 Engtnee~ JHK:pln April 23, 1991 Ranpac Soils, Inc. 41710 Enterprise C&rcle South Temecula, CA 92390 Attention: Christopher Krall Won $. Yoo subject: Liquefaction Mazard Work Order No. 690-161 Plot Plan 224 A.P.N.: 910-110-029 County Geologic Report No. 793 City of Temecula Gent lemen: We have reviewed the liquefaction aspects of your report entitled ,'Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Margarita Meadows Commercial Center, Winchester and Margarita Road, Temecula, CA," date4 November 1, 1990. Your report determined that: ~ 1. The potential for liquefaction of the subsurface soils at this site during a seismic event is considered to be moderate. The most significant effect of liquefaction at the site would be settlement of the ground surface. Indicated settlement on the order of one inch would be possible on localized areas of the site. Differential settlement at the site from zero to one inch is likely to occur across distances of 300 feet or more. 3, Other effects of liquefaction including loss of bearing capacity, sand boils and lateral spreading are considered unlikely. Your report recommended that: '46.'R!' LEMON STREET, ~TH FLOOR All foundations shall be constructed entirely in compacted fill. The depth of fill shall extend a minimum of ~wo footing widths beneath the base of the footing witha minimum of 2 feet and maximum of 8 feet. The area of recompaction shall extend five feet' outside the foundation,per~meter. ;/g733 CouNTRYOLUB' D~IVEi ~U~E B~RMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 922 (6'r' ~2-B~ co,~.pacted rill. 1~ inch0s ~1ow lowe~ With Chapter '/00~ th~ l~toS~ UnJ ro~ Bulldin~j eodc and It. is our oyln.{~n that ~e report wau prepared In n conpotenL ~.rm Of the Vu~ ~ru~y your~ Td?~ ~,~ CALIFORI{~A - BUSlNE$$~TRANSPO~TATIOlI AND HOU$IN,~ AGK~CY P~TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8,P.O. BOX 23~ SAN BE~A~INO, ~ 92402 TDD (7~4) 383-4609 April 16, 1991 08-Riv-79-R2.86/R3.18 Planning Department Attention: Steve Jiannino City of Temecula 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 Your Reference: Plot Plan 224, Parcel Map 26852, Chanqe of Zone 11 Dear Mr. Jiannino: An Encroachment Permit will be required for the proposed Grading,_ Signage and Landscaping within the State R/W. In addition, Caltrans' Development Review branch has the following concerns: ~he connection to State Highway 79 (SH 79) called out as a 50' Driveway, approximately 1200 feet southwest of Margarita Road, must be a street connection, not a driveway, as shown on Permit application 90-1868 and as agreed to in several previous meetings between Caltrans personnel and JF Davidson engineers. Access to the proposed development must be taken off this local street, not off of the State highway· Perhaps the developer might consider a cul-de-sac configuration to'accomplish this· The Traffic Study done for Assessment District 161 (widening of Winchester Road) by Kunzman and Associates did not study this intersection to determine the need for signalization. If signals are to be constructed, warrants must be met. The access shown approximately 500 feet southwest of margarita Road is intended to serve the Rancho California Water District property only. It may not be used as an additional access to the proposed development. Also, it must conform to the configuration shown on Permit application 90-1868 (see attached, highlighted mockup of that access point). The Water D~strict access shall be a Caltrans standard N8-A, Case A, type of driveway. Curb returns are not permitted. Details and elevations of the proposed Pylon Signage at the Slte Entry from SH 79 must be submitted a part of the Permit application package. In addition to the above-noted concerns, this office must see the following: a) b) c) d) e) f) Conditions of Approval Grading and drainage Plans (not conceptuals) A copy of any documents providing additional State R/W A copy of the Traffic Study A check print of the Parcel Map (not Tentative Map). The map need not be signed and recorded, but must be stamped with the City's "Stamp of Approval". A check print of any plans for improvements within the State R/W (including Landscaping Plans) If you should have any questions, please call Mr. Ahmad Salah or Mr. Mike Sim at (714) 383-4384. Thank you for your cooperation· Sincerely, Tim Chowdhury District Development Review Engineer STATE OF CALIF(~NIA--~USIhIESS, TRANSPOITATION AND HO~JSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT S, P.O. ~X 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 TDD (714) 383-4609 March 14, 1991 PETE WILSON. Gov. mor Development Review 08-Riv-79-R3. 180 Your Reference: PP 224/PM 26852/CZ 11 Planning Department City Hall City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed PP 224/PM 26852/CZ 11 located northwest corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road near Rancho Calif.ornia area. 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. I'f 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. Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only. Final approval will be determined during the Encroachment Permit process. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro Saoud of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-4384. Chief, Development Review Branch Art DATE RTE WE REQUEST TI~T THB XTEMS CIIECKED BELOW BE XNCLUDED XN THE CONDITIONS OF XPPROVXL FOR THX~ PROJECT~ // NORHAL RIGHT OF MAY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE ~7 HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHWAY. / ~TORHAL STREET iMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE ~'~ HALF--WIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHMAY. CURB AND GLITTER, STATE STANOARD ~--~, TYPg /c~_(~ ALONG THE STATE HiGHMAY. 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 SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTZONS WiTH THE STATE HIGHWAY · STATE STANDARD WHEELCHAIR RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED iN THE CURB RETURNS. A POSITIVE VEHICULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVZDED TO LI#IT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY · VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT BE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HIGHMAY , VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHgAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHgAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY STANDARD DRIVEWAYS · VEHICLLA~ ACCESS SHALL NOT BE I:~OVIDED gITHIN OF THE INTERSECTION AT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY A ROAD--TYPE CONNECTION, VEHICULAR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PAVED AT LEAST WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF gAY. ACCESS POINTS TO THE STATE HIGHMAY SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A HANNER THAT WILL PROVIDE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR MPH ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY. ~iANOSCAPiNG ALONG THE STATE HIGHWAY SHALL PROVIDE FOR SAFE SIGHT DISTANCEi COldPLY WITH FIXED C~JECT SET 8AC~ AND BE TO STATE STANDARDS. LEFT--TURN LANEv INCLUDING SHOULDERS AND ANY NECESSARY WIDENING, SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE STATE HIGHMAY. A TRAFFIC STUDY INDICATING ON AND OFF-S1TE FLCX,/ PATTERNS AND VOLUI4ESI PROBABLE II4PACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES SHALL BE PREPARED. PARKING SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT CAUSE ANY VEHICULAR 14OVEHENT CONFLICTSF INCLUDING PARKING STALL ENTRANCE AND EXIT~ WiTHiN OF THE ENTRANCE FROH THE STATE HIGHMAY. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN WHEN DEVELOPING THiS PROPERTY TO PRESERVE AND PERPETUATE THE EXXSTINO DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE STATE HIGHtdAY. PARTICULAR CONSTDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CLI4ULATIVE INCREASED STORM RUNOFF TO INSURE THAT A HIGNWAY DRAINAGE PROOLEM IS IK)T CREATED. //PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. PROVIDE TO APPLICANT. CONSTRUCTION/DEHOLITZON WITHIN PRESENT OP PRO~,G~ED STATE RIGHT OF WAY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE ( I .E.ASBESTOS; PETROCHEHICALS/ ETC. ) AND MITIGATED AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATORY AGENCIES. WHEN PLANS ARE SUBMITTED; PLEASE CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTACHED "HANDOUT#. THIS WILL EXPEDITE THE '.REVIEW PROCESS AND TIME REQUIRED FOR PLAN CHECK. PROVIDE TO APPLICANT. ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM; CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF CONTINUED DEVELOPHEHT IN THIS AREA. ANY MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/O~ DRAINAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA THAT NECESSITATES THEM. CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISION; OR FUTURE PROVISION; OF SIGNZLZZATION AND LIGHTING OF THE INTERSECTION Df AM) THE STATE HIGIMJLY MEN I,IIbqRAHTS ~ HET. L/IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PROPOSAL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTE# OF THE AREA. ANY MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE IMPACTS SHALL SE INCLUDED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY IS INCLUDED IN THE CALIFORNIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGHWAYS ELIGIBLE FOR OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHWAY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTURE YOUR AGENCY HAY WISH TO HAVE THIS ROUTE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY° THIS PORTION OF THE STATE NIGHgaY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY/ AND DEVELOPHENT IN THIS CORRIDOR SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCENIC NIGHWAY CONCEPT. IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT NOISE LEVELS ADJACENT TO HEAVILY TRAVELLL HIGHWAYS. LAND DEVELOPHENTi IN ORDER TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS CONCERN/ HAY REGUIRE SPECIAL NOISE ATTENUATION MEASURES. DEVELOPWENT OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD INCLUDE ANY NECESSARY NOISE ATTENUATION. PLEASE BEND TIFB ITEM8 CHECKED BEI~.W TO: CALTRA/qS DISTRICT 8 DEVELOPt4ENT REVIEW BRANCH P.O. Box 231 SAN B~RNARDINO, CA 92402 A COPY OF ANY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OR REVISED APPROVAL. //A COPY OF ANY L)OO_.I4ENTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATE HIGIMAY RIGHT OF WAY UPON RECOI~DATION OF THE HAP. ANY PROPOSALS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. A COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY. // A CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL OP TRACT HAP. //A CHECK PRINT OF THE ~..ANS FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN ON ADJACENT TO THE STATE HIGHWaY RIGHT OF gaY. //A CHECK PRINT OF THE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY ~14EN AVAILABLE. Date: March 13, 1991 Riv-79-R3.180 (Co-Rte-PM) PP 224/ PM 26852 / CZ 11 (Your Reference) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: We need cross-sections at 50 ft intervals, from 100 ft each side of the project limits, within state Right-Of-Way (R/W). The cross- sections must conform to the requirements of the attached "HANDOUT" The Caltrans Right-Of-Way (R/W) line must be shown and labeled on the next submittal. The driveways connections should be compatible with the existing and future road system of the area. The centerline of proposed driveway shown approximately 520 ft southwesterly of Margarita Road must be located and constructed as shown on PERMIT NO 90-1868, SHEET NO 5. The Rancho California water district property shall not have a separate access to state highway. Show the existing state stationing along the highway centerline according to the stations shown on PERMIT NO 90-1868. The Right-OF-Way in the Vicinity of Rancho California water district property does not agree with our record. The proposed driveway shown northwest of Winchester Road (HWY 79) must accommodate the DETECTOR SETBACK requirements (See attached sheet)· State law requires Outdoor Advertising clearance for signs proposed adjacent to interstate and primary highways. Clearance must be obtained form: Highway Outdoor Advertising Branch California Department of Transportation 1120 N street Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 445-3337 6J~L 6J2U , .~.tJ.i./~. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNArDiNO COUNTY MUSEUM il I ~-: '~ DR ALLAN O GRIESEMER ~024 Orange T,eI Line Redlands. CA 92374 · (714} 798-8570 * 422.16101 J. ~/~,L~ '~l:. . · May 6, 199~ L BCI General Contractors attn: Rick Finken 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92390 PALEONTOLOGIC ASSESSMENT, PARCEL MAP # 313C1, RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA. RIVERSIDE COUNTY Dear Mr. Finken, At your request, the San Bernardino County Musetm~ has conducted a paleont. ologic assessment, including a search of pertinent geologic literature, a review of the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory, and a field survey for parcel # 21361, a 29- acre parcel in Rancho California, Riverside County. The parcel is on the northwest side of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Franklin Avenue. Specifically, the parcel is within Township 7 South and Range 3 West. and if projected, falls within the southeast quarter of section 21, as shown on the Murrieta, CA 7.5 minute USG$ topographic quadrangle map. Background Previous geologic mapping by Mann (1955) and Kennedy (1977) indicate that. the parcel is located on recent. alluvitm% and on or 'near the Pauba Formation. These authors report fossil · Pleistocene horse. The Pauba Formation overlies the Bi-.;hop As]] and thus is less than 700,000 years BP. Review of the kegional Paleontologic Locality Inventory at the San Bernardino County Museum does not indicate that previous paleontologic resource a~sessment,~ have been conducted for the Temecula parcel and that no paleontologic localities are recorded within one mile of the parcel. However, more than 200 paleontologic resource localities are known from the Pauba Formation in the Murrieta-Temecula area. The Pauba Formation unconformably overlies the Unnamed Sandstone. The faunal assemblage from the Pauba Formation in the Temecula- Murrieta area, sunm%arized below, suggests a late Irvingtonian/early Rancholabrean LMA in contrast to the ear]y- late Irvingtonian fauna from the Unnamed Sandstone in the California Oa].:s area (Reynolds and Reynolds, 1990). i. nip,?. r'o tot. imperial manm~oth mastodon large camel 11 area pronghorn deer large horse small horse jack rabbit cottontail shrew squirrel ]¢an&aroo rat pocket gopher deer mouse wood rat vole king snake rattlesnake pond turtle toad chub fish land snail Methods The field assessment was conducted on May 3, 1991, by Quintin Lake, MuseLm~ Tech I I of the San Bernardino County Muselm~. He ]has had previous experience in paleontologic resource assessments and salvage in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Parcel ~ 21361 was inspected by foot traverses at approximately 30 meter intervals. Recent alluvi%m~ was verified to occur on the parcel in association with the Santa Gertrudis stream bed as was the presence of coarse to mediLm~-grained sands interpreted to represent the Pauba Formation. Results and Recommendations .Available ~eolo~ic literature describes the Pauba Formation as fossiliferous. Resource localities in the ReEional Paleontolo~ic Locality Inventory indicate that the Pauba Formation is very fossiliferous in the Murrieta-Temecula area. Construction excavation has hish potential to impact siEnificant, nonrenewable paleontolo~ic resources on the Temecula parcel. The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to ~develop a proEram of mitigation for the parcel which will conform to the 8uidelines of CEQA and Riverside County. The impact mitigation proEram must include, but not be limited to: 1. MonitorinE of excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontoloEic resources by a qualified paleontoloEic monitor-. The monitor should be equipped to salvaEe fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments which are likely to contain the remains of small fossil mammals. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. The most cost-efficient method of salvaEe of~ small fossils is to remove sediments containinE the fossils to stockpiles offsite. The fossils can be removed by screen washin~ elsewhere while excavation continues on site. 2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, includin~ washinE of sediments to recover small vertebrates. This will allow the fossils to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens be~rL~ stored. 3. Identification and curation of specimens into an established museum repository wit]] retrievable storage. ~. Prei:,aration of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appro[z, riate Lead Agency, signifies completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. References cited Kennedy, M.P., 1977. Recency and character of faultinE alone the El-~inore fault zone in southern Riverside County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 131:12 p. Mann, J.F., 1955. Geology of a portion of the Elsinore fault zone, California. California Division of Mines Special Report ~3: 22 p. Reynolds, R.E. and R.L. Reynolds, 1990. Irvingtonian? fauna~ from the Pauba Formation, Temecula, Riverside County, California, il_~ Abstracts of Proceedinss, 1990 Mojave Desert. Quatertiary Research Sympositm~. Redlands, San Bernardino County Musetm~ Association Ouarterl¥, 37(2) :37. Kathleen Springer~ Project Manager Earth Sciences SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM 2024 Ol',ng, TI',~ .F.,R,,dl~q:~r~A 92374 . {714} 798.8570. 422-1610 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENEI~AL SERVICES AGENCY DR. ALLAN O. GRIE ~ ~R INVOICE: ~050.0506.1 To: BCI General Contractors attn: Rick Finken, Project Manager 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92390 For: PALEONTOLOGIC RECORDS SEARCH, PARCEL 21361, RANCHO CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY Regional Pale,:,ntologic Locality Inventory access fee and first ]]our: Field survey, 3 hrs @ $32./hr Mileage, 115 mi @ .38/h~ Report, 3 hrs @ $32./hr TOTAL $50.00 96.00 ~3.70 96.00 $285.70 ATTACHMENT 6 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Background 1. Name of Proponent: Bedford Properties/Costco e Address and Phone Number of Proponent: PO Box 9016 Temecula, CA 92390 (71q) 676-56ql e Date of Environmental Assessment: April 25, 1991 Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Plot Plan No. 22~, Change of Zone No. 11, and Parcel Map No. 26852 Location of Proposal: Northwest corner of Margarita and Winchester Roads 7. Proposal: Change of Zone from R-R (Rural Residential ) to C-P-S { Scenic Highway Commercial ) on 2~4 acres of a 57 acre site; subdivide the 57 acres into 13 commercial lots and a remainder; and construct a 175,000 square foot commercial center on 19.7 acres proposed for commercial zoning. 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 Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Ce Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X A:PP22q q.7 e de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? fe Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 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: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? be 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? Yes Maybe .N.o X X X X X X X X X X X A: PP22~4 ~8 Yes Maybe No 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? 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: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants {including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique. rare, or endangered species of plants? 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)? X X X X X X X X X X A: PP22~ ~9 Yes Maybe No ~ 10. 11. 12. Noise. a. be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Will the proposal result in: 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: ae 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?. be Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing?. X X X X X X X X X X X X A: PP22q 5O Yes Maybe No 13. 14. 15. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? be Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems3 do Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne. rail or air traffic? fe 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? be Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A: PP22~ 51 Yes Maybe No -- 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? 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 l 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. ae 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? X X X X X X X X X X X X A: PP22q. 52 21. Ce 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? 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. ) d 0 Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe X No X X X X X A: PP22q 53 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth loa. 1.bo 1oc. 1.d. eel 1 of. Air 2.a. 2.b. 2.c. No. The area is not with any known fault zones and is flat, vacant land. Maybe. All new development causes displacement and overcovering of soils. The project will incorporate open landscape areas, along with obtaining and adhering to City grading and building permits which will provide mitigation measures for this impact. The impact will not be significant. No. The area is currently flat vacant land and will not require substantial amounts of cut or fill to establish the proposed building pads. No. No unique geologic or physical features exist on site. The site is flat. .. Maybe. Wind and water erosion increase during grading activities. The potential for water erosion is low due to the fact that the site is flat. Wind erosion will be mitigated by standard grading practices and adherence to grading and building permits. Maybe. The area is traversed by Santa Gertrudis Creek which is being channelized as part of Assessment District No. 161. The flood control improvements are currently under construction. Construction of the channel per approved improvement plans will mitigate significant impacts. Maybe. The area is within a liquefaction hazard zone. A geotechnical investigation of the site was performed. Adherence to the recommendations made in County Geologic Report No. 793 will provide mitigation for possible impacts. Maybe. The project will impact local air quality due to the increased auto traffic in the area. Although the project should decrease overall travel miles by providing a shopping opportunity in closer proximity to the urban population. No overall impact. No. There are no industrial or commercial activities proposed that would cause objectionable odors. No. There are no industrial or commercial activities proposed that should alter air movement or temperature. A:PP22~ 5~ Water 3.a. 3.b. 3.Co 3.d. oeo 3.g. 3.h. 3.io Plant Life 14.a. No. The project is adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek which is an intermittent flowing creek. The creek is currently being channelized with approval of Assessment District 161. The channelization is not a result of this project. This project is being designed to drain into the channelized flood control facilities. This drainage pattern will not result in any substantial change in either marine or fresh waters. Maybe. The project will cause changes in the absorption rate due to the overcovering of soil The natural drainage pattern will remain unchanged. Obtaining and adhering the grading and building permits will provide mitigation for possible impacts. No. The natural drainage pattern will remain the same and will not be altered by this project. No. The project will not increase the amount of water in any body of water. The site is not located in close proximity to any standing bodies of water. No. The surface runoff does not run directly into any bodies of water. No. The project does not propose any ground cuts or construction that would alter the direction or rate of flow of ground water. Maybe. The decrease in absorption rate will decrease the amount of ground water available from the site, but providing irrigated landscaping areas will mitigate for potential decreases. There will be no overall impact. No. The amount of water consumed will be a small increase in the overall water demand of the area. Maybe. The area is within a liquefaction zone and flood zone. Adherence to County Geologic Report No. 793 recommendation will provide mitigations for liquefaction impacts. The current channelization of Santa Gertrudis Creek will provide mitigation for the flood zone potential. Maybe. The mass grading of the site will eliminate the current vegetation on site. No rare species of plant were seen on site and the overall native vegetation of the area will not be significantly effected by this project. No. No rare or unique plant species were observed on this site. A: PP22~ 55 Maybe. The project includes proposed landscape areas that will introduce new plants to the area. The plants will be required to be drought tolerant and include native species. The impact will not be significant. The channelization of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Winchester Road are larger physical barriers. No. The area is not currently used for agricultural crops. Animal Life 5*8. Maybe. The project's mass grading will eliminate existing animal species. The area is impacted currently and increased commercial and industrial activity within the area does not make this site viable for maintaining native species. Maybe. The site is within the historic range of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat which is a listed endangered species. The County and City have received a 10-A permit for the incidental take of the rat. The payment of a fee in this area has been deemed proper mitigation for the impact of habitat loss. No. No unique wildlife habitats exist on site. Noise 6.ae Maybe. The noise level will increase during construction of the site, which will be a temporary impact. The economical use will generate increased noise level mainly from vehicle use of the site. No residential structures are located near the site and the noise level will not be a significant impact to the area. S.b. No. Severe noise generations are not anticipated at this site. Light and Glare Maybe. The project will require parking lot and outside lighting. The project will be conditioned to have lights hooded and directed away from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. The project must conform to the requirements of the Palomar Observatory for lighting impacts. Land Use No. The project will alter the current vacant use of the site and the development doesn't conform to the current zoning for the site. The project does conform to the General Plan Guideline SWAP designation for the site of C ~ Commercial ) and other commercial developments proposed or being constructed in the vicinity. A:PP22q 56 Natural Resources. 9.a. No. The proposed commercial uses will not substantially increase the rate of use of natural resources. 9.b. No. The project will not substantially deplete non-renewable resources. The commercial use proposed will not generate a large demand on non-renewable resources. Risk of Upset 10.a. No. The commercial uses proposed do not include uses that would result in a risk of explosion. 10.b. No. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans. Proper circulation has been conditioned to be maintained with development of the project. Population 11. No. The proposed commercial project will not alter the current population location or density. The project will provide an employment area for existing residence of the City and surrounding area. The project will not require an increased population demand. Housing. 12. No. The project is a proposed commercial center and will not affect housing demand, Transportation/Circulation 13.a. Yes. The commercial project will increase traffic and vehicular movement. The improvements being constructed with Assessment District No. 161 and improvements conditioned on the project will mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance. The conditions include recommendations required per the Traffic Study submitted and approved for the project. 13.b. Maybe. The project will result in a demand for increased parking. The required parking for the proposed project will be provided on-site per City Codes as part of the project design. 13.c. Maybe. The project will impact the existing road system, but the impacts will be mitigated by the improvements required as Conditions of Approval on the project. 13.d. No. The project will not alter the existing road patterns. The project has been conditioned to improve the existing roadways. A:PP22q 57 13.e. ~ No. The project will not require or impact waterborne, rail or air traffic. The site will be served by an improved roadway system. 13.f. Maybe. The increased traffic will increase possible vehicle hazards. The project has been conditioned to provide adequate street improvements and safety controls to mitigate the possible impacts. Public Services 14.a,b,c, e,f. Maybe. The proposed development will impact these public services. The project has been conditioned to construct necessary improvements and pay appropriate fee mitigation for these impacts. No. The project is a commercial center and will not impact current or planned recreational facilities. Energy 15.a,b. No. The project is for the development of a standard type retail commercial center and will not require the use of substantial amounts of fuel or require new sources of energy to be developed. Utilities 16.a-f. No. The surrounding area has the current utilities available or they are being constructed with Assessment District No. 161. No additional utility systems will be required to be constructed with this project. Human Health 17 .a. No. The project is a standard retail commercial type center and no uses are proposed that will cause a health hazard. 17 .b. Maybe. The project is within a liquefaction zone. County Geologic Report No. 793 was completed for the project. Adherence to the recommendation contained within the report will mitigate the potential liquefaction impacts. Aesthetics 18. No. The project is not within any designated view sheds and does not obscure scenic vistas. Recreation 19. No. The project is not being proposed on an existing or planned recreation or open space site. A: PP22~ 58 Cultural Resources 20.a. Maybe. The project is within the Pauba Formation which is fossiliferous. The applicant shall retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a mitigation program prior to issuance of grading permits as outlined in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated May 6, 1991. 20.b-d. No. A preliminary cultural survey was conducted on the site and no cultural resources were identified on site. Mandatory Findings of Significance 21 .a. No. The area does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas and no rare or endangered species exist on site. 21 .b. No. The project as conditioned will not significantly impact short or long term environmental goals. 21 .c. Maybe. The project, while not causing a significant impact to traffic circulation because of proposed improvements contained within the project design, will add to the accumulative effect on the transportation system. The current construction and additional improvements proposed by Assessment District No. 161 will provide mitigation measures for the accumulative impacts on the transportation system. A: PP22a 59 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 April 25. 1991 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA A: PP22q. 6O .... ~ -_' ~C~ '<5' '<5' '<5' u~.,s u~.,s m CITY OF TEMECULA i- LOCATION 'MAP CASE NO.~ z- P.C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA )' q R SWAP MAP L.. ~i l!! '-: I 2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification, including washing of sediments to recover small vertebrates. This will allow the fossils to be described in a report of findings and reduces the volume of matrix around specimens being sto~'ed. 3. Identification and curat. ion of specimens into an established museum reposit.or¥ wit.]] retrievable storage. ~. Preparation of a report. of findings wit.]] an appended itemized inventory of :~pecimens. The report and inventory, when submitted t'.o the appropriate Lead Agency, signifies completion of the [:,rogr~m to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. References cited  County Museum Association Quarterly, Earth Sciences Kennedy, M.P., 1977. Recency and character of faulting along the Elsinore fault zone in southern Riverside County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 131:12 p. Mann, J.F.. 1955. Geology of a l:,ortion of ~.he Elsinore fault zone, California. California Division of Mines Special Rep,:,rt ~3:22 p. Reynolds, R.E. and R.L. Reynolds, 1990. Irvingtonian? faunas from the Pauba Formation, Temecula, Riverside County, California, in Abstracts of Proceedings, 1990 Mojave Desert. Quaternary Research Symposi%m~. Redlands, San Bernardino 37(2):37. 'SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSEUM 2024 Oranga Tre~q~ 'GR, adI~!~zCA 92374 · 1714] 798-8570 · 422-1610 IN1/OICE: ~050.0506.1 To: BC! General Contractors attn: Rick Fin].:en, Project. ManaEer 28765 $inEle Oak Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92390 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN( GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY DR. ALLAN D. GRIf Director For: PALEONTOLOGIC RECORDS SEARCH, PARCEL 21361, RANCHO CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY Regional Paleont. ologic Locality Inventory access fee and first hour: Field survey, 3 hrs @ $32./hr Mileage, 115 mi @ .38/h~' Report, 3 hrs @ $32./hr TOTAL $50.00 96.00 ~3.70 96.00 $285 .~---,, ~-._ ITEM NO. 19 ,/,..-~ ..- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Planning Departmen1 June 25, 1991 Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance On May 1~, 1991, the City Council considered an Ordinance pertaining to advertising regulations and establishing regulations for the use of Ambient Air Balloons. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council continued this item to their meeting of June 25, 1991, in order to allow the Planning Department staff the opportunity to further define the term "site", as it relates to an entire business complex or individual businesses; and to include a provision for separation between balloons. However, the City Attorney has indicated that according to the California Government Code, any revisions made to a proposed Ordinance must be first reviewed by the Planning Commission. Thus, this item has been scheduled for the Planning Commission public hearing of July 1, 1991. Therefore, staff recommends that this item be continued to the City Council public hearing of July 23, 1991, in order to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the revised Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance. It should be noted that a Public Hearing Notice will be published in The Californian advising the community of the rescheduled meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: Continue the Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance to their public hearing of July 23, 1991. A:AABO. MEM APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department June 25, 1991 Ambient Air Balloon Ordinance PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Oliver Mujica 1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-0[[ PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONSAND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS." APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: City of Temecula An Ordinance establishing regulations for the use of Ambient Air Balloons. City Wide On May lq, 1991, the City Council considered an Ordinance which included the following: A maximum size of 1,500 square feet (as measured at the cross section of the balloon used); a maximum height of 30 feet (as measured from the point of anchor to the highest portion of the balloon); and a time period not to exceed fifteen (15) days within any ninety (90) day period. In addition, a thirty (30) day permit may be issued by the City during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival. A: AIRORD. CC 1 DISCUSSION: At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council continued this item in order to allow the Planning Department staff the opportunity to further define the term "site", as it relates to an entire business complex or individual businesses; and to include a provision for separation between balloons. Based on the direction given by the City Council, staff has included the following definitions for "site" within Section 19.8(b! of the proposed ordinance, "b. For the purpose of this Section, a site shall be defined as the following: 1. One or more contiguous parcels of land identified by the Assessor's records wherein an integrated building development has been approved. 2. A building wherein two or 'more separate independently owned or operated commercial, office or industrial businesses are contained." In regards to separation between balloons, Section 19.8(c)(5) includes the following: "spacing shall be a minimum of one hundred ( 100' ) feet between the ambient air balloons." Staff has also included the following provision for exemption within Section q of the proposed ordinance: "Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, Should any party believe that they would suffer a hardship if not permitted to install an ambient air balloon, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon." In Addition, staff eliminated the phrase "and other similar inflatables" in order to ensure that only hot air type balloons are used. A:AIRORD.CC 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 91- entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-0~l PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS." OM: ts Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 91- A:AIRORD.CC 3 ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 90-0q PERTAINING TO ADVERTISING REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings:-- Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. 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. A:AIRORD.CC 1 The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (a) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (b) The City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: (~) There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 91- will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time, (?) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. SECTION 2_~. City Ordinance No. 90-0q adopted by reference certain portions of the Non-Codified Riverside County Ordinances, including Ordinance No. 3q8. Article XIX of the Ordinance No. 3q8 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 19.8. TEMPORARY AMBIENT AIR BALLOONS. a. For the purpose of this Section, a temporary ambient air balloon shall mean a sign, not otherwise permitted by Article XIX, which is a temporary structure supported by forced cold air (non-helium), constructed of fabric materials, and affixed to the ground or roof top with cable using steel anchoring systems. Such signs may be illuminated at night using electrical lighting systems. All such signs under this Section using electrical lighting systems shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655, adopted by reference by the City of Temecula, and all other applicable provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code regulating the installation of such electrical lighting systems. b. For the purpose of this Section, a site shall be defined as the following: 1. One or more contiguous parcels of land identified by the Assessor's records wherein an integrated building development has been approved. 2. A building wherein two or more separate independently owned or operated commercial, office or industrial businesses are contained. A:AIRORD.CC 2 c. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, temporary ambient air balloons are permitted only in commercial and industrial zones subject to the following limitations: 1. The maximum allowable size of any such sign shall be limited to no more than 1500 square feet, as measured at the cross section of the balloon used. 2. All such signs shall be ground mounted or roof mounted. The allowable height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, as measured from the point of anchor to the highest portion of the balloon. 3. All such signs shall not be free-floating (tethered) nor constructed in a shape different from the "hot-air balloon shape" typically depicted in the City of Temecula's Annual Balloon and Wine Festival. For example, such balloons in the shape of blimps or cartoon characters shall not be permitted. All such signs shall be permitted to be displayed for a period not to exceed a total of fifteen (15) calendar days within any ninety (90) calendar day period. In lieu of the maximum allowable fifteen (15) calendar day period herein, a thirty (30) calendar day permit may be issued by the City during the month of the Temecula Annual Balloon and Wine Festival, if such event is held. 5. The number of signs proposed to be used shall be limited to no more than three (3) at any one site during any allowed time period as set forth in subparagraph q. Spacing shall be a minimum of one hundred (100') feet between the ambient air balloons. 6. No such sign shall be erected, placed or maintained unless first approved by both the City Building Director and the City Planning Director. Approval shall be obtained by the submittal of an application and payment of required fees (to be established by Resolution). The application shall be accompanied with a drawing, utilizing the Site Plan, specifying the location of the sign to be approved with the specified dates of the proposed set-up and take down of the sign(s). 7. All such signs shall be removed no later than the last day permitted in the approved application. 8. No temporary ambient air balloon shall be erected, placed or maintained so that it does any of the following: (a) Mars, defaces, disfigures or damages any public building, structure or other property; and (b) Endangers the safety of persons or property. 9. Any temporary ambient air balloon erected, placed or maintained in violation of any provision of this Section may be removed by the City five {5) days after notice of the violation given to the owner, lessee or A:AIRORD.CC 3 person in lawful possession of the property. Any temporary ambient air balloon which constitutes an immediate danger to the safety or persons or property or which has not been removed within ten (10) days as provided in subsection C. 7., may be removed by the City summarily and without notice. The City may bring as an action to recover the reasonable costs of sign removal under this subsection." SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTALCOMPLIANCE. The City Council hereby finds that this project d--~es not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061(b)(3). SECTION q. Not withstanding the provisions of this Ordinance, Should any party believe that t--hey would suffer a hardship if not permitted to install an ambient air balloon, they may apply for an exemption to this Ordinance. Such exemption may be granted by the City Council only after due notice and public hearing thereon. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this O---rdinance 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 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) d-~ys after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. PASSED· APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of · 1991. RONALD J. PARKS MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK A:AIRORD.CC 4 ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS. I, June S. Greek· City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of · 1991· and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of · 1991· by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COU NCI LMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCI LMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE S. CREEK CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney A:AIRORD.CC 5 ITEM NO. 20 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECUIA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager City Clerk June 25, 1991 Main Street Revitalization Committee DISCUSSION: This matter was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro Tern Birdsall and is continued from the meeting of May 28, 1991. JSG ITEM NO. 21 KARRI WALTON MISS TEMECULA 40580 CHAPARRAL DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92390 RE: REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON AGENDA FOR JUNE 25,1991 CITY COUNSEL MEETING MAY 28,1991 DAVE DIXON CITY MANAGER 43172 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92390 DEAR MR. DIXON: PLEASE ACCEPT MY REQUEST TO 8E PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE JUNE 25TH,1991 CITY COUNSEL MEETING. AS YOU MAY KNOW I NOW HOLD THE TITLE OF MISS TEMECULA AND AM CURRENTLY TRYING TO RAISE FUNDS FOR SPONSERSHIP AS THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEMECULA FOR THE 1992 MISS CALIFORNIA PAGEANT THE PAGEANT WILL BE HELD ON AUGUST 31,1991 IN THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA. THE PAGEANT IS THE OFFICIAL STATE PRELIMINARY TO THE MISS USA PAGEANT, SCHEDULED FOR TELECAST FROM MOBILE ALABAMA IN FEBRUARY 1992. MY PURPOSE FOR ATTENDING THE MEETING WILL BE TO ASK THE COUNSEL FOR SPONSORSHIP I LOOK FORWARD TO BRINGING HOME A VICTORY FOR MY COMMUNITY AND WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COUNSEL. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 ,.~. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECUIA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HElD JUNE 11, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:06 PM. PRESENT: 4. DIRECTORS: ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Linderoans, Parks, Moore, Mu~oz Birdsall Also present were City Manger 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 Parks, seconded by Director Moore to approve the minutes of May 28, 1991, as mailed. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4, DIRECTORS: NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Parks, Moore, Mu~oz None Birdsall Consideration of Ordinance Creating Temecula Community Services District Service Level Zones Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, introduced the staff report. John Dedovesch, 394-50 Long Ridge Drive, objected to such a large increase in taxes. Jim Bacarella, 29760 Rancho California Road, Suite 107, stated that everyone's property value goes down when City slopes are not maintained. 4/Minute8/061191 -I- 06118/91 CSD Minutes Mav 14, 1991 Mr. Nelson gave a brief outline of the different service levels and explained that properties receiving a certain service (such as slope maintenance), were included in that zone charge. Those not receiving specific services are not charged. He explained this seems to be a more equitable way to assess charges. Rick Dietrick, 39233 Rising Hill, a resident of the Woodcreek area, stated that his taxes would increase dramatically with the proposed changes and asked why such a large increase is necessary to pay for the same services. It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. CSD 91-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECUIA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN ZONES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: I DIRECTORS: Birdsall COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT Shawn Nelson reported that this Friday, June 14, 1991, a recreation program will be bulk mailed to citizens of the City. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS Director Lindemans asked that sign stating a certain slope is maintained by the TCSD be placed on slopes the City maintains. 4/Minute,/061191 -2- 06/18/91 CSD Minutes May 14. 1991 Director Parks objected to any more signs and asked this matter be brought back for discussion. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Linderoans, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:25 PM. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Birdsall absent. J. Sal Mu~oz, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4/Minutes1061191 -3- 06/18/91 ITEM NO. 2 APPROVAL FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT City Manager/Board of Directors Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer June 25, 1991 Award of Vehicle Bids RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: 1. Award the bids for purchase of two (2) vehicles. Adopt Resolution 91- amending the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Budget to accomplish a budget transfer. DISCUSSION: In accordance with the City's purchasing ordinance, we advertised for bids on six (6) vehicles, two (2) for TCSD and four (4) for City Building and Safety. The lowest responsible bid was received from Schumacher. The TCSD expenditure is $13,502.46. Schumacher Auto is located in Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: The TCSD budget requires a $7,000 transfer from Capital Outlay, Sports Park parking to Vehciles following accounts to Vehicles: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 91- amending the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Budget to accomplish a budget transfer RESOLUTION NO. CSD 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 BUDGET TO ACCOMPLISH A BUDGET TRANSFER The Board of Directors of the Community Services District does resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That the FY 1990-91 Annual Budget of the Community Services District hereby amended to transfer $7,000 from Capital Outlay Sports Park parking, to vehicles. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 25th day of June, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 4\Rgaoa195 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 91- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 25th day of June, 1991 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 4\I~o~193 ITEM NO. 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON JUNE 25, 1991 CREATION OF TCSD ZONES AND PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FY 1991-92 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: 1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING CERTAIN ZONES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES. SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR That the Board of Directors: Adopt Resolution No. 91 - to amend budget for Service Level C to $411,748.00 and the total TCSD Budget to $3,752,256.00. Adopt Resolution No. 91 - to approve the establishment of certain zones and rates and charges for FY 1991-92 for the TCSD assessments. Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91 - OF THE TEMECULA THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FISCAL IMPACT.' Revenue derived from the assessments will fund the proposed amended FY 1991-92 Budget of $3,752,256.00. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the TCSD assessments is to provide necessary City services and programs which include community parks and recreation services, arterial street lighting and medians, interior street lighting, slope maintenance and landscaping services, and recycling and refuse collection. The benefit zones, which are referred to as service levels, are as follows: 1. Community Services/Parks. 2. Service Level A - Arterial Street Lighting and Medians. 3. Service Level B - Interior Street Lighting. 4. Service Level C - Slope Maintenance Services. 5. Service Level D - Recycling Program and Refuse Collection. The formula used to assess property owners for Community Services/Parks and Service Level A is the same as last fiscal year. All property owners in the City 'of Temecula will be assessed for Community Services/Parks and Service Level A. A funding cap of 949.90 for a single family resident was established by the Board of Directors for Community Services/Parks. The single family rate for Service Level A is 93.45. Service Level B includes only the property owners within residential subdivisions that have street lighting services. The rate is 934.14 per unit for Service Level B. Concerning Service Level C, only property owners within residential subdivisions with TCSD maintained slopes are included in this service level. An analysis was completed by staff to determine the cost associated per property owner for slope maintenance within a specific tract. As a result of this process, it was determined that tracts exist that require less maintenance of slopes than in other tracts. Hence, staff is recommending that two (2) rate levels be established in Service Level C. The rates are as follows: Rate C-1: 9 92.50 Rate C-2: 179.23 Tracts with less maintenance costs per homeowner are included in Rate 1, and tracts with more extensive maintenance costs per homeowner are included in Rate 2. Service Level D provides the Recycling and Refuse Collection Program for FY 1991- 92. This service level includes all detached, single family residents in the City of Temecula. The rate is 9119.37 for nine (9) months due to the program's starting date of October 1, 1991. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution amending TCSD budget. Resolution establishing zones and adopting rates and charges for FY 1991-92. Ordinance establishing zones for the TCSD. RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 BUDGET. The Board of Directors of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. That the FY 1991-92 Annual Budget and Estimated Revenues of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) is hereby amended as follows: Amend Annual Budget for Service Level C to $411,748. and the total TCSD Budget to $3,752,256. SECTION 2. Resolution. The City Clerk/TCSD Secretary shall certify the adoption of this APPROVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 25th day of June, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk/TCSD Secretary [SEAL] 17:24 992132562700 BW&S LA HAIN CSD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OP THE BOARD OF DIRMCTO~S-OF TM~ TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING RATES AND CHARGES FOR PARK AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, STREET LIGHTING, SLOPE MAINTENANCE, RECYCLING AND REFUSE PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92. WHEREAS, upon incorporation of the City of Temecula (the "City") effective December 1, 1989, voters also approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD"), which has the same area and boundaries as the City and whose Board of Directors (the "Board") consists of the members of the City Council of the City; and WHEREAS, that the TCSD includes portions of three (3) county service areas which before incorporation provided different levels of service to different areas now within the City; and WHEREAS, that the TCSD proposes to continue such rates and charges for park and community services, street lighting, slope maintenance, as well as the inclusion of rates and charges for a recycling and refuse program (the "Services and/or Facilities"), less a credit from prior amounts collected, for those areas specifically benefitted thereby and charged by the county service areas or the TCSD for such services in prior fiscal years; and WHEREAS, the Board has requested the preparation of a report for Fiscal Year 1991-92 containing the proposed rates and charges for filing with the Secretary of the TCSD pursuant to the Community Services District Law being Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, pursuant tO Section 61621.2 of the Act, an Engineer's Report for Collection for the Fiscal Year 1991-92 (the "Report") had been presented and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD which contains a description of the proposed Services and/or Facilities to be provided and the proposed rates and charges for such Servicee and/or Facilities, and a description of the parcels subject to the rates and charges. The Report is based upon a budget adopted by the Board for the proposed Services and/or Facilities for specific areas where sUCh Services and/or Facilities are provided, including necessary staff and administrative expenses. -1- 06/20/91 17:25 ~'92132362700 BW&$ LA HAIN WHEREAS, that the Board of Directors requested that staff provide mailed notice on June 11, 1991, of the hearing of such rates and charges; and published as required by law and the affidavits of publication and mailing are on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, that at the public hearing conducted on June 25, 1991, as noticed, the TCSD heard and considered all protests, comments, oral and written, by any interested person concerning the proposed rates and charges or the method of their collection; and WHEREAS, that at the conclusion of the public hearing, the TCSD modified/confirmed the rates and charges in the amounts set out on Exhibit "A" entitled "Project Summary", attached and incorporated by this reference, confirmed their collection on the tax roll and approved an appeal procedure; and WHEREAS, that the TCSD further finds that based on the Report and budget, the rates and charges as set out on Exhibit "A" are the reasonable cost of the Services and/or Facilities to be provided by the TCSD for Fiscal Year 1991-92; and WHEREAS, the TCSD proposes to collect such rates and charges at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and noC separately from, the general taxes for the TCSD which rates shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such general taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of general taxes of the TCSD, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to such rates and charges. However, if for the first year the charge is levied, the real property to which the charge relates has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes a~pear on the roll, then the charge, or the delinquency ~n that charge, assessed pursuant to this section shall not result in a lien against the property, but instead shall be t~ansferred to the unsecured roll collection; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DOES HEREBY, RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: -2- 06/20/91 17:26 '1~92132362700 BW&S LA MAIN --- TEHECULA ~004/008 Section 1. That the rates and charges for Fiscal Year 1991-92 as set out on Exhibit "A" for the Services and/or Facilities are adopted for Fiscal Year 1991-92; and Section 2. That the TCSD shall collect such rates and charges at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes for the TCSD, which rates shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties as such general taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of general taxes of the TCSD, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to such rates and charges. However, if for the first year the charge is levied, the real property to which the charge relates has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes appear on the roll, then the charge, or the delinquency in that charge, assesmed pursuant to this section shall not result in a lien against the property, but instead shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection; and Section 3. That the application of the rates and charges may 6e appealed within thirty (30) days after payment of rates and charges pursuant to procedures established by the TCSD; and Section 4. That the Secretary of the TCSD is ordered to transmit or cause to be transmitted to the County Auditor of the County of Riverside, California (the "County") before August 10, 1991, the property tax ~oll with such rates and charges enumerated for each parcel not exempt therefrom; and the County Auditor of the County is hereby designated, required, empowered, authorized, instructed, directed and ordered to make collection of all such assessments as shown on that roll and to perform any and all duties necessary therefor; and Section 5. That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") the levy and collection of these rates and charges is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15273 of the State Guidelines and that the City Clerk is instructed to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. -3- 06/20/91 17:26 ~92132362700 8~&S LA HAIN --- TE~ECULA PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 1991. day of ATTEST: J. SAL PRESIDENT June S. Gree~, City Clerk -4- 06/20/91 17:26 ~'92132562700 BW&$ LA MAIN --- TEMECULA ~006/008 EXHIBIT A PROJECT SUM//A~Y -5- ANNUAL LEVY REPORT TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Fiscal Year 1991/92 June 1991 Prepared by MUNI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. 42217 Rio Nedo, Suite #A-203 Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-3990 Fax: 714-699-3460 1440 Francisco Street San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 441-3550 Fax: 415-441-1401 ANNUAL LEVY REPORT TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Fiscal Year 1991/92 BOARD OF DIRECTORS J. SAL MU~OZ President PEG MOORE Vice President RONALD J. PARKS Director PATRICIA BIRDSALL Director KAREL LINDEMANS Director DAVID F. DIXON General Manager SCO'l-r FIELD General Counsel SHAWN D. NELSON Director of Community Services JUNE S. GREEK Secretary to the Board TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT SUMMARY .......................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 2 Purpose of Project ......................................... 2 History of Project .......................................... 2 Importance of the Project .................................... 3 Authority and Procedure ................................... ... 3 Definition of Terms Used for this Project ......................... 4 PROJECT STRUCTURE ......................................... 9 Zone Definition ........................................... 9 Boundary Definition .' ....................................... 9 Community Services/Parks .................................. 9 SERVICE LEVEL A - Citywide Arterial Service ..................... 10 SERVICE LEVEL B - Local Street Lighting Service .................. 10 SERVICE LEVEL C - Perimeter Landscaping/Slope Maintenance ........ 12 SERVICE LEVEL D - SFR Recycling/Refuse Collection ............... 12 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS .......................................... 14 Budget Definition .......................................... 14 METHOD OF BENEFIT APPORTIONMENT AND FORMULA .............. 17 FORMULA I - Community Services/Parks and Service Level A ......... 17 FORMULA II- Service Level B and C ............................ 23 FORMULA III - Service Level D ................................ 25 ASSESSMENT ROLL .......................................... 26 AFFIDAVIT FOR ANNUAL LEVY REPORT ............................ 27 PROJECT SUMMARY TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT On March 13, 1991, Muni Financial Services was retained by the City of Temecula to prepare the Annual Levy Report for the Temecula Community Services District (T'CSD) for the Fiscal Year 1991/1992. Pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 et seq., the TCSD has the power to levy and collect special assessments in order to carry on its operations and to provide the services and facilities furnished by it. The levy and collection of the special assessments is accomplished by the assignment of benefit to each parcel within a specific benefit zone. A Benefit Zone is a defined area that provides a specific service, operation and maintenance and/or program to only those parcels contained within that zone. The public Interest and convenience require the reorganization of the existing zones of benefit within the TCSD by the establishment of five city-wide benefit zones. The Zones of Benefit and their service descriptions are as follows: 1. Community Services/Parks: Operation and maintenance, Improvements and administration of the City community park system, recreation facilities, services and programs. 2. Service Level A: Service, operation, maintenance, energy improvements and administration for all Arterial street lighting and medians. 3. Service Level B: Service, operation, maintenance, energy improvements and administration for all local street lighting within recorded subdivisions. 4. Service Level C: Service, operation, maintenance, improvements and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance within recorded subdivisions. Rate C1: Slope maintenance areas requiring minimum landscaping services. Rate C2: Slope maintenance areas requiring more extensive landscaping services. 5. Service Level D: Recycling program and refuse collection for all detached, single-family residential homes. The Financial Analysis contained herein contains each Zone Budget concluding with their Totals for Fiscal Year 91/92 year to be as follows: ZONE BUDGET RATE AREA BUDGET $/SFR Community Services/Parks: $ 2,090,640 Service Level A $ 144,769 Service Level B $ 194,051 Service Level C $ 411,540 Service Level D TOTAL TCSD LEVY FY 91/92: Rate Ct: $116,365 Rate C2:$295,175 $ 3.45 $ 34.14 $179.23 $ 911,256 $119.37 $ 3,752,256 $411,540 $ 386.09 ($32.17/mo) The Levy and Collection amounts for all non-exempt parcels within the TCSD for the Fiscal Year 1991/1992 are as shown on the Assessment Roll, Exhibit 'B' on file with the City Clerk. INTRODUCTION Purpose of Project The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District finds and declares that it is the policy of responsible government to encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal and economic well-being of the City. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District recognize that the logical formation and determination of special funding districts is an important factor in promoting orderly development and proper application of benefit to constituents within such a district. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District acknowledge that urban population densities and intensive residential, commercial, and industrial development necessitate a broad spectrum and high level of community services and programs. When areas become urbanized to the extent that they need the full range of community services, priorities are required to be established regarding the type and levels of services that the residents of the City'need and desire. Community service priorities are established by weighing the total community service needs against the total financial resources available for securing community services, and those community service priorities are required to reflect local circumstances, conditions and limited financial resources. Therefore, the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District find and declare that the need and priorities of the growing City of Temecula necessitate the continuance of the service and funding abilities provided within the mechanism of a Community Services District. The purpose of the existing Temecula Community Services District (hereinafter referred to as TCSD) is to provide the financial resources necessary for securing and continuing vital community services and augmenting limited financial resources for the growing City of Temecula. History of Project Prior to the incorporation of the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside had formed and maintained County Service Areas 75, 103 and 143. These County Service Areas (CSA) provided necessary services to a rapidly developing area soon to be proposed for city incorporation by a vote of the constituents currently receiving the benefit of the CSA services. 2 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, on May 2, 1989, approved and ordered to the voters, the confirmation of the City of Temecula and the formation of a Community Services District as a subsidiary district of the City. On the effective date of incorporation, the boundary of the Temecula Community Services District became coterminous with the city limit of the City of Temecula. The effective date of the incorporation of the City of Temecula and the formation of the Temecula Community Services District was December 3, 1989. Importance of the Project The services that are provided by the TCSD have been and will continue to be those services required to serve the needs of a growing community. Though still in the post- incorporation stage with many comprehensive city services yet to be finalized, the City of Temecula is very fortunate to offer its citizens the diverse community services provided by the TCSD. Without the revenue generated by this special district, the following community services could be seriously without funds to function: · Citywide Community Park Services · Citywide Recreation Programs · Citywide Street Lighting Operation and Maintenance · Citywide Median Maintenance · Local Street Lighting Systems · Local Perimeter Landscaping · Local Slope Protection Furthermore, vital programs to address our environment, such as citywide recycling and refuse collection for the residents within the City, would not receive the necessary consideration for implementation if funding vehicles and cost saving collection programs for such an implementation were not available. Authority and Procedure Community Service Districts are authorized pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Division 3 of '13tle 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the CSD Law). The CSD Law has the power to levy and collect special taxes in order to carry on its operations and provide the services and facilities furnished by it. A CSD has the power to prescribe, Tevise and collect rates and charges. As the public interest and convenience require, the existing zones of benefit within the TCSD may be reorganized. 3 Rates and charges, and any related delinquencies, may be collected on the tax roll in the same manner and time as general taxes provided certain procedures are followed. Each year the governing board of the CSD (the City Council of the City of Temecula presides as the Board of the TCSD) must cause a "Report" to be prepared and filed with its Secretary which contains the description of each parcel of real property within the CSD and its related reorganizations, zone creation, and rates and charges for the upcoming fiscal year. A public hearing addressing the contents of the "Report" is necessary. Notice of the filing of this "Report" and of the hearing must be given in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for two successive weeks and by mail to each person who owns a parcel which will be subject to the CSD rates and charges. The CSD then holds a public hearing in which the Board of the CSD considers all objections or protests or revise any rate and charge subsequent to adopting the "Report" as final. On or before August 10th, the Secretary of the CSD files a copy of the "Report" with the County of Riverside Auditor/Controller with a statement endorsed thereon by the Secretary that the report has been finally adopted by the Board. The Auditor then places the rates and charges on the tax roll; and the rates and charges become a lien against the parcels. The TCSD is updated, implemented and reviewed for collection every year by the above procedure to ensure due process and disclosure of the annual service and funding requirements as they relate to the property receiving benefit from the District. Definition of Terms 'Used for this Project Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, the definitions contained in this section govern for the clarification of the intent and purpose of the project. Acre (s)/Acreage: Arterial: The amount of total net area for a lot of record translated as acreage amount (where one acre equals 43560 square feet) as found on the latest Assessor Parcel Maps of the County of Riverside at the time of CSD update. Within the Southwest Area Community Plan Circulation Element of the County of Riverside, those streets which are classified to be Arterial Streets and their related appurtenant amenities and facilities. 4 Assessor Parcel Map: ~-. Assessor Parcel No.: Assessor Parcel Tape: Assessment: Assessment Roll: Assessment Levy: Authority: Benefit: Bener~ Zone: Board of Directors: Boundaw: The latest County of Riverside Assessor Parcel Maps as found on file in the office of the County Assessor. The parcel identification number found on the latest assessor parcel map of the County of Riverside. The latest public information tape generated by the County of Riverside Assessor Office which contains information regarding assessor parcels. Pursuant to the formula to assign benefit, the resulting dollar amount to be collected and placed as a lien upon a non- exempt parcel within the TCSD for the benefit received. Official collection listing of all parcels within the boundary of the TCSD which discloses every non-exempt parcel with its' corresponding benefit assessment. Same as Assessment. Community Services District Law, Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the CSD Law). Defined facility, program, service, maintenance, operation and administration provided by the TCSD which is perceived to enhance the desirability and value of a non-exempt parcel if it is received as opposed to the absence of such. Specific area which receives a defined facility, program, service, maintenance, operation or administration as provided by the TCSD. The governing body charged with the duty to oversee and direct the proceedings of the TCSD. The Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District presides as the Board for the TCSD. For all benefit zones within the TCSD, their boundaries (benefit areas) are defined to be coterminous with the City Limit of the City of Temecula. 5 Budget: City: City Clerk: City Council: City Umit: Citywide: Collection: Community Service: County: County Assessor: County Auditor: County Controller: County Recorder: Developed Property: District: The itemization of all costs for facilities, programs, services, maintenance and operation, and administration of the TCSD. The City of Temecula. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula. The City Council of the City of Temecula. The incorporated city limits of the City of Temecula as it exists at the time of the TCSD fiscal year update. Being applicable to all of the non-exempt parcels within the incorporated city limits of the City of Temecula. On or before August loth, the Secretary of the CSD files a copy of the "Report" with the County of Riverside Auditor/Controller with a statement endorsed thereon by the secretary that the report has been finally adopted by the Board. The auditor then places the rates and charges on the tax roll and the rates and charges become a lien against the parcels. Program defined and contained within the Budget of the TCSD. The County of Riverside, in the State of California The County of Riverside Assessor. The County of Riverside Auditor. The County of Riverside Controller. The County of Riverside County Recorder. Non-exempt parcels which have been assigned per the. County of Riverside property status code, other than a vacant or agricultural land use code, and have been conferred a Certificate of Occupancy. The Temecula Community Services District or TCSD. 6 Equivalent Dwelling Unit: Exempt Parcel(s): Fiscal Year: Financial Analysis: Land Use Code(s): Local Street Light(s): Maintenance: Median: Non-Exempt Parcel(s): Notice of Public Hearing: Defined benefit related to all single-family residential parcels (1.0 EDU) which is equated to all other land use code designations for assignment of an equitable benefit assessment. All parcels defined by government code and TCSD formula to be contained in the following classifications: - Parcels owned by federal, state, county and city agencies, - Parcels owned by regional municipalities, - Parcels owned by public school districts, - Parcels owned by private property homeowner associations, - Parcels owned by public utility companies, - Parcels assigned the Land Use Code C21: Cemetery. The Fiscal Year 1991-1992. The annual review of all the TCSD Zone Budgets --costs, expenditures, surpluses and delinquencies--for the TCSD in the Fiscal Year 1991-1992. The County of Riverside property coding system used to identify properties and to apply special assessments. Street lights which are located on public, residential streets within residential subdivisions. Within a Zone; The re-occurring attention or activity to a slope, park, median, or related public facility and applying the receipts from the special collection for the continued maintenance within the specific Zone. Delineated divider areas within the Arterial street system. Those parcels within the TCSD which are not classified as Exempt Parcels. Official mailing to each non-exempt parcel property owner, as of the latest equalized assessor roll of the County of Riverside at the time of the mailing, which discloses the time and place of the TCSD Public Hearing as set by the Board. 7 Parcel: Property Owner(s): Recycling Program: Refuse Collection: Resolutions: Service Level: Single-Family Detached Residential Parcel: Vacant Property: Weighing Factor: Zone: The Assessor Parcel as found on the latest County of Riverside Assessor Parcel Map(s). Landowner, assessor parcel owner as of the latest equalized assessor roll of the County of Riverside at the time of the TCSD update. State of the art program for the reclamation of useable materials collection of which will be newly established this year by the TCSD. Within the TCSD, refuse collection service provided only to detached, single-family residences. The official procedural documents for the update, implementation and collection of the TCSD for the Fiscal Year 1991-1992. A Zone; the furnishing of a specific'service which is specifically authorized to be provided, and apply the receipts from the special collection within that Zone to the continuance of a specific service. An assessor parcel that The County of Riverside assigns the Land Use Code designation R01. An assessor parcel that The County of Riverside assigns the Land Use Code designation "Y" after the primary classification code. That factor contained within the Method of Benefit Assignment formula which equates 1.0 EDU per parcel to all land use codes appearing within the data base for the TCSD. Benefit Area; Service Level 8 PROJECT STRUCTURE Zone Definition Pursuant to CSD Law, Zones may be established within a district for levying special taxes to provide the construction, maintenance and operation of improvements or the furnishing of services where in the judgment of the Board, the improvements or services will not be of district wide benefit. The Temecula Community Services District has established zones of distinct benefit called Service Levels. Each of the separate TCSD Service Levels provide a specific benefit and are defined to provide this benefit to certain non-exempt parcels. Boundary Definition The boundary for each of the separate TCSD zones is defined to be coterminous with the City Limit of the City of Temecula as it existed when the Fiscal Year 1991-1992 update was made. The following are the Service Levels of Benefit for the Temecula Community Services District: Community Services/Parks This Zone will provide the operation and maintenance of the entire City community park system, recreation facilities, services. and programs. List of City Parks: Description: 1. Sports Park, Corner of Margarita/Rancho Vista 2. Sam Hicks Monument Park, Corner of Mercedes/Moreno 3. Veterans Park, Corner of La Serena/General Kearney 4. Park Site, Corner of Avenida De La Reina/Corte Talvera 5. Park Site, Corner of Avenida De La Reina/Corte Aragon The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) is responsible ,for providing three functions: (a) recreation services, (b) park planning and development, and (c) landscape services. The TCSD is governed by the Board of Directors (City Council), who set the programs, services and capital development to be provided to the Citizens of Temecula. 9 Goals: Key Objectives: Community Services/Parks will expand recreation opportunities through the acquisition, improvement and development of new park facilities, and the rehabilitation of existing facilities. Recruit, hire, and train recreation personnel that will provide a wide variety of recreational opportunities and pursuits. Develop a comprehensive financing package to include the acquisition of park land and the development of recreation facilities. SERVICE LEVEL A - Citywide Arterial Service This Service Level will provide servicing, operation, maintenance, energy and administration for all Arterial street lighting and medians. For Service Level A Levy, refer to Exhibit "B". THIS SERVICE LEVEL CONSISTS OF ALL ARTERIAL STREETS WITHIN THE CITY AS DEFINED BY (SWAP) FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA. FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992, ALL NONEXEMPT PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS (11,491 PARCELS) WILL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS SERVICE LEVEL. SERVICE LEVEL B - Local Street Lighting Service This Service Level will provide servicing, operation, administration for all local street lighting. maintenance, energy and. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS INCLUDED WITHIN THIS SERVICE LEVEL IS 5~666. 10 SERVICE LEVEL # of Book/Page Parcels 911 - 20 73 911 - 21 97 911 - 25 30 911 - 26 97 911 - 29 89 911 - 33 63 911 - 47 62 911 - 48 30 911 - 49 64 911 - 50 68 911 - 51 97 911 - 59 87 914 - 26 1 914 - 58 29 914 - 59 71 914 - 61 67 914 - 62 48 914 - 63 67 914 - 64 43 914 - 66 44 914 - 67 65 914 - 68 57 918 - 29 97 918 - 30 93 918 - 31 83 918 - 32 84 918 - 33 72 918 - 34 33 918 - 35 33 919 - 36 37 919 - 37 48 919 -'38 91 919 - 39 28 919 - 40 1 919 - 41 1 919 - 42 40 921 - 09 1 921 - 37 1 921 - 38 52 921 - 39 29 921 - 41 46 921 - 42 44 # of Book/Page Parcels 921 - 43 61 921 - 44 22 921 - 45 85 921 - 46 40 921 - 47 45 921 - 49 99 921 - 50 94 921 - 51 48 921 - 52 62 921 - 53 36 921 - 54 49 921 - 55 52 921 - 56 43 921 - 57 45 921 - 58 41 921 - 59 43 921 - 60 58 921 - 61 72 921 - 62 39 921 - 63 26 921 - 64 32 921 - 65 23 921 - 66 52 921 - 67 16 921 - 69 1 922 - 02 13 922 - 04 2 922 - 22 2 922 - 27 69 922 - 28 86 922 - 29 75 922 - 31 79 922 - 32 68 922 - 33 60 922 - 34 97 922 - 35 32 944 - 03 72 944 ~ 04 24 944 - 05 29 944 - 23 43 944 - 24 42 944 - 25 40 # of Book;Paqe Parcels 944 - 26 35 944 - 27 35 944 - 28' 29 944 - 30 38 944 - 32 15 945 - 04 21 945 - 19 17 945 - 20 12 945 - 21 47 945 - 22 36 945 - 23 41 945 - 24 31 945 - 25 945 - 26 21 945 - 27 69 946 - 11 72 946 - 12 58 946 - 13 29 946 - 15 42 946 - 16 43 946 - 22 62 946 - 23 67 946 - 24 32 946 - 25 47 946 - 26 42 946 - 27 44 946 - 28 40 946 - 29 47 946 - 30 29 946 - 31 23 946 - 32 17 946 - 33 21 946 - 34 49 946 - 35 28 946 - 36 32 946 - 37 31 946 - 40 28 946 - 41 39 946 - 42 29 946 - 43 4 946 - 44 i Total Parcels: 5666 ll SERVICE LEVEL C - Perimeter LandscapingSSlope Maintenance This Service Level will provide for the servicing, operation, maintenance and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance within recorded subdivisions. SUBDIVISION NOS. 18518 20130 2O643 2O644 2O735 2O879 20881 20882 2134O 21561 21672 21673 21674 21675 21764 22203 .22208 22593 23128 21082 21765 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 199!/1992, THERE WILL BE 2,905 PARCELS WITHIN THIS SERVICE LEVEL. SERVICE LEVEL D - SFR Recycling/Refuse Collectfon This Service Level will provide for a Recycling Program and Refuse Collection for all detached, single-family residential homes. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992, THERE WILL BE 7,696 DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN THIS SERVICE LEVEL. 12 Exempt Parcels ALL EXEMPT PARCELS ARE DESIGNATED WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AS: LAND USE CODE "999" THIS DESIGNATION HAS BEEN ASSIGNED BY THE ENGINEER OF WORK DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE OR DIFFERENTIATE THE EXEMPT STATUS OF A SPECIFIC PARCEL IN CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS SPECIAL DISTRICTS ONGOING IN THE COUNTY. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992, THERE ARE 298 EXEMPT PARCELS. 13 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Budget Definition Each year the governing Board of the CSD (the City Council of the City of Temecula presides as the Board of the TCSD) must cause a "Report" to be prepared and filed with its secretary which contains the description of each parcel of real property within the CSD and its related rates and charges for the upcoming fiscal year. The Financial Analysis section of the "Report" itemizes the budgets for each of the Service Levels. Within each of the following Service Level budgets will be the specific costs, fees, expenditures, surpluses, deficits, delinquencies and appropriate City administration judged by the Board of Directors for the TCSD to be applicable within the Fiscal Collection Year 1991/1992. The Service Level Budget Total, found at the end of each budget, is that dollar amount to be apportioned to each of the non-exempt benefitting parcels within that particular Service Level. All budget information contained in the following Service Level Budgets were provided by the City of Temecula by request of the Board of Directors for the TCSD. All amounts listed are in 1991 dollars free of inflationary factors. Any questions regarding the content or dollar amounts within the Budgets should be directed to the Finance Department of the City of Temecula. 14 TEMCULA COMMUNITY SERVICES OISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET DEPARTMENT SUMMARY - AHENOEO FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE ]0, 1992 ACCOUNT# COHMUNITY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICES LEVEL A LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL O TOTAL 190 195 196 197 198 PERSONNEL SERVICES Number of Staff Salaries & wages 5100 Employer taxes 5104 Benefits Project Employment 13.00 0.45 0.55 2.00 16.00 368,850 $ 7,263 $ 8,960 $ 51,369 $ $ 436,442 5,533 109 134 771 6,547 121,721 2,397 2,957 16,952 144,026 69,500 69,500 565,603 9,769 12,051 6%091 656,514 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Te[ephone Service 5208 4,000 Repair & Maintenance-Facilities 5212 60,000 Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 5214 7,500 Office Supplies 5220 6,500 Printing 5222 35,000 Legal Documents/Maps 5224 5,000 Dues & Memberships 5226 1,500 Publications 5228 2,000 Postage & Packaging 5230 6,000 Rent-Office Meeting Hall 5234 2,000 Rent ~ Equipment 5238 10,000 Utilities 5240 75,000 Small Tools/Equi;ment 5242 12,000 Uniforms 5243 2,000 Signs 5244 3,000 Legal Services 5246 10,000 Consulting Services 5248 30,000 Other Outside Services 5250 140,000 Advertising 5254 5,000 PubLic Notices 5256 1,000 Conference Education 5258 8,000 Mileage 5262 2,000 Fuel Expense 5263 3,000 BLueprints 5268 1,000 Recreation Supplies 5300 15,000 Street Lighting 5500 Landscape Maintenance 5510 Waste Hauling Assessment Engineering' 5525 9,260 City Admin. Charges 5540 250,000 65,000 105,000 182,000 30,000 277,449 911,256 4,000 60,000 7,500 6,500 35 000 5 000 1 500 2 000 6 000 2 000 10 000 140,000 12,000 2,000 3,000 10,000 30,000 140,000 5,000 1,000 8,000 2,000 3,000 1,000 15,000 287,000 307,449 911,256 9,260 250,000 705,760 135,000 182,000 342,449 911,256 2,276,465 15 CAPITAL OUTLAY Office Equipment 5602 5,000 5,000 Computer Hardware/Software 560& 10,000 10,000 Vehictes 5608 15,000 15,000 Equipment 5610 34,000 34,000 CZP - Design 5802 25,000 25,000 CIP - General Contractor 5804 225,000 225,000 Debt Service - Capital Projects Total 505,277 5O5,277 819,277 819,277 $ 2,090,6~0 $ 144,7'69 $ 194,051 $ 411,540 $ 911,256 $ 3,752,256 16 METHOD OF BENEFIT APPORTIONMENT AND FORMULA ~'~ The Service Level Budget Totals are the amounts to be apportioned to all non-exempt parcels within the respective Zone. This amount is apportioned by a method and formula which fairly distributes the Service Level Budget Total among all non-exempt parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each of the non-exempt parcels from the described services, programs, etc. provided within the respective Service Level. For the Fiscal Year 1991/1992, there will be three basic formulas for the apportionment of the Service Level Budget Totals. The formula usage by Service Level is as follows: FORMULA I - Community Services/Parks and Service Level A Both of the above Service Levels will assess all non-exempt parcels within their boundary. Therefore, being a citywide levy, all land use codes occurring within the above Service Levels are equated by use of a weighing factor. The formula used to calculate the amount of spread to all parcels starts with the basic Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). The EDU is given a value of one (1.0) for a single-family (Land Use Code R01) parcel. From this base, all other occurring non-exempt parcels have been equated to the single-family residence using weighing factors to distinguish the different levels of benefit. A minimum assignment of 1.0 EDU per parcel is assigned where the EDU's are computed based on parcel acreage. A = Service Level Budget Total B = Total Single-Family Dwelling Units (SF) C = Number of Multi-Family Dwelling Units (MF) Dn E = Acres of vacant Residential (Greater than one acre), Non-residential Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial (Improved) and Vacant Commercial, Industrial, and Other = Weighing Factor for Multi-Family Residential Parcels (AC) = 0.75 F1 -- Weighing Factor for Vacant Residential (YR) (Greater than one acre) 17 F2 G H J K L M1 M2 N 0 P = Weighing Factor for Vacant Residential (YR) (Less than one acre) = Weighing Factor for Agricultural = Weighing Factor for Commercial and Industrial (Developed) = Weighing Factor for Vacant Commercial, Industrial and Other = Total Equivalent Single-Family Dwelling Units = Assessment per Single-Family = Assessment per Multi-Family = Assessment per Vacant Residential Parcel (YR) (Greater than one acre) = Assessment per Vacant Residential Parcel (YR) (Less than one acre) = Assessment per Agricultural Acreage = Assessment per Commercial and Industrial (Improved) Acreage -- Assessment per Vacant Commercial, Industrial and Other Acreage = 0.50 -- 0.50 = 6.00 = 4.00 18 FORMULA J K L M~ M2 N O P = B + (CxE) + (DnxF) + (DnxG) + (DnxH) + (Dnxl) --A/J =KxE -- KxF1 = KxF2 =KxG =KxH =Kxl 19 FORMULA EXAIVIPI F - (COMMUNI'Pf SERVICES/PARKS AND SEllVICE LEVEL A) GIVEN: A B C D (Vacant Residential) D (Agricultural) D (Commercial, Industrial Improved) D (Vacant Commercial, Industrial, other) = $1,500,000 = 7,000 = 3,000 = 2,3OO = 1,200 = 1,000 = 5,000 THEN: J = 7000 + (3000 x 0.75) + (2300 x 0.5) + (1200 x 0.5) + (1000 x 6.0) + (5000 x 4.0) = 37,000 EDU K = $1,500,000/37,000 L = $ 40.54 x 0.75 M1 = $ 40.54 x 0.5 M2 = $ 40.54 x 2.0 N = $ 37.08 x 6.0 O = $ 37.08 x 6.0 P = $ 37.08 x 4.0 = $ 40.54 per SF = $ 30.41 per MF = $ 81.08 per AC = $ 20.27 per Parcel = $18.54 per AC = $222.48 per AC = $148.32 per AC ' 2O COMMUNITY SERVICE/PARKS - FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992 The assessments for non-exempt parcels within the Community Services/Parks are as follows: Single Family Residential Multi-Family (Includes Apartments, Condominiums, Mobil Homes) Residential (Vacant) Agriculture Non Residential (Improved) Non Residential (Vacant) 49.90 per unit 37.43 per unit 99.80 per acre 24.95 per acre 299.40 per acre 199.60 per acre 21 SERVICE LEVEL A - FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 The assessments for non-exempt parcels within the Service Level A are as follows: Single Family Residential Multi-Family (Includes Apartments, Condominiums, Mobil Homes) Residential (Vacant) Agriculture Non Residential (Improved) Non Residential (Vacant) 3.45 per unit 2.60 per unit 6.92 per acre 1.73 per acre 20.76 per acre 13.84 per acre 22 FORMULA II- Service Level B and C Neither Service Level B or Service Level C are citywide levy service levels. Service Level B and Service Level C do not apportion their respective Service Level Budget Totals upon all Single-Family Residential parcels. Service Level B and Service Level C have separate, non-exempt parcel data bases comprised of only those Single-Family parcels which are part of a recorded subdivision which has, as required by conditions governing the subdivision development, installed facilities to provide certain described amenities and services. For these two Service Levels, the data base will consist of only Single-Family Residential parcels with a Land Use Code of RO1 and, of those parcels, only those contained within specific recorded subdivisions. There will not be a need to equate to other land use codes for these two Service Levels due to the direct nature of the benefit received. Therefore, the formula for apportionment within Service Level B is only recorded subdivisions with street lighting services. Service Level C is only recorded subdivisions with TCSD maintenanced slope areas. The formula for apportinment within Service Level C is defined into two (2) rates: Rate C1: Slope maintenance areas requiring minimum landscaping services. Rate C2: Slope maintenance areas requiring more extensive landscaping services. SERVICE LEVEL BUDGET TOTAL / TOTAL SFR PARCELS = $ PER SFR PARCEL Formula Example GIVEN: Service Level Budget Total $80,000 Total SFR Parcels THEN: $ 80,000 / 8,ooo $ 10 PER SFR PARCEL 23 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR PARCEL AS IT APPLIES FOLLOWS: 1991/1992, THE LEVY FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY (R01) TO THE ABOVE SERVICE LEVEL FORMULA IS AS SERVICE LEVEL B - FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL = $ 34.14 SERVICE LEVEL C - FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992 Rate C1' Single Family Residential Rate C2: Single Family Residential = $ 92.50 = $179.23 24 FORMULA III - Service Level D Service Level D services will be provided only to detached Single-Family Residential parcels. These parcels are identified by the County of Riverside Land Use Code RO1. For purposes of this Service Level only, the use of detached is intended to exclude all other single-family residential classifications such as condominiums, townhomes, patio homes which could share a common wall and where the refuse collection process resembles that provided to an apartment complex. The intent of Service Level D is to levy a yearly recycling/refuse collection fee which is easy to execute and administer for single-family residents. Other residential classifications tend to require group refuse bins with various collection options which would dictate a complicated administration. With the uncomplicated service of one pick-up per detached single-family resident, it is possible to calculate an annual fee. The ease of using the TCSD as the fee collection vehicle results in a decrease in the service fee received by the property owner due to the corresponding decrease of' many administrative activities inherent with the old fee collection process. SERVICE LEVEL D - FISCAL YEAR 1991/1992 Single Family Residential $119.37 25 ASSESSMENT ROLL The individual Fiscal Year 1991/1992 assessments, tabulated by Assessor Parcel Number, as assigned by the County of Riverside Assessor's Office, are shown on an Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Temecula and are also contained within this Annual Levy Report by reference to Exhibit" B" 26 AFFIDAVIT FOR ANNUAL LEVY REPORT TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA The undersigned respectively submits the enclosed Annual Levy Report and Assessment Roll herein referenced as Exhibit" B ", as directed by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District. Dated: David R. Keltner, P.E. Engineer of Work I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed "Report", together with the Assessment Roll thereto attached, was filed with me on the ~ day of ,1991. Secretary to the Board Temecula Community Services Districts Temecula, California BY: June S. Greek Secretary to the Board 27 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed "Report", together with the Assessment Roll thereto attached, was approved for levy by the Board of the TCSD, Temecula, California, on the day of ,1991. Secretary to the Board Temecula Community Services Districts Temecula, California BY: June S. Greek Secretary to the Board I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed "Report", together with the Assessment Roll thereto attached, was filed with the County Auditor/Controller of the County of Riverside on the day of ,1991. BY: Secretary to the Board Temecula Community Services Districts Temecula, California June S. Greek Secretary to the Board 28 CSD ORDINANCE NO. 91-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN ZONES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES WHEREAS, upon incorporation of the City of Temecula (the "City") effective December 1, 1989, voters also approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District (the "TCSD"), which has the same area and boundaries as the City and whose Board of Directors (the "Board") consists of the members of the City Council of the City; and WHEREAS, the TCSD includes portions of three county service areas which before incorporation provided different levels of service to different areas now within the City; and WHEREAS, the public interest and convenience require the reorganization of the existing zones of benefit within the TCSD by the establishment of five city-wide benefit zones whereby each zone or service level provides a specific service, operation, maintenance and/or program; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 1991, the TCSD adopted Resolution No. 91-05 (the "Resolution of Intention") whereby the TCSD declared its intention to establish separate zones of benefit for park and community services, street lighting, slope maintenance, and recycling and refuse program purposes pursuant to Section 61770 et ~eXl. of the Community Services District Law being Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 61000 (the "Act") and such zones of benefit are hereinafter referred to as "Service Levels"; and WHEREAS, upon adoption of this Ordinance, the Resolution of Intention has been duly and legally published and mailed in the time, form and manner as required by law, and the Resolution of Intention and the Affidavit of Publication has been filed with the Secretary; and WHEREAS, upon adoption of this Ordinance, at the time and place for which notice was given, the TCSD has held a noticed public heating as required by law to determine whether it should proceed with the establishment of the Service Levels; and WHEREAS, upon adoption of this Ordinance, at said hearing, all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the establishment of the Service Levels have been heard and a full and fair heating has been held; and WHEREAS, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, the TCSD has found that the written protests against .the proposed establishment of the Service Levels have not been made by fifty percent (50%) or more of the registered voters within the territory proposed to be included in any Service Levels or the owners representing more that one-half of the value of the land and 5/esdreso91-01 -I- improvements in the territory proposed to be included in any Service Level; and the TCSD has passed upon such protests, if any; and WHEREAS, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, 91-01 requests for exclusion were received prior to the public heating and the Board has made specific findings as to whether or not property related to each such request shall be included in the particular Service Level; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. Upon the adoption of this Ordinance, the TCSD has overruled any protests, and pursuant to Section 61778 of the Act, hereby orders the reorganization of the existing zones of benefit by the establishment of the following zones of benefit, referred to herein as Service Levels, for the following generally described purposes: Community Services/Parks Services, operations, maintenance, improvements and administration of the City community park system, recreation facilities, services and programs. Service Level A: Service, operations, maintenance, energy, improvements and administration for all arterial street lighting, medians and traffic signals. Service Level B: Service, operations, maintenance, energy, improvements and administration for all local street lighting within recorded subdivisions. Service Level C: Service, operations, maintenance, energy, improvements and administration for all perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance within recorded subdivisions. Service Level D: single-family residential homes. Recycling program and refuse collection for all detached, SECTION 3. Upon the adoption of this Ordinance, the TCSD finally determines and establishes the boundaries of the Service Levels and, for the fiscal year 1991-92, designates the types of improvements to be constructed and the services to be performed, in accordance with the Engineer's Report for Collection for the Fiscal Year 1991-92, as finally approved (the "Report") which has been presented and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD. The Report is on file in the City Administrative Offices and reference to said Report, as finally approved, is hereby made for all particulars. SECTION 4. The President shall sign this Ordinance and the Secretary shall attest to the President's signature and then shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the newspaper of general circulation published and circulated within 51esdreso91-0 ! -2- the City. The Secretary shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective on the 31st day after passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1991. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ATTEST: J. Sal Mufioz, President June S. Greek, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I, June S. Greek, Secretary of the Temecula Community Services District, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing CSD Ordinance 91-01 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District on the 11th day of June, 1991. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District on the 25th day of June, 1991, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Secretary 51c~dre~o91-01 -3- 714-676-3976 '~Consumers' Dilemma, USA" Soft Cell In A Discount House" 42367 Cosmic Drive Temecula, CA 92390 June 13, 1991 · Special Assignments · Publicity · Newsle~em · Public Relation City of Temecula City Clerk's Office 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Assessor's Parcel Samuel Levine 944-262-001 Sir: This refers to "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING" to be held June 25th. My protest, comments and suggestions are: l) $49.90 Community Service/Parks: The sports parks and most facilities are being used mostly by youngsters and young adults. And it is ~ell worth the suggested fee. However, as of now, no specific facilities are available to seniors. Consequently, I feel the fee should be discounted to all seniors, 65 years of age and over. 2) Re Service B: Am currently being charged on my County property Tax bill for street lighting. 3) Am paying monthly homeowners dues. Wouldn't much confusion and phone calls have been avoided if the following information ~ere included with the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING · when mailed to homeowners? l) Will the asse~ments be billed separately-or will same be charged on the County property tax bill? 2) Since many homeowners paid for their trash collection 3 months in advance, exactly ~hen does the recycling and collection start? In the event that I am unable to attend.the public hearing, please have this letter read and commented upon. Thank you. Levine The sum way to miss success is to miss the opportunity.--C~atlea. PROMOTIONAL MERCHANDISE COMPANY ASI288980 27475 Ynez Rd. Suite 190, Temecula, CA 92390 · (714) 699-3517 June 12, 1991 City Clerk City of Temecula City Administrative Offices 34180 Business Park Orive Temecula, CA 92590 Oear Sir/Madam I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed increase in taxes in order to support the Temecula Community Services Oistrict. I have been a resident of Temecula for the last 12 consecutive years. I knew that the proponents of cityhood would claim that taxes would not go up by virtue of becoming a city. By the same token, I knew they were telling little white lies because I knew that in a very short time someone would find a way to increase local taxes. Upon becoming an incorporated city, Temecula ceased paying the County for many services and the tax money previously sent to the County should now be used for Temecula services provided by Temecula. Therefore I feel that you can take that money and use it for the above mentioned project. I, therefore, recommend that the proposal be rejected. Respect~ submitted, Robert Berg~ 42701 Via Del Campo Temecula 2 I am submitting this letter in protest of your proposed assessment policy for Service Level C. I feel that a more equitable assessment policy would be to assess only those homes adjacent the slopes as they derive a direct benefit from that landscape, irrigation and maintenance. I would appreciate it if someone from your office would look into.this inequity and make the appropriate changes to the assessment or explain to me why a change should not be made. Please contact me and let me know the outcome of your study. Sincerely, Edward T. DiLeva 1 6-13-91 TO' Board Of Directors - Temecula Community Services District RE- Proposed Service Level C FROM: Edward T. DiLeva 30856 Wellington Circle Temecula, Ca. 92591 (714-694-0356) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 914-591-028 Dear Directors, I am apparently being assessed $179.22 for Service Level C per a notice I received in the mail. A phone call to your city office (714-694-6480) verified that everyone in my sub division of Saddlewood (U.S. Home) was being assessed for this slope maintenance. The slope in this area is not adjacent to my property. I do not drive by the slope as it is situated on the backside of homes that face another direction. I derive no benefit from the landscape, irrigation and maintenance of this slope yet I am being asked to pay for its maintenance. I have not been assessed by the County in the past for this service as I do not live adjacent the slope. I am situated adjacent a slope that is not being maintained as it belongs to a private owner. If the city were to buy this slope and landscape, irrigate and maintain it I would be happy to pay this assessment for it's maintenance. But since, as far as I know, the city is not going to buy that property and landscape it I should not be asked to pay for the maintenance of a slope for which I derive absolutely no benefit. In addition, the County has assessed those homes that were only directly adjacent. the slopes they maintained in the past. Of which, I was not one. Those specific homes were paying only around the $179.00/year that is now being proposed for the entire subdivision. I estimate your proposal brings in about 3 times what the county was receiving to maintain that same slope. Why is that? In any case I do not feel it is fair for me to pay for a service for which I derive absolutely no benefit. 14 June 1991 31812 Poole Ct. Temecula, CA 92390 City of Temecula City Clerk 43172 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92390 RE: APN9 914-682-027 Dear City Clerk, Please record our protest to the Temecula Community Services District rates and charges for "Service Levels" maintenance. This effort to collect additional tax revenue from city residents clearly constitutes an unfair tax circumventing Proposition 13. S~.~e~& Cyn~Ta Gril~ WES(iON PROPERTIES June 13, 1991 Mr. Gary King .~-.~itY of Temecula ~43172 Business Park Drive ~.Temecula, CA. 92390 RE: AP No.'s 909-281-022 909-281-021 921-020-040 921-020-066 921-020-054 921-020-068 Dear Mr. King, Please be aware we strongly object to levy suggested for the referenced properties. It is totally inequitable to expect an office building to make such a large contribution to community services/parks. The majority of the funds for this category should come from residential parcels. In addition, we are being charged outrageous amounts for · buildings that are under construction and vacant land. .... derive any benefit from a park? ..... ~J.ko . . ..... . -.. 18102 Sky Park South, Suite A-l, Irvine, California 92714 (714) 250-5960 H & R Su$sman Inc. June 12 1991. 20335 Ventura Boulevard · Suite 203 ° Woodland Hills, California 91364 City of Temecula. City Cle~s Office. 43172 Business Park Drive. :'..Temecula. ~ 'C a 92390. The Board of D~ectom: With reference to the proposed levy as "Service Levels", we hereby make form al objection to these proposed charges. Clearly these charges constitute a double taxation of the properties in question as property taxes are already being paid. In the circumstances, in our opinion it beco m es unconstitutional to charge further amounts on such properties as the property tax charge is intended to cover such cost~ ............ May we respectfully suggest that you claim such costs fro m the tax department in Riverside County instead of heaping these costs onto the property owner, as it would appear totally inequitable. Sincerely, , Assessoffs P arcel N u m bers: 921-661-006/921-493-020/g45'240-006/921- 524-002/946-253--019/945-220-026/945-212-016. . *-...- ....... COMMU~,]ITY SERVICES TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92390 SLANE LARRY 039721 RUSTIC GLEN DR TEMECULA, CA 92390 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 911-295-002 JUN i S 1991 COM~U~,IITY SERVICES ************************** THIS IS NOT A BILL ************************** COMMUNITY SERVICES / PARKS SERVICE LEVEL A SERVICE LEVEL B SERVICE LEVEL C SERVICE LEVEL D $ 49.90 3.46 34.14 179.22 119.36 $ 386.08 QUESTIONS: CONTACT GARY KING (714) 694-6480 A~,,ss ~?~1 RUSTIC GLEN DR TEMECULA 92390 ~'.'~ SI ANF· I AR~Y I FF Ch~ges Levi~ by T~ing Agencies (see itsm #3 on revere) R~e GENERAL PURPOSE 1.00000 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DEBT SV .04921 r~TROPOLITAN WTR DEBT SV .01850 ,TERN MUNICIPAL WTR DEBT SV .05000 ~NCHO CAL WTR R DIV DEBT SV A RIV CO AD 161 SERIES A A RIV C0 AD 161 SERIES B A TEMECULA CSD PARKS A TEMECULA CSD ZONE A-2 A EMWD STANDBY-COMBINED CHARGE, A B 10/03/90 SLANE, LARRY LEE 39721 RUSTIC GLEN TEMECULA CA 92390 DR SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION 5626-2274000 iTAX DEFAULT YE~,R AND NUMBER (See item #5 on reverae) 62-02-88-86381 Amount 979.20 48.18 18.11 48.96 128.52 15.44 166.66 33.40 16.44 11.60 013-036 911295002-3 Land $ 35,700 Structures 62 · 220 Fixtures Trees & Vines Citrus Pest V~ue Per~nal Prope~ Fu, Vagus S 97,920 Net V~ue $ Tax Rate per $1~ value 97 ~ 920 ~" I. I 1771 SERVITORS 1,094 46 Other Assessments - 372.06 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 1,466.52 1st Installment Receipt 2ncl Installment Rece~: 733.26 733 Add 10% pen~ penalty + $10 c after a 12/10/90 0411C s 733.26 s 733.26 iNFORMATIONAL COPY THE ORIGINAL TAX BILL FOR THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN MAILED TO A MORTGAGE COMPANY, BANK. OR OTHER LENDING AGENCY ,AT ITS REQUEST. THIS COPY PROVIDES YOU WITH A RECORD OF THAT BILL. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BILL WAS INCORRECTLY REQUESTED AND YOU WISH TO PAY THE TAXES. PLEASE MAIL THIS ENTIRE COPY WITH YOUR PAYMENT AND A RECEIPTED TAX BILL WILL BE RETURNED TO YOU. Make checks payable to: R. WAYNE WATTS, TAX COLLECTOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 LEMON STREET - 4TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CA 92501-3660 CITY OF TEMECU' A JUNE GREEK 7-17-91 MY NAME IS JOHN P. OTOOLE? AND I AM A RESIDENT OF TEMECULA. MY ADRESS IS 29699 VAIL BRROK AV. PARCEL NUMBER 921-551-027. WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE A GROUP OF HOMEOWNERS ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 25th. i99i, AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL IN REGARDS TO THE ASSESMENT THE CITY HAS PROPOSED TO THE HOMEOWNERS. COULD YOU PLEASE INFORM ME IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO SPEAK AT THE MEETINg. MY DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER IS 714-682-2106, NIGHT 7i~ 676-7773. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. JO~P. OTOOLE P.O. BOX 2190, TEMECULA, CA 92390 (714) REC;;WED ...................... JUN 1_ 9 1991 Ernest A. Egger, AICP 40025 Amberley Circle Temecula, California 92390 July 17, 1991 Mayor and City Council Members (Board of Directors of Temecula Community Services District) 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Service Level C Assessments for Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes Dear Council/Board Members: I am a resident of the Tierra Brisa Tract (APN No. 914-642-013) in the Hidden Hills neighborhood. I object to the indiscriminate $179.22 Level C Assessment since it is not truly based upon any substantive benefit as pertains to my property. I have no quarrel with the concept of being assessed taxes which are related to a derived benefit; however, I must question whether my parcel derives any substantive benefit. First of all, my lot does not contain any publicly maintained area. Secondly, the only publicly maintained slopes which I am aware of are at the rears of parcels across the street, which have a large descending fill slope which creates the views these parcels enjoy across the Nicolas Valley. My parcel, as well as many others, do not have a view or are even able to see these areas. The only visibility is from Nicolas Road to the north. In addition, our subdivision has no entry monuments or expanded parkway landscaping. I feel that further study should be undertaken to determine which parcels do benefit from maintained improvements. It is very evident that all that was done was to identify tracts which do not have associations which maintain landscaping, and to spread the cost equally among the lots comprising these tracts. Although simple and efficient, this approach is not a fair method of taxation.' Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I hope that you will agree that this study needs to be taken one step further to fine tune the assessment process based upon benefit. Very truly yours, cc: Gary King Ernest A. Egger, AICP 40025 Amberley Circle Temecula, California 92390 July 17, 1991 Mayor and City Council Members (Board of Directors of Temecula Community Services District) 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Service Level C Assessments for Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes Dear .Council/Board Members: I am a resident of the Tierra Brisa Tract (APN No. 914-642-013) in the Hidden Hills neighborhood. I object to the indiscriminate $179.22 Level C Assessment since it is not truly based upon any substantive benefit as pertains to my property. I have no quarrel with the concept of being assessed taxes which are related to a derived benefit; however, I must question whether my parcel derives any substantive benefit. First of all, my lot does not contain any publicly maintained area. Secondly, the only publicly maintained slopes which I am aware of are at the rears of parcels across the street, which have a large descending fill slope which creates the views these parcels enjoy across the Nicolas Valley. My parcel, as well as many others, do not have a view or are even able to see these areas. The only visibility is from Nicolas Road to the north. In addition, our subdivision has no entry monuments or expanded parkway landscaping. I feel that further study should be undertaken to determine which parcels do benefit from maintained improvements. It is very evident that all that was done was to identify tracts which do not have associations 'which maintain landscaping, and to spread the cost equally among the lots comprising these tracts. Although simple and efficient, this approach is not a fair method of taxation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I hope that you will agree that titis study needs to be taken one step further to fine tune the assessment process based upon benefit. Very truly yours, cc: Gary King Ernest A. Egger, AICP 40025 Amberley Circle Temecula, California 92390 July 17, 1991 Mayor and City Council Members (Board of Directors of Temecula Community Services District) 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Service Level C Assessments for Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes Dear Council/Board Members: I am a resident of the Tierra Brisa Tract (APN No. 914-642-013) in the Hidden Hills neighborhood. I object to the indiscriminate $179.22 Level C Assessment since it is not truly based upon any substantive benefit as pertains to my property. I have no quarrel with the concept of being assessed taxes which are related to a derived benefit; however, I must question whether my parcel derives any substantive benefit. First of all, my lot does not contain any publicly maintained area. Secondly, the only publicly maintained slopes which I am aware of are at the rears of parcels across the street, which have a large descending fill slope which creates the v/ews these parcels enjoy across the Nicolas Valley. My parcel, as well as many others, do not have a view or are even able to see these areas. The only visibility is from Nicolas Road to the north. In addition, our subdMsion has no entry monuments or expanded parkway landscaping. I feel that further study should be undertaken to determine which parcels do benefit from maintained improvements. It is very evident that all that was done was to identify tracts which do not have associations which maintain landscaping, and to spread the cost equally among the lots comprising these tracts. Although simple and efficient, this approach is not a fair method of taxation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I hope that you will agree that this study needs to be taken one step further to fine tune the assessment process based upon benefit. Very truly yours, Ernes~t. E(g~e r,~ cc: Gary King July 17, 1991 Ernest A. Egger, AICP 40025 AmberIcy Circle Temecula, California 92390 'JUN 1 9 1991 -- '~,OM N~Ui',ITY SERVICES Mayor and City Council Members (Board of Directors of Temecula Community Services District) 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Service Level C Assessments for Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes Dear Council/Board Members: I am a resident of the Tierra Brisa Tract (APN No. 914-642-013) in the Hidden Hills neighborhood. I object to the indiscriminate $179.22 Level C Assessment since it is not truly based upon any substantive benefit as pertains to my property. I have no quarrel with the concept of being assessed taxes which are related to a derived benefit; however, I must question whether my parcel derives any substantive benefit. First of all, my lot does not contain any publicly maintained area. Secondly, the only publicly. maintained slopes which I am aware of are at the rears of parcels across the street, which have a large descending fill slope which creates the views these parcels enjoy across the Nicolas Valley. My parcel, as well as many others, do not have a view or are even able to see these areas. The only visibility is from Nicolas Road to the north. In addition, our subdivision has no entry monuments or expanded parkway landscaping. I feel that further study should be undertaken to determine which parcels do benefit from maintained improvements. 'It is very evident that all that was done was to identify tracts which do not have associations which maintain landscaping, and to spread the cost equally among the lots comprising these tracts. Although simple and efficient, this approach is not a fair method of taxation. 'Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I hope that you will agree that this study needs to be taken one step further to fine tune the assessment process based upon benefit. Very truly yours, cc: Gary King SERVICES CHEMICON CHEMICON INTERNATIONAL, INC. 27515 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST · TEMECULA, CA 92390 (714) 676-8080 TOLL FREE (800) 4,37-7500 TELEX 18-2079 FAX (714) 676-9209 June 17, 1991 Temeeula Comnunity Services District City of Temeeula 43172 Business Park Drive Temeeula, CA 92390 Attn.: "Gaby'King Ron Parks JUN 1 9 1991 C0MMU 'IITY SERVICES Gentlemen: I am in receipt of your Temeeula Corrrnunity Services District Assessment. Even though I do feel our eon~nunity needs the parks and other recreational services, I am not sure that this way of funding it and/or additionally that the budget you have outlined is in the best interest of the eomunity. Here at Chemieon, anything that increases in our taxes and requires more money for which we see very little benefit, we have some objection to paying. Secondly, it would appear that most of the salaries of the people working for the City of Temeeula are quite extravagant for the area and therefore question, once again, what our money is purchasing here. Our major objection is the increased tax burden with minimal benefit to the companies in our eo,m,unity. Sincerely yours, David A.' Beckman ¥iee' President DB: ~ maintenance in our taxes, we su99est that the City find that fund which is not bein9 utilized properly or at all, and use it for the service, operation maintenance, ener9Y~ improvements and administration for the perimeter landscapin9 and slope maintenance in the appropriate subdivisions. Service Level A recyclin9 Pro9ram and refuse collection for sin91e family residential homes is not justified unless the present refuse collectin9 companies and fees are admonished from the City. Until this is done, we would be payin9 twice for this service. A tax levied in the amount proposed would realize a tax rate of 1.9 %. for property assessment. A substantial tax rate of this amount would limit the economic 9rowth of the City of Temeculas and drive people away instead of attractin9 them to live here. A tax increase in the proposed monetary amount is an increase of more than 10 percent, which is twice the cost of livin9 of the United States. We find it hard to believe that the City costs are hi9her than the national avera9e. We think the Board of Directors, and the mechanism of the Temecula Community Services District, should sit back and take another look at what an increase of this amount would mean for the City~ other than the monetary 9ain that is expected to be realized. Mr, & Mrs.~Allen Maslowski 40409 Calle Medusa Temecula, California 92390 June 16, 1991 City of Temecula City Clerk's 0~fice 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 9239~ JUN 1 9 199j COMMU IITY SERVICES Dear Gary Kin9, This letter is in protest of the proposed levyin9 of taxes for securin9 ~unds ~or vital community services and to au9ment the limited financial resources o~ the City of Temecula. My wife and I have lived in Temecula for two years. We have seen many chan9es take place. Some favorable and some not. We have paid our taxes but have not seen the services that Here promised as yet, and now the City wants to tax us more for somethin9 He haven't even seen an attempt at providin9. We don't mind payin9 taxes as lon9 as they are Hartanted. The folloHin9 are our reasons Hhy me ~eel this increase is unjusti~ied. Community Services/Parks: We have no children, and therefore He do not use the park facilities or pro9rams, nor do He intend to. The parks and recreational +acilities should be subsidized by families Hith children that use them. Service Level A,: and Service Level Since the incorporation of the City of Temecula, and six months prior, He have been tryin9 to 9et our street made a safe place to live Hith no avail. Law enforcement has tried to enforce the speed limit and the tonna9e limits, but it has been a ~utile effort. Our street is bein9 used as an arterial, Hhich is throu9h a residential development, because of poor road plannin9 and the traffic con9estion in the City proper. Until Calle Medusa is made safe in the manner in Hhich it should have been, any tax levied for the service, operation, maintenance, ener9y, improvements and administration for all the arterial street li9htin9 and medians Hould be totally unHarranted to everyone Hho resides on our street. Calle Medusa's problems should be resolved before any financial support can be expected. Service Level C: Our home backs up to MeadowvieH Hith a slope doHn to the maintenance area. For tHo years He have paid our taxes for the maintenance of tha~ slope. The slope is an absolute dis9race. It is over9roHn Hith Heeds, and the sprinklers are ~requently in need o~ repair. Since He've paid for q qq -/5"/- O"b / JUN 1 9 1991 July 17, 1991 Ernest A. Egger, AICP 40025 Amberley Circle Temecula, California 92390 JUN 1 9 1997 COUUU,~I/y SERVICES Mayor and City Council Members (Board of Directors of Temecula Community Services District) 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 Re: Service Level C Assessments for Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes Dear Council/Board Members: I am a resident of the Tierra Brisa Tract (APN No. 914-642-013) in the Hidden Hills neighborhood. I object to the indiscriminate $179.22 Level C Assessment since it is not truly based upon any substantive benefit as pertains to my property.' I have no quarrel with the concept of being assessed taxes which are related to a derived benefit; however, I must question whether my parcel derives any substantive benefit. First of all, my lot does not contain any publicly maintained area. Secondly, the only publicly maintained slopes which I am aware of are at the rears of parcels across the street, which have a large descending fill slope which creates the views these parcels enjoy across the Nicolas Valley. My parcel, as well as many others, do not have a view or are even able to see these areas. The only visibility is from Nicolas Road to the north. In addition, our subdivision has no entry monuments or expanded parkway landscaping. :. I feel that further study should be undertaken to determine which parcels?do benefit from maintained improvements. It is very evident that all that was 'done. was to identify tracts which do not have associations which maintain landscapinl~ and to spread the cost equally among the lots comprising these .~acts.~:[Al~9~_~'~' ..... . ' -: %,~-'~--r.?*";~,~?,~ .-l~"~.:..~,.. s~mole and efficient, th~s aooroach ~s not a fmr method of taxauon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I hope that you will~-~gree 'ihat study needs to bc taken one step further to fine tune the assessment process based upon benefit Very truly yours, cc: -:-Gary King NAUS .~:, 7~ SHA8A Y [ C T 8 ;R ,JUN I g 1991 COM MU,.'-IITY SERVICES June 13, 1991 41538 Avenida de la Reina Temecula, Ca.92592 dVS 1 8 Temecula Community Svcs. Dist. City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, Ca. 92390 Gentlemen: We are in receipt of your undated letter addressed to "FINN For your reference, any future mailings should be addressed to: Dr. Morton D. Finn Dr. Margaret M. Finn 41538 Avenida de la Reina Temecula, Ca. 92592 MORTON". With reference to your mailing .... Service Level D Eliminate...we are already paying for weekly pick-up, etc. This landscaping is established and requires reduced improvements and/or controls as might be required at an earlier stage. We shall require additional time to review this material, however, we are not in a position to devote other than a perfunctory scan of the material at this time. In the event our schedules permit, we hope to be present at the June 25 meeting. Sincerely,~ ~ Dr. Morton D. ~'lnn-~Efr~. Margaret M. Finn ; JUN 1 8 991 COIVlN, U ,TY SERVICES Temecula community Services District City of Temecula 45172 business Park Drive Temecula, ca 9259~ Attn: June Greek /Gary King Dear Ms. Greek: I am writing this letter in regard to notice I received in the mail regarding Assessor's Parcel Number: 919-585-~41 where the city of Temecula wants to access me $586.08. This is very disturSing to me as I am already being accessed an additional $16,~.~;~ because I live in a Mello-Roos area which is suppose to be for area improvements~ which include widening of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road. People who are not paying this expense are benefiting greatly . Perhaps you should access the people who are not paying Mello-Roos taxes. I am a single parent going to school trying to make ends meet. I moved to Temecula after a divorce because I was in a position where I had two years to buy a house and found Temecu!a to be one of the few areas I could afford to do this. This extra accessmerit would be a tremendous burden on my finances as I am barely making ends meet as it is. I do not want to pay any additional accessmerits at this time and will do what ever is necessary to keep from doing so. Please advise me what my options are as I am being taxed right out of my home. Thank you Jan Ford City Clerk 27475 Commerce Center Drive Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing concerning the taxes to be levied by the Temecula Community Services District. I fully disagree that several service levels for taxes are being created. Everyone in the city should pay the same taxes. If service levels have to be created, they should be fair and closer to reality. As an example, although my entire development has no slopes to be maintained by the City of Temecula, I was told that I would have to pay taxes to maintain slopes just because somewhere on the parcel of land where my house is located there are slopes. If taxes for slope maintenance are to be levied, they should be levied against everyone in the city or only those developments (not parcels) which have slopes. My house is off Calle Medusa, and by now everyone in Temecula probably knows that most houses on Calle Medusa were built without being shielded by fences or walls facing the street and therefore have no common slopes. Many own, ere of houses on and around Calle Medusa are very angry already for having a busy through street going past their houses, which they blame partially on housing permits which were issued for the type of building that occurred there. Taxing them for common slopes which the developments should have had if they were built right, but do not have, would add insult to injury. I hope you bring this to the attention of the proper boards and the city council because I will not be able to attend the meeting concerning this matter, I will be in Europe at the time. Thank you very much, Gerhard P. Butschun 31051 Chaldon Circle Temecula, CA 92390 TEL: 714-694-9306 SENT BY:Palmieri, Tyler, Et AI; 6-20-91 ; 4;01PM ; Law Offices- 714 6911999;~ 1 PALMIER!, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON 2603 Ma~ Street, Suite 1300 1.wine, California 92714 (714) 85Z-9400 Fax (714) 851-1554 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DAT~ z June 20, 1991 TIME 1 3: 30Dm TO: FAX NO: F~OM = CLIENT CLIENT NO t Clerk. City of Temscul- 694-!999 Robert C. t~-ke. ~==. Mu~dY/R&nc~o-Temeculs 08159-023 If you did not receive all pages indicated, please call shelab at (?14) 8S1-7267 ,~IIM]!DTX~.Y. SENT BY:Palmieri, Tyler, ~t A~; 6-20-91 ; 4:01PM ; Law Offices- 114 6941999;~ 2 June 20, 1991 Wl:JITl~ RI OIMI.~CT (714) 851-7265 [714l (?i4) all-J381 08159-023 City Clerk, City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temeoula, CAlifornia 92390 XSleSsore Parse1 050-180-006 OSO-180-00.S 950-180-00~ g5O-l~O-OO4 050-~10-002 950-110-00S 950-080-008 Dear Sir or Madam: We represent the Murdy and Trot:er families, owners of ~e above-reference4 par=els (the "Murdy Property") within ~he City of Temecula. This is a letter of protest to the fees proposed to ~e assessed for FY el/g2 on the Murdy Property by the Temecula community Services District ("TCSD") for the "Service Levels" (Community Services/Parks; Service ~Level A; Service Level B; Service Level C an~ Service Level D). While no assessment has been 9roposed for Service Levels B, C or D on ~he Murky Property, the total assessment for Community services/Parks is $13,468.54 and for Service Level A is $933.24. The fees for Community Services/Parks are for "service, operations, maintenance, improvemen=s and administration of the City community park system, recreation facilities, services and programs" and the fees for Service Level A are for "service, ~perations, maintenance, energy, improvements and aeministration for all arterial street lighting and mealans." f s \GOrp\$16\coryIIJrCh(. L01 SENT BY:Palmieri, Tyler, Et AI; 6-20-91 ; 4;02Pa ; Law Offices- 714 6941999;# 3 PALMIE~,TYLER, WI~NER, WII~EI24&WALDRON city Clerk, City of Temecula June 20, 1991 Page 2 The proposed assessment is being protested for the following reasons= 1. The Murdy Property is presently zoned for agricul- %ural purposes (1 DU per 10 acres) and is being used for that purpose. The entire Murdy Property is subject to a sod-farm lease tha: does not expire until September 1994 and cannot be used for any other purpose until that time. The proposed assessment is excessive relative to the income derived from an agricultural lease. 2. There is only one dwelling unit on the entire Murdy Property (which consists of approximately 550 gross acres). As such, there are no residents on the Murdy Property utilizing any City par~ or recreational facilities. In addition, there are no park or recrea~ional facilities located within the boundaries of the Murdy Property. 3. Although the owners of the Murdy Property are presently processing a specific plan amendment and zone change for %he Murdy Property, there is no assurance if or when they will be approved. In any event, for FY 91/92 it is impossible for any dwelling units to be constructed and/or occupied on the Murdy Property and the only use for the Murdy Property for FY 91/92 is agricultural. Therefore, for FY 91/92 the Murdy Property will not impose any burden upon or derive any benefit from the parks and recreational facilities and arterial street lighting and medians of the City of Tamsouls, and it is unfair, unreasonable, excessive and improper to assess theMurdyRanch ova= $14,000 for such purposes. Very truly yours, Robert C. Ihrke Reitsaw co: Hr. ~ary King SENT BY:Palmieri, Tyler, E~ AI; §-20-91 ; 3:55PM ; Law Offices~ 7~ §9~1999;~ 3 City Clerk, City of Temecula June 20~ 1991 Page 3 boc: George and Maxine Trotter Mr. Bo Kemble f ~ \corp\S 16\0or~Jrdy.~-O1 SENT 8Y:Palmieri, Tyler, El; AI; 6-20-91 Law Offices- 71~ 6941999;# 4 P.3,,'~J .CA .g3 7;1~ TH;$ IS NOT ~ 8~LL O,CO SENT BY:Palmieri, Tyler, El; AI; 6-20-91 ; 3:56PM ; Law Off£¢es- 69419@9;# LEVEL A LEVEL C 7.4~ ~,OO ~,00 CONTACT SENT BY:Palmieri, Tyler, El; AI; §-20-91 ; 3:56PM ; Law Offices- 6941999;# T~H£CZJtA COMMUniTY CZ~Y OF T£{4E2ULA TEM~C~LA~ CA 92390 A~S~9~0~'~ PARCEL ~Ui4BER~ ~50-180-085 COMMUNITY $~RVJC~$ / SSRVI2E L~VRI. A ~£~VICE L£V£L B P,'A~KS ;4.44 2,38 O.00 0,00 3~,82 QUeStIONS: C7~4) SENT BY:PalmJ. er.i., Tyler, El; AI; 6-20-91 ; 3:57PM ; Law Offices- 6941999;# '1317~ BU~IXE~$ ~A~ ORIV~ SAlt^ ~NA, CA ~27~5 PARCEL m SEEV~:E LEVEL ~ERV~CE LEVEL I ~ARKS. 0,00 0,0¢ SENT BY:Palmieri, Tyler, Et AI; 6-20-91 ; 3:51P~ JUN ~ '9~ 0~:34 Law Offices- DI.STR£C? MURDV ASSESSOr'S PA~C~L NUMBE~ ~RVIC~ t. FVEt. O / pARRS o.no O.OO f7!4) SENT BY:Palmieri, Tyler, El; AI; 6-20-91 ; 3:57PM ; La~ Off£ces~ ."I~.Ty CF Tr~HEOULA · .~97.7~ ~U=',,¥.E~B PARK ORTVE SF~V~C~ LEVEL ~ SEN! B¥:~almie~£, ~yler! ~.AI;_ 6-20-91 ; 3:58PM ; Law Off[ces~ ~1~ 6941999;#10 ~.?,,~ ,43172 BU$~NES$ PAEK D~!VE THIS IS NOY A 8~LL COMMUNITY S~RVI~ L£V~L n~v~c~ ;.tv~k ,' PARKS $ .2078.34 1.43.9Q 0,00 JUN 0 1 9I; JUNE 20, !991 GARY KING REGARDING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-190-032 PARCEL 3646 LOS RANCHITOS AREA. .THIS LOT IS ZONED - RA 2½ ACRES PERMIttING ONE HOME ONLY ON THIS LOT. WE HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AT THE ½ ACRE PER HOME RATE. HAVE ATTACHED A MAP THAT MAY BE HELPFUL IN THIS MATT~-R. PLEASE INFORM ME OF YOUR DECISION ON THIS ASSESSMENT. V~5'RN IVERSON 30903 DEL REY TEMECULACA 92390 PHONE 699-0059 Have you ever-wondered . ,~' exactly where our co.unity be- ' . .",_~f '~' gins and ends? Our northern ~ ' o ' ' " ~' boundary is at Santiaqo Road. ~ , ' A . , - : ~~ ¢ / The westerly boundary ru-ns alono ~ ', '. ,~ ' '~ -'..~ / e ...... · Hwy. 79 to just past Jededia~ ,' ' : ~ '" Smith. Los Ranchitos continues :'. '-~ ' '," ' along De Portola; however, the ' · , , ~., . '.,~.~, property along Hwy. 79 to ].- ," ~ '. '.. Margarita Road is-~ ~art of our '. . ' - ,~ ~;~ ~/~//-F ~ ~!.~ co.unity. ' -. "' . k k ' · ' . ' ~ ' . · , ~ ~ " ~ '~g .... ~ · ;-.. "-~ . ~.... -. ,/, .. ~ r ,'~."~' .. ,' .: ' . ~ $~ ) ~ ' ~f ~.~' .' ~ ? ~q .'? , g ~,q ,' ,,,, - ,, ,,.~ ~ '* j, )~ , f ' ," ~ .- . .." ' ~~, ' ; ~,- ... ' .... Z /" / /~ ' 3 ' '~ '~~' ' i~ ~ ~d~ ' ' ~ ' · ~~ ~ " ', ,, i i - ~ .' .. _, . ,..,,.:.,.,., ... ~'~::--. -...~ · ' " ' ' '" !~/I 7.":'" I I I',l ,. ' ~ '.-'" ...C / - (E) ,. ,. ..... ,.. ~ :-' .,~.'~ " TEMECULR COMMUF!'.[TV SERU:!CES DISTRICT C.~T'.,.' OF TEMECUL~I q-:3172 BUSIHESS P.qRK DR:[UE TEMECULR, CR,,., 9'23':30 ~I'FTf. I',: ,..Tune Greek - Ci't:'..~ Cier-k Jcmes L. Hes.z: 400.'t2 R~i',berie'~ Circle Tomecult, CR. , 92390 JUN 2 0 1991 COMMUNIT¥ SERVICES Ho'~.ice o-F Public He,.~.r'±n'L~ June Rs~essof's Po. rcei Humber- 'B :i 4-6¢3-0 D6 Deer' M'.'s. Greek:, I wi.=..h to con-Firn our' teieehone con,.,,ers,ztion o. nd o. dd o. comments:: ~'er't,:.~.inin9 to the o. bo,...,e. !,. I o.m concerned 0. bom..4t the ~econd ~o. ro. gr,.~.Ph where it so.'_~s ..... to Pro,...,ide the ¥:in,:.',.nci0.! pe'soL4pSe~ nece~.so.r':~ ~or ~ecurinE~ o. nd con't:inuin'~ vito. i communit~=~ ~enuice~ o. nd o. ugmentir~9 limited ~inEnciE1 r'esouPses ~of ~he '~powing Ci-t:%4 o~ Temecui,].." The TCSD ~hou]d not be Ppouiding Curds ~or ,].ugaentin9 o~h6~p ,]i't:'¢ needs. 'l'h:L~ look~ like the csseaents indice. ted in the letter built-Jr sMPF. lus th,:zt will be used ~on o~her' needs 6~ o-FCic:[Els ~ee ~it. :[ do not ~eel that the o.~es~ments -For the TC'SD shou][d ,]ol'iect r,~or',e'~ ~on 6n~ otht~r re6son tho. n to Provide ~he ser'~..,ice~ 't:h,:z~ TCDS mr'ovid~i~. :[-F the cit'~ needs o~hen oPer'o.t:[ons, :~ ~hou]d o. ddpemm thos~ needs sePo. r,zte~ 6r',d no.i~e the r,',one'~ needed sPe,Z:[-F:[6611':~ 6t tho. t time. 2. Servic L,.'~,...,el D - The ch~.~.r':~e th¢.t is !i.~-.ted in the statement ~or. the .F:isco. l '=4e,zr. I!:.~91-!!~92 which sto. r.t.'-: ,.Tul'.~ I:, 1991, but the r'e,;use Pickup st,:.~.rtr=. on 'October 1:, 1991. There¥or.e, onl'_~ the 1,:zst 9 month::-: o-F tht~ 4:isco. 1 ,_4e,zr. o. re in,...,olt..,ed cnd the cctuo. 1 cost will be ,.~.t the r.o. te o-F $13,26 ~er month,, 7'hi~ rneo. n~. th~.~.t the r'L.~bbish di.z~,c, so.i will incr'eo. se cnc, the~- '$~0,00 next '~eo.r. F'r. ovidin!~ ther. e is not o. nother ro. te increo.~e. Thi~ di~tt'.ub~ me ,...,er'~ much b~!~co. use I o.m go:Ln~ to Po.'~ o.n o. dditiono. 1 $3.25 e6ch month Just to ho.,...,e the cit':¢ to. ke ouer the re~use business. This o. PPe6rs to me to, be ,z *..,ere reckle~ wo.'~ ~or the cit'~ o~icial~ to spend me m(:,ne'e,, I-F the'~ co. nnot ho. ndle thi~ in o. comF. etiti,..,e wo.'~, then the'~ ho.,...,e no business 'ae!:tin~a in~..,o1~..,ed o.t o. 11. I o.m quite ~o. tis~:ied with the Suburbo. n Di.sPo~o. 1 ser,...,ice~ I o.m gettin~ now ~or $]0.00 Per month. The increcse in the reYu::-.e disposal of 33% is excessi,..,e and the cit,~4 o4:¥icio. 1~.--..~.hould ¥ind o. w~).,_4 to reduce thi.'--. increo.~.e o. nd keep ,.'~. lid on the -Future i ncr. eo.~.es, :3,, Fr'orn our ~.hone conue,,-..so. tion:, I under".'::to.~d that csse.:--.sn'lmnt ].:istmd d:of thi-', Cornmunit'...~ Ser,...,ice,'s..-"Po. rks is cur. t-.entl~ co,...,mred in rl',~=, 1990--1!a91 to.x bit1 under TEMECULA C'~-]D PARKS. Howmyer, this new o. ssessrrmen+- amour+- w:[il incr. eo. se rn':.~ to.x it-,. this o.r'eo. $18,50. There is no exPl,!n,:it:[or~ .in '_~our let+-er clo. r.i~c~ing t,.~h~ we shouZid ,:!acer± such ,:i ;icr"L-'~e increase in this cato.'~or'_~. .'[ co.n onl'_~ gue'~ss tho. t F:-erho. Ps th.'[.~. in,...,olves o. too o. gressive a Plo. n in this ,:o. to.'_~c,r~=~ o. nd :[ think Perh(!PS we should PrOceed This increase o¥ S0% -For. these ser',,.,ices az compared to last '_~ears assessment is excessiue and the increases in the ¥uture should be co.r'eYu 1 .l '_~ con+-roled. 4. SERU:[CE LEUEL C - Per n~:.~ Phone conversation with '_~ou.. thi~ c,it(igor.,:=l wo.s co,...,ered in n'~!.~ 1as+. ~e,.~.rs tax bill under TEMECUL~ CSD ZONE ~ - 12 (ZONE ~ - D). This service cos~ is to incr-e,l~e 17% cornPO. red to +-he ,lssessrner~'~ in 1,i~ '~ear. s to.x bitl. There is no exPlo. ino. t:[on in the letter we received o.s t,:, uh~ there .should be i ¥eel th0. t the 17% incre,lse i.'-z excessi,,.'e and should also be r-mduced,, ~n:.~ ¥utune increases should also be ccpe~uil':.~ contro.led · t~.:, keep the increases rr, ore reasonable. P]ecsm keep in mind the+-. e,...,en though m~ specific Proper~:~ benifits morm tho. n somm of +.he others in this cato. gor'_~ bmcausm I ho.,...,m a ,...,imw !o+. and thmrm is a n',ainto. inmd slope behind m~ lot, .'[ arn clreo. d_~ PO.'_~ing '*200,,OD F'rmn'~:[un in +.,ixms bmcausm of the Prmrniun ,...,o. tt.~e set on Thank':.~ou -For s~our consideration o¥ rn!.~ comments on this subject. 1 dUN .~ 0 1991 City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92390 JUN 0 199 Reference: Parcel 945-110-001 Attention: Mr. Gary King Gentlemen: Your recent proposed tax of $273.20 to be assessed against my referenced parcel is felt to be excessive and not in accordance with description of the service to be renderd i.e. conumunity services/parks. ' t~:.~ raw and does not use any of The land has no ~ · ~g is services outzined. '~'= ' ' ==~_ caar'ges you has outlined contra~!icts the :statement "ONLY THOSE PARCELS ........ RECEIVE ~n~cn k BENEFIT FROM A SERVICE WILL BE CHARGED =mv THAT oE~!CE which is found on page 2 of the notice, In addition, the available usable property is approx. .7 of an acre and ,can never be more because of the 1 to i slope on the property. This means that only .7 out of the 2.~6 acre or approx. 30% can be used, which limits the property to one building site. Since the assessment is based on the entire acreage being used. which would accomadate 4 buildings if flat, it is hardly fair that a charge for unbuildable property should be made. Also, since this tax Is being levied on an anticipated future building, it is hard to visualize why I as the present owner should be penalized for something that might happen 5 or 10 years from now. It is sincerely hoped that the charge will be retracted or modified as explained above. Sincerely, Paul Silverstone, Owner TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECUIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD APRIL 23, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 12:35 AM. PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and Agency Secretary June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. AGENCY BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Agency Member Lindemans, seconded by Agency Member Parks to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1991 as mailed. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks, Moore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Birdsall EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Dixon advised that the funding that has been collected by the County for the RDA will be spent within the City. The funds will be used to off-set the County Building located in the City and for Sam Hicks Park improvements. He stated no funds will be expended for housing outside of the area, but will be transferred to the City for execution on July 1, 1991. Mr. Dixon thanked Member Mu~oz and Lindemans for their tremendous effort in resolving this issue. GENERAL COUNSEL 'S REPORT None given. 4\RDAMIN\051491 -1- 06/18/91 Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS Member Parks asked that a public forum May 14. 1991 be scheduled in the near future to explain redevelopment to the citizens of the community. Member Lindemans requested a staff report on how the members of the Redevelopment Advisory Committee will be elected. He explained four members will be elected and three will be appointed. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Parks to adjourn at 8:33 PM to a meeting on July 2, 1991. The motion was unanimously carried with Member Birdsall absent. ATTEST: Peg Moore, Chairperson June S. Greek, Agency Secretary 4\RDAMIN\051491 -2- 06118191