Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082890 CC AgendaCALL TO ORDER: Invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER AUGUST 28, 1990 - 7:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 90-16 Resolution: No. 90-98 Pastor Tim Riter Rancho Christian Church Councilmember Moore Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink 'Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a 'Request To Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 2/egenda/061290 I 08/23/80 CONSENT CALENDAR I Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 7, 1990 as mailed. 2.2 Approve the minutes of August 9, 1990 as mailed. 3 Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 11.1990. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the cancellation of the City Council meeting scheduled for September 11, 1990. 4 Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the Month Ending June 30. 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve staff recommendations as outlined in the staff report. 5 Health Benefits Plan RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOI-UTION NO. 90° A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIl, OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECUl,A EI,ECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO TIlE' PUBLIC EMPI,OYEES' MEDICAl, AND IIOSPITAI, CARE ACT. 21agendN061290 2 08123/90 6 7 8 9 10 Resolution AOproving Payment of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 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. Selection of Auditors RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the selection of Moreland and Associates, Inc. to perform the audit of the City's financial statements. Cable Television Franchises RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve staff recommendations as outlined in the staff report. Copier Purchase RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve staff recommendations as outlined in the staff report. Travel Policy RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a travel policy as outlined in attachment A. 11 Banking Selection for the Year Ending June 30. 1990 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Appoint Security Pacific Bank as the City's bank for the year ending June 30, 1991. 2/egencliO612lO 3 08124190 12 Resolution Designating the Riverside County Transportation Commission to PreDare the County Congestion Management Program RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Direct staff to prepare a formal request for representation by the City of Temecula on the Riverside County Transportation Commission. 12.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO PREPARE THE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. 13 Cal-ld Contract RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Approve contract for Cal-ld services and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. 14 Second Reading of Ordinance ADproving Zone Change No. 5446 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Read by title only and approve an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. CHANGING THE ZONE FROM I-P (INDUSTRIAL PARK) TO CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON 6.51 ACRES A T THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD. 2legenddOe 12~O 4 08123180 15 16 17 18 19 Plot Plan No. 69 - Relocati0n of the KRTM-FM Radio Tower RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Receive and file Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan 69. Vesting Final Tract Mal;) No. ~3371-5 A 75 lot subdivision located east of Margarita Road, south of South General Kearney Road and north of Rancho California Road. RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23371-5, subject to the conditions of approval. Annual Soils and Material Testing Contract for Fiscal Year 1990-! 991 RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 That the City Council not authorize the award of an annual contract. Plot Plan 11621 - Koll Business Center Phase Two of a business park located north of Winchester Road, West of Ynez, consisting of 116,368 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Approve Plot Plan No. 11621. Design Services for CFD 88-12 RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Award a contract for professional design services to J. F. Davidson and Associates for the Ynez Corridor Mello-Roos District. 210 6 08/23/~0 COUNCIL BUSINESS 20 Tentative Tract .~3209. Amendment No. 4 RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve recommendation of Staff and Planning Commission to Deny Tentative Tract 23209, Amendment No. 4 21 22 Road Iml;)rovements - I-15 Off-ramps and Rancho California Road: .Ynez Road to Front Street RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Approve the re-design of street improvements for 1-15 off-ramps and Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Front Street and direct Bedford Properties to proceed to construction. Stel;)hens' Kangaroo Rat Conservation Program RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the following documents: a. Short-term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo rat. b. Implementation Agreement c. Joint Powers Agreement d. Agreement regarding Allocation of Take e. Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game. Certify that the SKR Program is exempt from CEQA. Appoint a representative to sit as a Member of the Board of the Joint Powers Authority, with administers the Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR. 22.2 22.3 21ageride/081290 e 08/23/90 23 I ease of City Hall Office SI;)ace at 43172 Business Park Drive 23.1 Authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement for City Hall office space located at 43172 Business Park Drive. 24 Amendment to the Joint Funding Agreement for Rancho California Water District CSD 88-3 RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Amendment to Joint Financing, Construction and Acquisition Agreement for Community Facilities district No. 88-3. CSD MEETING - (To be held at 8:00 PM) Please see separate agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 Third Extension of Time -Tentative Tract 21067 Continued from the meeting of August 14, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Approve Tentative Tract 21067 subject to the additional condition that the applicant shall pay all applicable Quimby Act fees prior to the issuance of building permits or provide land in lieu of fees. 26 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211. First Extension 128 unit condominium subdivision on 7.31 acres located on the south side of Margarita Road, between Moraga Road and Avenida Cima Del Sol. RECOMMENDATION: 26.1 Approve first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211 subject to the Amended Conditions of Approval. 21egendNO812~O 7 08123/g0 27 Plot Plan No. I and Change of Zone No. 3 Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., located at 26531 Ynez Road. RECOMMENDATION: 27.1 Approve staff recommendations as outlined in staff report. 28 Develol)ment Agreement for Tentative Parcel Mal) No. 21383 - Rancho Core Associates No. I RECOMMENDATION: 28.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for tentative Parcel Map No. 21383. 28.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPRO VING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-1. 28.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the development agreement between the City of Temecula and Rancho Core Associates No. 1. 29 Tentative Tract Map No. 23513 RECOMMENDATION: 29.1 Re-affirm the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 23513, based on the analysis and findings contained in the County Initial Study and Staff Report. 29.2 Approve Tentative Tract No. 23513, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 21,oenddOe 1280 8 O8123/80 ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Study Session, September 4, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California Next regular meeting: September 18, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California 2legends/061280 9 08124/90 ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD AUGUST 7, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:03 PM in the Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS None were offered EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Scott Field announced that the executive session is being held pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to consider real property acquisition located at 43172 Business Park Drive, and to Government Code Section 54956.9 to discuss matters of litigation in the case of Outdoor Media vs. the City of Temecula and Hershey, et al vs. the County of Riverside. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn to executive session at 7:07 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 9:13 PM. CITY MANAGER REPORTS None given CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given nut es %8%7%90 - 1 - 08/14/90 City Council Ninutes August 7, 1990 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None given ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to adjourn at 9:15 PM to a meeting to be held on August 14, 1990, 7:00 PM at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Hinutes\8\7~90 -2- 08/16/90 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD AUGUST 9, 1990 A special meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:07 PM in the Temecula City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were offered. COUNCIL BUSINESS Special Advisory Election regarding Riverside County Parks and Open Space District City Manager Dixon explained that a special meeting was necessary to adopt a series of resolutions which enable the County Registrar to place an advisory measure on the November ballot. He stated that the Registrar of Voters needs to have certified copies of these resolutions by August 10, 1990. Councilmember Mu~oz pointed out that the proposed assessment for the County Park District will be an ongoing one. He suggested that the wording of the ballot advisory be modified to reflect the fact that this assessment is for an annual fee which will be levied indefinitely. Councilmember Birdsall questioned who would advise the voters of the City's decision to join the District, if the response to the advisory measure is favorable. City Manager Dixon stated, this would need to be placed on the Parks and Recreation Commission agenda for a recommendation to the City Council, and the Council would then act upon that recommendation. Ninutes\8\9\90 -1- 08/17/90 City Counci[ Ninutes August 9, 1990 Mayor Parks said the County Parks Department will be campaigning for the formation of the District countywide, but he was concerned that the City be on record as well. He said he would like to be authorized to write the ballot argument in favor of the City's participation in the District. Councilmember Muffoz restated his concern that the voters be advised that the assessment was not just for a short term. He suggested that as an option the word "continuing" be added to the wording of the measure before the word 8ssessment. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve staff recommendations, with the addition in Resolution No. 90-96 of "Mayor Ronald J. Parks is authorized to write the argument in favor", as follows: 1.1 RESOLUTION NO. 90-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDA Y, NOVEMBER 6, 1990, FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS OF A QUESTION RELATING TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT. 1.2 RESOLUTION NO. 90-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 1990 WITH THE STA TEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE. 1.3 RESOLUTION NO. 90-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANAL YSIS Ninutes\8\9\90 -2- 08/17/90 City Council Hinutes August 9. 1~0 1.4 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CA!.iFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED A T MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks None Moore CITY MANAGER REPORTS No report given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS No report given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS No report given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn at 5:27 PM to the next regular meeting to be held on August 14, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Ninutes\8\9\90 -3- 08/17/90 ITEM NO. 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECUI. A AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk August 28, 1990 Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 11, 1990 PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council officially cancel the regularly scheduled meeting of September 11, 1990. DISCUSSION: Chapter 2.04 of the City's Municipal Code requires regular City Council meetings to be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. Council has indicated that because of the absence of the City Manager and anticipated absences of several members of the Council, it is your desire to cancel this meeting. Should Council take action to cancel this meeting, the City Clerk's office will prepare the proper legal notices. ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA tl GENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer August 28, 1990 Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Receive and file the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990. 2. Amend the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget for the City Attorney by $40,000. 3. Amend the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget for Public Safety by $30,000. 4. Amend the Fiscal Year 1989-90 estimated revenues for Contributions for Public Safety by $41,585. 5. Amend the 1990 budget for Community Services by $20,500. DISCUSSION: The attached statements summarize the City's operations for the seven months ending June 30, 1990. The excess of general fund revenues over expenditures is $772,550 for the seven months. One hundred eight percent of estimated General Fund revenues were received as of June 30, 1990. The City received its fourth estimated sales tax payment in the amount of $70,453. The unfavorable variance in sales tax for the year was due to the State Board of Equalization's incomplete business list. City staff is currently in the process of verifying the State Board of Equalization's list before turning it over to the consultant hired by the City. Eighty-five percent of budgeted appropriations were expended or encumbered as of June 30, 1990. Hiring delays and nonpayment of benefits account for much of the savings. Gas Tax revenues of $255,902 were received during the month ending June 30, 1990, including Local Transportation Fund revenues of $219,073. The City received Measure A funds in August, 1990. Staff recommends that the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget for the City Attorney be increased by $40,000 to cover additional City Council meetings and litigation costs. Staff recommends that the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget for Public Safety be increased by $30,000 to cover the matching of funds for traffic officers on the overpasses. Total contributions for the traffic officers were $41,585 through June 30, 1990. Staff recommends that the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget for Community Services be increased by $20,500 to cover additional consulting fees incurred for assessment engineering. During Fiscal Year 1989-90, the accounting records for the Temecula Community Services District operations were maintained by the Riverside County CSA 143 (CSA). The CSA staff is in the process of closing their year end and the activity for the year will be reflected in the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City. FISCAL IMPACT: $40,000 increase in budgeted appropriations for the City Attorney, $30,000 for Public Safety and $20,500 for Community Services for Fiscal Year 1989-90. $41,585 increase in estimated general fund revenues for contributions for Fiscal Year 1989-90. ATTACHMENTS: Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - General Fund for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990. Statement of Expenditures - Budget and Actual - General Fund by Department for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - Gas Tax Fund for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual Development Impact and CIP Funds for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990. City of Temecula Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - General Fund For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990 Revenues: Sales Tax Motor Vehicle in Lieu Cigarette Tax Real Property Transfer Tax Franchise Fees Transient Occupancy Tax Contributions Reimbursements Investment Interest Miscellaneous Planning Engineering Vehicle Code Fines Total Revenues Amended Year Month Budget to Date to Date Variance % Year Favorable to Date (Unfavorable) to Budget 766,465 $ 529,025 30,447 89,010 40,000 126,660 25,000 632,153 $ 70,453 $ (134,312} 620,780 93,481 91,755 19,395 3,087 (11,052) 52,261 25,432 (36,749) 23,006 (16,994} 135,201 102,520 8,541 48,440 36,585 48,440 5,000 (20,000) 18,534 10,591 18,534 2,638 599 2,638 73,361 22,834 73,361 95,728 65,955 95,728 1,038 1,038 82% 117% 64% 59% 58% 107% 194% $1,606,607 $1,727,535 $ 431,537 $ 120,928 108% City of Temecula Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990 and Actual - General Fund Amended Budget Year to Date Month to Date Encumbrances YTD Actuals + Encumbr Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) YTD Actuals + Encumbr to Budget Expendituresz Personal Services: Salaries and employer taxes 224,006 Benefits 35,561 186,606 41,400 933 186,606 933 37,400 34,628 83% 3% Total Personal Services 259,567 187,539 41,400 187,539 72,028 72% Operations and Maintenancez Liability and property insurance Telephone Office supplies/services Office/meeting hall rent Temporary Improvements Equipment rent Consulting Other outside services TraveZ and meetings Legal services Utilities Police services Social services Street sweeping 33,252 33,252 13,026 13,026 185 73,438 69,300 22,341 33,868 33,340 11,274 14,688 7,623 1,141 3,931 3,272 28 359,261 246,536 40,540 14,825 18,560 617 26,026 16,424 3,338 105,000 145,814 75,063 3,341 3,248 574 148,494 94,563 56,034 850 5,000 2,500 2,500 33,252 13,026 1,330 70,630 2,808 153 33,493 375 7,065 14,688 659 3,931 42,056 288,592 70,669 1,240 19,800 (4,975) 55 16,479 9,547 145,814 (40,814) 3,248 93 83,652 178,215 (29,721) 850 850 2,500 5,000 100% 100% 96% 99% 100% 100% 80% 134% 63% 139% 97% 120% 100% 100% Total Operations and Mainten. 835,000 687,458 213,635 139,560 827,018 7,982 99% Capital Outlay= Equipment Office furniture Office equipment Computer hardware Computer peripheral Computer software Vehicles Buildings Total Capital Outlay Contingency Total Expenditures 6,700 5,795 5,795 28,037 587 (3,335) 43,179 13,336 40,414 28,268 36,562 24,400 198 12,513 7,602 (5,233) 27,909 5,000 200,314 79,988 (2,575) 56,550 1,351,431 954,985 252,460 11,205 10,141 2,877 27,909 5,000 57,132 196,692 5,795 587 13,336 39,473 34,541 10,479 27,909 5,000 137,120 1,151,677 905 27,450 29,843 941 2,021 2,034 63,194 56,550 199,754 86% 2% 31% 98% 94% 84% 100% 100% 68% 85% Revenues Over Expenditures $ 255,176 $ 772,550 $ 179,077 City of Temecula Statement of Expenditures - Budget and Actual General Fund by Department For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990 City Council Personal Servicesz Salaries Operations and Maintenance: Consulting Other outside services Travel and meetings Rent Office supplies Social services Total Operations and Maintenance Actuals YTD Amended Year Month Actuals Budget to Date to Date Encumbrances + Encumbr 10,500 $ 10,500 $ 1,500 $ 10,500 $ 13,800 14,813 3,390 14,813 2,334 175 1,240 3,574 20,000 12,648 2,631 55 12,703 1,200 849 447 849 450 435 450 850 850 850 35,850 31,094 7,078 2,145 33,239 % YTD Variance Actuals Favorable + Encumbr (Unfavorable) to Budget 100% (1,013) 107% (3,574) 7,297 64% 351 71% (450) 100% 2,611 93% Total City Council $ 46,350 $ 41,594 $ 8,578 $ 2,145 $ 43,739 $ 2,611 94% City Manager Personal Services: Salaries and employer taxes Benefits Total Personal Services Operations and Maintenance= Office supplies and services Other outside services Travel and Meetings Total Operations and Maintenance Capital Outlay= Office furnishings Office equipment Computer hardware Computer peripheral Computer software Total Capital Outlay $ 108,519 $ 91,496 $ 10,254 $ 91,496 $ 17,023 14,355 311 311 14,044 122,874 91,807 10,254 91,807 31,067 14,910 15,153 2,060 $ 20 15,173 (263) 1,371 1,371 (1,371) 4,373 1,922 351 1,922 2,451 19,283 18,446 2,411 20 18,466 817 (724) 570 510 510 60 9,351 6,960 2,391 9,351 7,265 5,267 1,997 7,264 1 2,172 (953) 1,219 1,219 953 19,358 12,737 (1,677) 5,607 18,344 1,014 84% 2% 75% 102% 44% 89% 100% 100% 56% Total City Manager 161,515 $ 122,990 $ 10,988 $ 5,627 $ 128,617 $ 32,898 80% City Clerk Personal Services: Salaries and employer taxes Benefits Total Personal Services Operations and Maintenance= Office supplies and services Other Outside Services Travel and Meetings Total Operations and Maintenance 35,787 $ 34,800 8,020 $ 34,800 $ 7,767 622 622 43,554 35,422 8,020 35,422 18,450 18,382 3,236 $ 11 18,393 13,000 12,985 12,985 911 911 44 911 32,361 32,278 3,280 11 32,289 987 7,145 8,132 57 15 72 97% 8% 81% 100% 100% 100% Capital Outlay: Office equipment Computer hardware Computer peripheral Computer software Total Capital Outlay 1,099 1,099 1,099 6,747 6,747 6,747 8,628 8,628 8,628 604 604 (582} 604 17,078 17,078 (582) 17,078 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total City Clerk 92,993 $ 84,778 $ 10,718 $ 11 $ 84,789 $ 8,204 91% City Attorney Legal services $ 105,000 $ 145,814 $ 75,063 $ $ 145,814 $ (40,814) 139% Finance Personal Services= Salaries and employer taxes Benefits Total Personal Services Operations and Maintenancez Office supplies and services Consulting Other outside services Travel and Meetings Total Operations and Maintenance $ 16,279 $ 16,277 7,203 16,277 $ 1,578 17,857 16,277 7,203 16,277 6,550 6,509 2,084 $ 11 6,520 56,861 47,033 9,904 9,828 56,861 1,825 1,825 442 1,825 165 165 34 165 65,401 55,532 12,464 9,839 65,371 2 1,578 1,580 3O 3O 100% 91% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Capital Outlay= Office equipment Computer hardware Computer peripheral Computer software Total Capital Outlay 4,318 4,318 4,318 5,451 5,451 5,451 2,715 2,715 2,715 5,790 5,790 (734) 5,790 18,274 18,274 (734} 18,274 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Finance 101,532 $ 90,083 18,933 $ 9,839 $ 99,922 $ 1,610 98% Personnel Operations and Maintenance= Consulting 50,000 $ 30,032 13,517 $ 16,068 $ 46,100 $ 3,900 92% Management Information Systems Personal Services= Salaries and employer taxes Benefits Total Personal Services 26,845 26,956 10,205 3,948 30,793 26,956 10,205 26,956 $ (111) 100% 3,948 26,956 3,837 88% Operations and Maintenancec Office supplies and services Other outside services Travel and Meetings 4,507 4,366 2,515 $ 45 577 535 35 96 4,462 45 45 (45) 535 42 99% Total Operations and Maintenance 5,084 4,946 2,550 96 5,042 42 Capital Outlay= Computer hardware Computer peripheral Computer software 9,310 6,719 2,591 9,310 5,499 5,499 5,499 922 604 (2,350) 318 922 100% 100% 100% 15,731 12,822 (2,350) 2,909 15,731 100% Total MIS $ 51,608 $ 44,724 $ 10,405 $ 3,005 $ 47,729 $ 3,879 92% Community Development Personal Services~ Salaries and employer taxes Benefits Total Personal Services Operations and Maintenances Consulting Office supplies and services Mileage Street sweeping Total Operations and Maintenance Capital Outlay= Office equipment Computer hardware Computer peripheral Computer software Total Capital Outlay 26,076 $ 6,577 $ 4,218 6,577 $ 19,499 7,913 7,913 33,989 6,577 4,218 6,577 27,412 237,600 12,000 5,000 254,600 153,658 12,729 16,160 169,818 67,782 9,247 2,997 32 9,279 2,721 243 243 243 (243) 2,500 2,500 2,500 5,000 165,648 18,469 18,692 184,340 70,260 500 510 510 (10) 2,675 2,391 2,391 284 2,782 2,093 2,093 689 1,391 604 (614) 604 787 7,348 5,598 (614) 5,598 1,750 25% 19% 71% 77% 72% 102% 89% 75% 43% 76% Total Community Development $ 295,937 $ 177,823 $ 22,073 $ 18,692 $ 196,515 $ 99,422 66% Public Safety Police Services Office supplies and services Total Operations and Maintenance 148,494 $ 94,563 $ 56,034 $ 83,652 $ 178,215 $ (29,721) 2,464 2,851 2,851 390 3,241 (777) 150,958 97,414 58,885 84,042 181,456 (30,498) 120% 132% 120% Capital Outlay Computer hardware Computer peripheral Computer software Equipment Total Capital Outlay 3,880 3,880 3,880 473 473 473 635 636 636 (1) 6,700 5,795 5,795 5,795 905 11,688 5,795 5,795 4,989 10,784 904 100% 100% 100% 86% 92% $ 162,646 $ 103,209 $ 64,680 $ 89,031 $ 192,240 $ (29,594) 118% Nondepartmental Operations and Maintenance= Liability and property insurance Office supplies and services Consulting services Telephone Office rent/maintenance Temporary Improvements Equipment rent Utilities Total Operations and Maintenance Capital Outlay: Office furniture Office equipment Computer hardware Computer peripheral Computer software Vehicles Buildings Total Capital Outlay Total Nondepartmental Contingency $ 33,252 $ 33,252 $ $ 33,252 $ 14,557 12,342 6,163 $ 770 13,112 1,445 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 13,026 13,026 185 13,026 32,668 32,491 10,827 153 32,644 24 14,688 7,623 1,141 7,065 14,688 3,931 3,272 28 659 3,931 3,341 3,248 574 3,248 93 116,463 106,254 19,918 8,647 114,901 1,562 28,037 587 (2,611) 587 27,450 36,692 6,899 6,899 29,793 3,000 2,343 2,343 657 9,200 198 198 7,671 7,869 1,331 999 704 704 295 27,909 27,909 27,909 5,000 5,000 5,000 110,837 7,684 (2,413) 43,627 51,311 59,526 227,300 113,938 17,505 52,274 166,212 61,088 56,550 56,550 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 99% 2% 19% 78% 86% 70% 100% 100% 46% 73% Total $1,351,431 $ 954,985 $ 252,460 $ 196,692 $ 1,151,677 $ 199,754 85% City of Temecula Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - TCSD For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990 Amended Year Month Budget to Date to Date Variance % Year Favorable to date (Unfavorable) to Budget Revenues: Miscellaneous Investment Interest Annexation fees Total Revenues $ 1,000 $ 1,000 181 $ 113 181 9,600 1,200 9,600 $ 10,781 $ 1,313 $ 10,781 Expenditures: Operations and Maintenance Consulting Capital Outlay Equipment Land Total Capital Outlay Amended Year Budget to Date Month to Date Encumbrances 26,000 $ 44,999 $ 30,662 $ 270 $ 1,600 1,592 1,000 1,000 1,600 2,592 1,000 Actuals Favorable + Encumbr + Encumbr (Unfavorable) to Budget 45,269 $ (19,26~) 174% 1,592 8 100% 1,000 (1,000) 2,592 (992) Total expenditures 27,600 $ 47,591 $ 31,662 $ 270 $ 47,861 (20,261) 173% Revenues Over Expenditures $ (27,600)$ (36,810)$ (30,349) City of Temecula Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - Gas Tax For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990 Adopted Year Month Budget to Date to Date Variance % Year Favorable to date (Unfavorable} to Budget Revenues: Road Fund= Section 2106 Section 2107 Section 2107.5 Measure A Local transportation Investment Interest Total Revenues 90,971 $ 84,559 $ 11,532 174,288 159,235 22,644 6,000 6,000 109,136 108,253 219,073 219,073 5,083 2,653 (6,412) 93% (15,053) 91% 100% (109,136) 110,820 5,083 488,648 $ 473,950 $ 255,902 $ (14,698) 202% 97% Expendituresz Operations and Maintenance Consulting Revenues Over Expenditures Amended Year Month Actuals Budget to Date to Date Encumbrances + Encumbr $ 25,864 $ 25,864 488,648 $ 448,086 $ 230,038 10,326 $ 36,190 Favorable (Unfavorable) (36,190) City of Temecula Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual Development Impact Fund and CIP Fund For the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990 Development Impact Fund= Adopted Year Month Budget to Date to Date Revenues= Signal Mitigation $ $ 9,257 $ 9,257 Variance % Year Favorable to Date (Unfavorable) to Budget 9,257 Operating Transfer Out to CIP Fund Revenues Over Expenditures 6,500 6,500 $ (6,500) cIP Fund= Operating Trsfr In from Devel Impacts Expenditures= Design Engineering Revenues Over Expenditures $ 6,500 $ 6,500 S 5,421 5,421 $ 1,079 $ 1,079 6,500 (5,421) ITEM NO. 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer~ August 20, 1990 Health Benefits Plan RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 90- , a resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula electing to be subject to the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act. DISCUSSION: The City staff is currently in the process of establishing an employee benefits package. The first step in the process is to identify a health care benefits provider. We received health benefits quotes from fifteen (15) providers. The most cost- effective and flexible provider was PEHMCA, which is administered by the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS). The PEHMCA Plan provides several HMO's, as well as an indemnity plan. The cost of each plan varies, and the employee will shop for the plan that is most suitable to their needs. During the month of September, the City staff will prepare an agenda report to recommend the establishment of a section 125 Plan (Flexible Benefits/Cafeteria Plan) so that the City's cost of employee benefits will have a cap before the PEHMCA Plan is effective on October 1, 1990. In order to be admitted to the plan, the City is required to adopt the attached resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: To be provided in a subsequent agenda report prior to admission to the plan. ATTACHMENT: Resolution 90- . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ELECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO TIIE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT. follows: The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22850 provides the benefits of the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act to employees of local agencies contracting with the Public Employees' Retirement System on proper application by a local agency; and WHEREAS, The City of Temecula, hereinafter referred to as "Public Agency", is a local agency contracting with the Public Employees' Retirement System, and WHEREAS, The Public Agency desires to obtain for its employees and annuitants the benefit of the Act and to accept the liabilities and obligations of an employer under the Act and Regulations now, therefore, be it resolved: Section 1.That the Public Agency elect, and it does hereby elect, to be subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 2. That the executive body appoint and direct, and it does hereby appoint and direct, the City Manager or his designee to file with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System a verified copy of this resolution, and to peron behalf of said Public Agency all functions required of it under the Act and Regulations of the Board of Administration. Section 3. That coverage under the Act be effective on October 1, 1990. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVF-D AND ADOFrED this 281h day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEALI 2/RESOS/100 1 08/21190 ITEM NO. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $88,144.33. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 28th day of August, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Renosl01 Fi. szal Ye=~r: 19-72 City o'f 7emec:la Ch~ ..... D~ --~n~ ~ Invoice Date P/O Date Description ............ :>' ::,c s Disc c. unt Ne'~ .... 00(K~535 !+ 08 Y~i{~E~I~C~E {~L~OR~!A---O l T I E'~ ()81590 08/13/90 08/~ 3/9 '~ LUNCH & REG I STRAT l GN-JG, j H .................... C~e_~ -- T~t~l~ ...... 00005354 08/28/90 AMAYAELE AMAYA ELECTRIC 3009 08/07/90 90084 08/08/90 INSTALL ELEC OUTLETS, CONDUIT C~ec~= Totals: 00005355 ()~/28/90 BIRDSAL~ F'ATRiCIA BIRDSALL ......... ~1~2~---- (~-~) -- 0~f90 - AUO .--- Chezk Totals: 0C 005~z~5~_-~Ep/-28 / 9C [:URKE, WM--Ew_4R:.~E,---W-~-.~AM.S--~>-SSRENSE~ ....... 05i590 08/!5/90 O8/15190 LEGAL FEES FOR APRIL !99') 00005357 08/28/90 CAHWYPAT CALILFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 50697 08/03/90 0040 05/01/90 TRAFF I C ENFORCEMENT 6 / 1-7/! 5 Cnezk Toza~ s~ 00005358 (~/28/90 C QU~<TYPU COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE .......... :37<~ ...... 00 / 01 / 90 ! 16170 08 / 02 / 90 90051 116464 08/08/90 90032 -- ! 16].7! 00/02/?0 700~2 I 16091 08 / 01 / 90 90052 i 16172 08/02/90 ~00~4 .......... i~l~2 .... ~)~-~-~9~ 90054 ~ 16169 08/02/9C~ 90C~4.4 11~087 08/01/90 90044 ........... ~16305 08/07/90 07-/03/gP>-C-AL-EN~ 07/03/90 CALENDAR REFILLS, PAPER ETC 07/03/90 STAMP PADS, PENS. TABS ETC o7/07j/90 STAFF> PADS, PENS, TABS 07/03/90 STAMP PADS, PENS~ TABS ETC 07/03/9() F'ENS, SHEARS~ STAPLES,STAPLER O~O5'~:~F~T ~EA~; - ST~%ES ;S'T AF~ER 07/!0/90 BOND PAPER AND TOP TAB GUIDES 07/10/90 BOND PAPER AND TOP TAB SUIDES (KK~05359 4~8! 28~0 DAV_ i N-- 081690 DAMON c 8/2C/9C 0068 Check Totals: 07/!2/90 AUDIO TAF'ING PLAN. COMMISSION 00005360 08/28/90 DIXON 08 ! 090 ~.90 081090A Cx)c>C~5?6~ 08/28190 EASTMA~ 013B01256 DAVID F. DIXON 08/10/90 08/10/90 Check Tcta! s. 08/10/90 JULY INSURANCES I)8 / I 0 / 90 -~4t~T~S--E ~ PEN SE 08/10/90 EXPENSES FOR LEAG. EASTMAN KODAK :3CIP'lrz'ANY 08/03/90 90075 OF CA CITY 08/01/9() TONER; 9006 (CASE) VIRADOR Cnezk Totals: 00005362 08/28/9" FEDERALE FEDERAL EXPRESS 340 ,, 00 0.00 34t~1~)-- 0.00 372.70 O. 00 372.70 0.00 300.00 O, 00 , 17 !. 26 0.00 ,853,40 0, 00 ,855. ~.0 1 ~' U. 118, 66 0, 00 5,52 0, 00 ~. 2.4-6 45, 06 0,00 ]. 0, 27 0, O0 ~. 51 ' 0. ~' 12.75 0, 00 1C 6.15 0.00 5~ .'~ 0, 00 66!, 61 0, 00 161,02 0.00 '! 61,02 0. O0 65 ~2 0. ,323.35 O. 00 ~3.53 0.00 224.31 (). 00 0. OU ..................... C~_~z_ k---T ot-a i-s-. ........................... 1 "Ii-5 .' 75 ............. ~3 .~.~) 0C~005363 0G/28/90 PREEMANO FREEMAN 'S O=FICE F:'R!DDUCTS 106033-! 08/)3/9: 9007~ 07/3:'./9CI LETTER SiZE BOi'4D ='AFER 319.18 340.00 372.70 372 · 70 300. VO 3()ti. O0 12,171.26 5,853.40 5. 853. 1/1.85 118.66 5.32 12.46 43.06 10.27 12.75 106.15 5~.60 661.61 161.02 i61.02 444.06 ~5.92 1,323.35 224.31 224.51 ~ · 50 95.25 11~r75 ~19.18 ::.!5259-¢: 0'?!'2~"9( 9"Ct=jE ::/7124'cri >'tE!_:.:SAE, FS ~< :S3L. L'~'.',{/-,:, F'~zD3 52.~E' C.'.")0 5Z.EB !~,'2t>/9c) Cz tv o.F 'emecu~ a F'age,'. 2 -'iscal Year: 1991 Check Register Star:on: 1847 Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net ~ 1)()0053~ ~ 08 / 28 / 90 GEhlERALB GENERAL B I t<D i NE 11466901 07/3!/9'1 90071 07/3!/90 450KM COMBO BINDING Check Totals: 00005365 08/28/90 GLOB G~OBAL t0Z652.27 08/10/90 80v07 08/1 /go PAP, AL.EL LIhlE EXTENDE. R:, 00005366 08/28/90 GOLDENST GOLDEN STATE T~AD~NG -: 10767 08/03/90 8ZOC~5 )8/02/90 2M MEM UP. ~ REPAIR SF'/PPL ETC - 00~05367 LS/28/g0 GRASBERG JEfF GRASBERGER .... 0006~0 - (~ 90 E 960000 ! 34 08 / v4 / 90 000C~5369 08/28/90 HOLLEYWL W L HOLLEY 72590 07/25/~0 0057 -- 072~90 07/~°5~_90 ]07~ - - OLK~OS~T-'~O-~eSY-2~SZ9(+ IE~t 79 L} - 9 V8/06 / 90 0029 L'AC.X.~5~7! 08/28/90 JONES S_. S~SA~ JONES 081390 ::iS / 13/9O Check Total. s: L~00!:~5372 08/28/90 JRFREEMP J. R. FREEMAN CO. , ZNC C,e/C~O/90 ~00C~7----~8-/07/90 IDM~EEWRIT[~ !0 Check ~otai. s: - 0000S~7~28/90 L~4~- t~ OF C~t~* C~E5 080190 08/01/9[~ 08/01/90 L~AGUE LUNCH 10-23 (P MOORE) t~LK~,)537~ 0~/2~/90 LiNDE~AK KAREL LI~DE~ANS 082890 08/28/90 L,e/28/90 MONTH OF AUG. SALARY Check tota!s: 00005575 0:B/2~/90 MAR!LYNS MARILYb 'S CO=FEE SERVICE Check lotais: --t3:8/06/90 REF~JND ON RECEIPT 1053 Check Totals: L~8/04/90 RENTAL OF EQU!F'jMENT DFR JULY Cl,,=.ck Totals; -- 05/31/90 EXTEND SERVICES OF CSD COORD. 07/01/90 EXTENDED 9ERVI:E8 0~ C~D CDOR Check Totals: 05/31/90 PERSONNEL MGMT SERVICES Check Tt, ta!s. c)8 / i 3 ~ 90 RE I MBURSE M I LEAGE 38~. 57 l:~. 00 388.57 388.57 O. O0 388.57 7,.c'~.~:y9~ O- 0o 7~,5,69 238.27 (). 00 2~.~. 27 0~5-~ 0 - 00 i , 023. ~6 807.50 0.00 807.50 8L~7.50 0.00 807.50 '~.~ 0.00 56.50 56.50 0.00 36.50 626.84 0.00 626.84 ~26.84 0. O0 626. G4 270.57 0. O0 270.57 ~ 014.0 ! 0.00 5,014.01 ,284.38 0.00 5,284.38 ,805. O0 0. O0 2,805. O0 ,805.00 0.00 2. 805.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 15.00 0.00 15. O0 500~ 66 tO. 00 500.66 50C:. ~6 ~P. VO 500.66 15.00 0.00 15.00 300.00 0, 00 300 ~ 00 300.00 0.00 500. O0 0.00 ' 25.20 AUGUST PAY 3(it/. i;~¢;, 0.00 ! 55.25 1: f::: :~? - ::.':5._'2-'Z ....... 0.00 31)0. O0 F::sca:l Year: 1991 Chec!: Rec, zster .- E':ation: 1847 Check- ........ ~e, te .... Invoice Date P/D Da'~e Descri~tlon Gro~e Discoup'~ Net .............................................................................................................................................. Chesk lm_taZ s: 90195 08/01/90 0037 05 ./24/90 ALT./BORROW. , SCL B I DS UNDERWR 00005580 08/28/90 M'JNOZOS J. SAL MUNOZ 082890 08/28/90 08/28/90 MONTH OF AUGUST PAY Che:k Total s: 00005381 09 / 28 / 90 PARKSRC)tx~ R'=)NALZ) F'ARI:::S {3~8'2'890-- 08/28t~ .......... --1:~"~596~) M~T~ A~?~ 82890 08/28/90 08/28/90 EXPENSE REPORT ;OR JULY 90 (~c)0C!5392 08/2Sf90 F'HONEI~AK THE PHCINE I'IAI\! 2687 08 / ! 3 / 9: 90088 08/c38/90 NEW LINES @ 43180 BUS PARK DR Check Totals: 08/02/9) LEGAL NOT!r_-r TRAr. T 21062 Chezi: T=.tals: 00005383 08 / 29 / 90 PRESSENT PRESS ENTERPR ]: SE (~O t~Z}57_~cj~; <*5 / 2q_/9C:~ pR-Z~E-SE~--F'R4.,' CE ~ECL~): T'Y E,',5~5 08/15/90 90<)'~9 07/16/90 PLANNING DEPT. ALARM SYS. 700.00 0. C)Cl 300. 256tl:~.~ 0. O0 5,258 · 80 258.90 O. O0 5,258.80 887.50 O. 00 I , 887.50 ~87.50 ~-:~ · ~ · , ~/. 30(~. c)O 0. O0 300. O0 300. ()0 0.00 300.00 500.00 0. ~ :~;Ov. 00 376.04 0.00 576.04 ~TE'~ 04 o. :)O 6'2~. 774.80 0.00 774.80 774.80 0. O0 774.80 6b. ~/ o. oO 68.87 6~. 87 O. Lx:l 68.87 865. O0 O. 00 865. O0 20 i. 95 O. 00 20 !. 95 2.72 0. O0 z. !57.8~ 0.00 157.85 362.48 0. ~' 5a2. ~.8 116.85 O. 00 116.85 "~; 74 O. ,)0 8~. 70.46 0.00 70.46 8~. 67 0. O0 89.67 362.70 O, 00 362.70 189.59 0.00 189. 00':)05'.",:J5 ,':~9,'2S/90 RIVERC3 RiVERS:DE COL)*V.Tv F'URCriASi:NG 1i6C~96 08/01/90 90(~08 Cm6/:~8/90 ~AAF'S, ~ HOLE F'UNCH, PH(]NE ......... ! 16(Z~ ...... ~-~ ~-~---~ ~f:~ ~~ ~--~A TGR'~S 115959 07/28/90 90010 06/!8/80 SHARO CALCULATORS, TAGS 00005386 I.~8/2S/90 RIVERS]:[; RiVERSiDE OFFICE SLIPF':Y 89166-0 08/07/90 90079 08/06/90 PENS. PENCIL LEAD,, LABELS 89144-1 08/!5/9C) 90077 08/02/90 LABELS, STAF'LES, CARD CAP 89094-0 0~I02/90 90069 07/30/90 HANDLE PUTTY, T~.BS Check 08fOT/9~>-R-_~DF.L~D OF -FE-R.~.I-T-~cjS~dED i Fi'_PR' Cneck Toza! s: CKx05387 08/28/90 SAHARA SAHARA POOLS i'NC. T 2~_-, 06479558C )8/01/9(> 50V02 07/27/~'0 AD F:;F, 5R. ACC{3UI'.ITANT i25.76 O. 00 125.76 .......................... Cne=t:- Tozais: ............... i~.'~ ..... q.:Tr~:r ~.~ 0tx:)053~9 08/2E~/~'0 SHERIF~ COUNTY D~' R::VERS iZDE =- R-231 -~4(~ I 07 / :E 8 / 90 07 / 18 / 90 CPT AND SRGT CONTRACT HELR 12 ~ 712.29 0.00 12 ,, 712.29 :::'.e.:, "c':~.a.' :,2 'z:22.9 r~.cx :2..7:2.29 '~/2t}/C,(,. C:~ '~y {D't 'T e¢lu'_-(iL{.: a !:':?,C~~, 4 ~'~ sza, Yea" ~ Z.'~], Cnezk ~<egi, s~er ~tatz Invoice Date P/O Dat~ Desc~iot~on Cnezk T~ta: ~: 373. 1385 07 / 24 / 90 :)7 / 24 / 90 CLEAN HALL AFT COUNC I L MEET 124.00 0.00 ! 24. O0 ................... ~:~7'~"s~ .......... 12~. UU ' 000U5392 08/28/90 TEMOFFiC TEMECULP OFFICE SUF'PLY 5022 07/27/90 90066 )7/27/~ '~ LINEN WRITING WHITE PAPER 20! ,. 51 0.00 20!. 51 [:neck lotal s: 201. 00005393 08/28/90 THOMAS THOMAS TEMPQRAR!ES 507199 07/29/90 20001 07/09/90 MINL/TE C=ERK 116. '~01 )539~ '~8/28/90 TOWNCTR TOWN CENTER STATIONERS 7698 07/25/90 90064 07/25/90 WHITE BOND i0028 07/IE:/9(~ ~Cf~54 07/18/~0 3 HOLE PUNCH POND WHITE i24 9o 0.00 !24.9r~ 00005395 08/28/90 TROXELL 'rROXELL COMMUNiCATiONS 91437 0EY02/90 70011 07/16/90 T.V. W/VCR 636.8~ 0.00 656.86 Cnezk Total s: '~':]~ fl5~q6 U9/28/90 '~AL.L~Y VALLEY O~FICE PR'3DUC'TS Check Total s~ !06.64 0. =~"" 65 88. ,~_,~..~ 08.,07/90 90070 17,'3fb'~ SEA~ CQVERS~ TISSUE, LINERS 0.00 _ · 00t~05~:98 08128190 WINDSORP WINDSOR PARTNERS 080190 08/01/90 C E:/C~ 1/90 RENT/CAM JULY 4:180 STE-200 7 Check lc~tal. s: 7,.3"K},48 0.00 7,3V0.48 ' ..... Report~Ot~I'~ 68 ,~ 0.00 ' 08/10/90 PAYROLL 19,417.04 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS AND I hereby certify that the foregoing is true __ David F Dixo ..................... M~age~- .... Prj~;e'a' ~ ~O~AA~'kl;~ssner and Adriana Hayes ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council David F. Dixon, City Manager August 20, 1990 Selection of Auditors RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council select Moreland & Associates, Inc. to perform the audit of the City's financial statements. DISCUSSION: The City prepared the request for proposal (RFP) of audit services (Exhibit 2) and mailed it to the CPA firms listed on Exhibit 3. The City requested proposals for three years of audit services, in order to maximize efficiency and control costs. As indicated in the proposal, the City is seeking audit services from a firm that is knowledgeable in the area of governmental auditing. Governmental accounting standards are based on the "fund accounting" concept and are promulgated by a different standards board than financial accounting standards. In addition, the City will be submitting their financial statements to the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) award program for review. Receipt of such an award indicates excellence in financial reporting and is viewed favorably when the financial statements are used in financing. Therefore, it is critical that the City's CPA firm be experienced in the governmental auditing and in the review of the financial statements for the award program. Based on my review of the audit proposals received, Moreland & Associates, Inc. meets the above criteria at the lowest cost. As you are aware, Mary Jane Henry was employed by Moreland & Associates, Inc. while performing consulting services for the City. Mr. Moreland has addressed the independence issue in his proposal to my satisfaction. -2- FI8CAL IMPACT= The FY 1991 Operating Budget includes $20,000 audit/consulting services. for Finance ATTACHMENTS: Exhibits 1, 2, 3. Auaie Proposals are available for review in the City Clerk's Office. 1. Moreland & Associates, Inc. 2. Ernest & Young 3. Diehl, Evans & Company 4. Donald McLean & Company 5. KPMG Peat Marwick 6. Price Warehouse Exhibit 1 City of Temecula Response to Audit Proposals For the Three Years Ending June 30, 1992 Criteria: Firm currently serves government clients Firm's clients obtain award for excellence in financial reporting Firm's staff has experience serving government clients Cost: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Diehl Evans & Co. (A) Ernst & Don Moreland Young McLean & Co. & Assoc. (B) (C) (A) Peat Price Marwick Waterhouse (B) (B) Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (2) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes $ 8,950 $ 18,500 $ 5,900 $ 6,000 $ 7,500 12,000 9,400 (1) 13,500 8,000 9,900 15,000 9,850 (1) 16,500 8,500 11,500 18,000 (i) $ $ 28,200 $ 35,900 $ 22,500 $ 28,900 45,000 (1) Unable to estimate fees for the period. (2) Not addressed in proposal. (A) Large local firm specializing in governmental audits. (S) "Big 6" (C) Local firm Mayor Ron Parks Mayor Pro Tern Kar~l F. IAndcman~ CITY OF TEHECULA 43172 Bu~ine~ Park Drive P.O. Box3000 Temeeula, California 92390 (714) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 · EXHIBIT 2 Councilmembers Patrieia H. Birdsall Peg Moore .]. Sal Munoz REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL The City of Temecula is requesting proposals for audit services for the seven months ending June 30, 1990 and the two years ending June 30, 1991 and 1992. The City was incorporated December 1, 1989 and the reporting entity includes a Community Services District (CSD). The City's accounting records are maintained on a PC network using fund accounting software. The accounting records of the CSD are maintained by Riverside County's Community Service Area 143 for the seven months ending June 30, 1990. The City expects to begin maintaining the accounting records for the CSD during 1991. The CPA firm must perform the above audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, as well as government auditing standards. The firm must also represent to the City in their proposal that the firm has complied with the State requirements to perform an audit in accordance with government auditing standards. The firm must also demonstrate that they have experience in preparing a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) that meets the criteria established for an outstanding award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) and the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The City may require a single audit in the future but audit fees for a single audit are not requested at this time. The City does not have a redevelopment agency at this time. The City expects to close its books on July 20, 1990. Field work should commence after award of contract on August 14, 1990. The City will be submitting the CAFR to the CSMFO for their award program. Therefore, the report must be issued by November 15. Proposals must be submitted by August 1 st at 5 pro. The City will require ten copies of the proposal. Any questions regarding this proposal should be directed to Mrs. Genie Roberrs at (714) 694-1989. David F. Dixon, City Manager EXHIBIT 3 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Anderson & Company 27710 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-6148 Jerry W. Byrd 28441 Rancho California Road Suite G Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-4729 Darrell R. Chodola 27780 Front Street Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-1341 Conrad & Associates 100 Main Irvine, CA 92714 (714) 474-2020 Coopers & Lybrand 401 West A Street San Diego, CA 92102 (619) 232-8000 James Counts 27403 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-1833 Deloitte & Touche 695 Town Center Drive Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attention: Jeff Hiltbrand Thomas D. Derek 27349 Jefferson Temecula, CA 92390 (~14) 676-3013 Diehl Evans 120 West Woodward Escondido, CA 92025 (619) 741-3141 Ernst & Young 3750 University Avenue Riverside, CA 92506 (714) 682-5500 2 Wayne H. Frazier 27393 Inez Road Suite 151 Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-0071 Phillip F. Green 27349 Jefferson Avenue Suite 101 Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-3013 Vincent J. Griffith 27393 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-6O47 Marian Kimble 45647 Classic Way Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-7888 Kuebler, Thomas & Co. 28910 Rancho California Road Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-3013 Daniel M. MacGuire Overland Financial Center 27710 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-1040 McDermand & McDermand 28924 Front Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-1236 McFerson & Associates 43124 Rancho Way Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-O683 Donald McLean & Co 27710 Jefferson Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-1040 James A. Meyler 27710 Jefferson Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-1040 Moreland & Associates Inc. 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 KPMG, Peat, & Marwick 750 B Street San Diego, CA 92102 (619) 233-8000 Price Waterhouse 3403 10th Riverside, CA 92506 (714) 684-9411 Thomas Ralston 43020 Blackdeer Loop Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-9299 Benjamin Ramirez 28910 Rancho California Road Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-7073 Ritter & Associates 28465 Front Street Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-7316 Winifred A. Samstag 28481 Rancho California Road Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 699-8504 Sandefer, Smith & Associates 28362 Vincent Moraga Drive Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-1120 Howard Schundt 27710 Jefferson Avenue Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-5560 Thomas A. Schramer 28710 Las Haciendas Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-2603 ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager and Councilmembers Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems/,~~_/~/~,,/'2 August 28, 1990 CABLE TELEVISION RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file Telecommunications Management Corporation's evaluation and recommendations concerning Jones Intercable's application for a City of Temecula Cable Television franchise. Authorize the City Manager to sign the attached letter to Jones Intercable accepting their application, outlining the franchise process, inviting them to begin franchise negotiations, and requesting the non-refundable fee to negotiate a franchise agreement. Authorize the City Manager to hire Telecommunications Management Corporation to negotiate and develop the franchise agreement with Jones Intercable. BACKGROUND: On July 18, 1990, Jones Intercable submitted a complete application to the City of Temecula per the new Cable Television Ordinance. That application was reviewed by Staff and forwarded to Telecommunications Management Corporation (TMC) to complete the evaluation (TMC's Scope of Work - Attachment A). On July 30, 1990, Staff received and reviewed TMC's evaluation (Attachment B). Staff recommends that we continue to move forward. The recommendations, above, allow Staff to continue processing Jones' application and begin franchise negotiations. The City Manager's proposed letter to Jones Intercable (Attachment C) outlines the remaining process. It is highly recommended that all Councilmembers thoroughly review TMC's evaluation. TMC's report contains a significant amount of information that will assist the Council with the topic of Cable Television. If staff is successful in negotiating a franchise agreement with Jones Intercable, the Council will be tasked to make the final decision on whether or not to grant the franchise. In a separate Staff action, Inland Valley Cablevision was requested to consider a franchise agreement with the City of Temecula. However, Inland Valley declined to negotiate an agreement at this time (Attachment D). FISCAL IMPACT.' None. All costs to process the application and negotiate the franchise agreement are borne by the applicant. A TTA CHMENTS: A TMC's Scope of Work for Cable Television Consulting Services B TMC's Evaluation of Jones' Application for a Cable Television Franchise C - Proposed Letter from the City Manager to Jones Intercable D - Letter from the City of Temecula to Inland Valley Cablevision dated July 31, 1990, with response A TTA CHMENT A A TTA CHMENT A ATTACHMENT 1 SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSED CABLE TELEVISION CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA A. General Telecommunications Management Corp. (the Consultant) shall provide cable television consultant services to the City of Temecula (the City), in support of the City's franchising process, and in accordance with the following tasks. B. Tasks Task 1 -- Preparation of a Cable Television Regulatory and Consumer Protection Ordinance Draft The Consultant shall review the City's current cable-related television ordinance and franchise documents, and submit a recommended new regulatory and consumer protection ordinance draft for the City's consideration. The revised draft shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: Compatibility with the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, and other applicable laws and regulations. -- Compatibility with the current status of cable television technology and services. --'Provision of regulatory flexibility, consumer service standards and franchise enforcement capability to the extent appro- priate to protect the public interest. Subsequent to submission of the draft, the Consultant, upon request, shall participate in relevant briefings, meetings and public hearings up to adoption of the ordinance. Task 2 -- Evaluation of Franchise Application The Consultant shall review and evaluate any franchise'application(s) submitted. The evaluation shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: The applicant's financial and technical qualifications. The technical and economic feasibility of granting a second franchise, taking into account the possible benefits of competition, the possible disruption to the public right-of-way and other relevant factors. The impact of the major factors included in 53066.3 of the State Code (AB 543). The end-item of Task 2 shall be a written report, including all data, analyses, conclusions and recommendations for City action. Task 3 -- Support in Franchise Negotiations The Consultant shall provide support in franchise negotiations as follows, including as a minimum: -- Providing appropriate recommendations for negotiation objectives and strategies. -- Providing a draft franchise agreement. -- Participating in negotiation meetings, as requested. -- Meeting with, and briefing of, City staff and elected officials, and attendance at public hearings and meetings, as required. Up to five (5) meetings are included in the cost quoted in E. below for this Task. C. Personnel Mr. Carl Pilnick, President of Telecommunications Management Corp., shall be the Principal Consultant for all tasks, with support from Mr. Michael J. Friedman and the TMC staff as required. D. Schedule Task 1 -- Ordinance draft submitted within 30 days of authorization to proceed. Task 2 -- Report submitted within 45 days of authorization to proceed. Task 3 -- At the City's convenience. E. Costs The tasks shall be invoiced as follows: Task 1 -- $1,000 (invoiced upon submission of draft ordinance). Task 2 -- $2,800 (invoiced upon submission of evaluation report). Task 3 -- $4,200 (invoiced upon task completion). Included in these costs are five (5) bound copies plus one (1) reproducible copy of the draft ordinance, report and franchise agreement. Additional copies will be provided at TMC's cost. Included in the cost are expenditures for personal automobile use. If additional expenditures are required for City-authorized trips (e.g., hotel accommodations to expedite meetings), TMC will bill the City for these items at TMC's cost. A TTA CHMENT B A T TA C HMEN T B I -- TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT CORP. 5757 Wilshire Boulevard · Suite 344 · Los An~!eles, California 90036 · (213) 931-2600 CITY OF TEMECULA EVALUATION OF JONES INTERCABLE, INC., APPLICATION FOR A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE July 1990 Section II. III. IV. VI. - i- TABLE OF CONTENTS Title INTRODUCTION .............. EVALUATION OF APPLICATION. A. B. C. E. F. G. Applicant .............. Franchise and Service Area ..... Service Schedule and Construction Policy ......... Cable System Design ......... Financial Commitment ....... Service to Public Agencies ..... Summary ............... IMPACT OF CABLE SYSTEM OVERBUILDS .... A. History and Current Status . .'. . B. Summary ............... CALIFORNIA LAW ............. POLICY ISSUES .............. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... A. Conclusions ............. B. Recommendations ........... Page 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 10 12 16 18 18 18 - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPEN DICES RIVERSIDE COUNTY GRANT OF LICENSE TO JONES INTERCABLE JONES INTERCABLE, INC. SUMMARY OF CABLE TV FUND 15 PROSPECTUS C. CALIFORNIA LAW A.B. NO. 543 - 1 - I. INTRODUCTION The City of Temecula (the City) which incorporated recently, has cable television service provided by Inland Valley operating under a license (franchise) previously granted by Riverside County. A second cable operator, Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc. (Jones), also was granted a license by the County, as indicated in Appendix A, to construct cable facilities "in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona, Norco, Lake Elsinore, Perris, San Jacinto, Hemet, Beaumont and Banning," but to date has not constructed any cable system facilities within the area incorporated within the City of Temecula. In May 1990, Jones submitted an application to the City for a cable television franchise. .Prior to formally accepting this application for review and evaluation, the City adopted a new cable television regulatory ordinance (No. 90-12) at the Council meeting of July 10, 1990. In accordance with provisions of the ordinance, pertaining to new franchise applications, on July 18, 1990, Jones submitted additional information to the City. This report contains a review of the application materials submitted, as well as an evaluation of the impact of the major factors included in the California State Code dealing with the award of multiple cable television franchises (Code Section 53066.3). - 2 - II. EVALUATION OF APPLICATION A. Applicant The franchise applicant is Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc., a subsidiary of Jones Intercable, Inc. The parent company, based in Denver, is ranked as the tenth largest cable operator in the U.S., currently serving about 1,130,000 subscribers nationwide, with revenues of about $65,800,000 for the fiscal year ending May 31, 1989. The company owns and operates cable systems directly, and also acts as the General Partner for a number of limited partner- ships formed to acquire, construct, develop and operate cable systems. As General Partner, the company usually receives a management fee of 5% of gross revenues of the partnership. As an example of this type of partnership investment, Jones Intercable, Inc., recently attempted to raise $400,000,000 in limited partner investments to form "Cable TV Fund 15". A summary of the prospectus is contained in Appendix B. For Temecula, the applicant, Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Jones Intercable, Inc. Although no specific reference to limited partnership ownership is made, it is recommended that any Franchise Agreement clearly define the proposed franchisee's ownership, as well as terms and conditions regarding intraorganizational transfers. B. Franchise and Service Area In its supplemental application information, Jones indicates that it is willing to serve the entire City of Temecula, as required by the City's ordinance. This will create what is termed in the cable industry as an "overbuild". The impact of cable system overbuilds is discussed in Section III. below. C. Service Schedule and Construction Policy Jones indicates that it will construct all new development areas as soon as they become available. The schedule for con- structing the cable system to serve existing homes within the City would be subject to negotiations. Construction would begin immediately upon receiving a franchise, with initial service "available to be activated no later than December 1, 1990." It is noted that Section 1.11B of Ordinance 90-12 requires a minimum construction schedule which would provide service to all existing residences by the expiration of 50% of the franchise term. The term of the franchise is subject to negotiation. - 3 - D. Cable System Design In its application, Jones indicates that the system will have "a distribution bandwidth of 550 MHz, capable of carrying 77 video channels."* The tentative channel line-up of programming indicates that 54 video channels will be programmed, along with an unspecified number of FM radio signals. Jones has not indicated where its headend (signal reception, technical control and distribution center) will be located. The application states only that Jones "will have the capability to deliver our 77 channels to any location within the City via microwave or fiber optics." Specific information with regard to signal source and distribution point(s) within the City should be provided by Jones. The proposed system will be "two-way capable", which means that reverse (upstream) capacity can be activated in the future, with the expenditure of additional funds for the required upstream activation equipment. This is a feature of almost all cable systems, but very few have been activated to date for two-way services, since the industry in general is pessimistic about the revenues and profitability of these services. Jones has proposed to utilize an addressable converter with its own remote control, although make and manufacturer have not been specified. "Set-top" converters, which long have been a staple of the cable industry, are used to select one signal from the quantity of signals in the cable for viewing, and to unscramble any signals, such as premium channels, which are transmitted in scrambled form to inhibit unauthorized reception. The converter to be used by Jones will also have other functions, such as addressability, which permits a computer at the cable system headend to activate or deactivate selected channels by transmitting an electronic command only to that particular "address" (converter). *Cable system transmissions to subscribers begin at 54 MHz (lower frequencies are allocated to reverse transmission), which is the lower frequency boundary of TV broadcast Channel 2. Each television ehannel requires 6 MHz of bandwidth. If a cable system can operate up to 550 MHz, the total bandwidth available is 550-54, or 496 MHz. Subtracting 20 MHz for the FM band (88-108 MHz), which is generally not used for video, and 4 MHz for an unassigned band between Channels 4 and 5, gives a usable bandwidth of 472 MHz. Dividing this by 6 MHz per channel gives a capacity of 78.67 video channels. In many areas, however, 2 channels are restricted because of possible interference with aircraft navigation signals. Thus, a "550 MHz system" is functionally equivalent to a 76-78 channel system. - 4 - There are some drawbacks to set-top converters. By delivering only one channel to the subscribers' TV set, they make it difficult or cumbersome for the subscriber to utilize a VCR, for example, to record a second program while watching the first. (Two con- verters or a complex switching arrangement are required.) Further, they require their own remote-control units, rendering useless the units purchased with the subscriber's TV set. For these reasons, set-top converters have been termed "user-unfriendly", and the cable industry is considering other approaches. One such approach is to replace the in-house converter, with equipment mounted on the side of the subscriber's house ("on- premises") or at the cable tap on the pole or in the underground pedestal ("off-premises"). Although this technology is new and relatively untested, it may be prudent to ask Jones whether it intends to incorporate "user-friendly" converter features. Even taking into account the potential subscriber unfriendliness of the converters, the proposal potentially represents a"modern, state-of-art cable system. Confirming information with regard to headend location and possible user-friendly features with regard to converters should be obtained from Jones. E. Financial Commitment No specific commitment of funds for constructing and operating a Temecula system has been provided. While there is little doubt with regard to Jones' overall financial capability, a specific commitment of funds for Temecula should be provided by Jones. F. Service to Public Agencies Jones makes no specific commitment with regard to public, educational or governmental (PEG) access programming. No indica- tion is given with regard to any equipment, facilities or capital grants allocated for any local programming effort. Two channels are indicated in Jones' proposed channel line-up as being for local and government access. No provisions are indicated with regard to offering cable service to public buildings, such as schools or City facilities. - 5 - G. S umma ry The Jones franchise application contains a minimum amount of information. As noted above, there is little doubt that Jones has the technical and financial capability to construct and operate a cable television system in Temecula. However, very little specific information has been provided. Either this information should be requested of Jones prior to entering into any franchise negotiations, or this issue should be clarified as part of the negotiation process. From the informa- tion submitted, it appears that the proposed cable system would technically be state-of-the-art, and capable of providing all of the current and anticipated services considered desirable by most system subscribers. - 6 - III. IMPACT OF CABLE SYSTEM OVERBUILDS A. History and Current Status Since Ordinance 90-12 requires all cable operators within the City of Temecula to make cable service available to all homes within the City, a general review of multiple franchises in communities is appropriate. Overbuilds, or the construction of cable plant by two or more s~stem operators which is designed to compete for the same subscribers, are not a new phenomenon in the cable industry, and have occurred as far back as the 1960's in some cases, but until relatively recently their impact has been minimal. A number of studies of overbuilds have been performed. Many similar conclusions were reached by these studies, including the following: The initial effect of competition is a reduction in subscriber rates, and generally an improvement in service by the original operator. The majority of overbuilds are transient in nature, with one company eventually remaining as the survivor, either through buy-out or economic attrition. Rates charged to subscriber revert to normal if the overbuild converts into a single- operator situation. During the overbuild, the participating operators generally suffer economically. If the dwelling-unit density in the overbuild area is high, the adverse economic impact may be ameliorated to the point where overbuild operations can be maintained indefinitely, part. icularly if each operator also operates in adjacent areas that are not overbuilt, and can utilize those revenues and profits to compensate for overbuild losses. The second cable system usually costs more to construct than the first, since underground utility areas must be dug up again, and the last entrant on the utility poles must pay all pole rearrangement costs. For example, if a pole is too short to accommodate another set of coaxial cables, the second cable company must pay the cost of replacement with a taller pole and the reinstallation of all existing cables, i.e. , power, telephone and CATV. - 7 - When higher construction costs are combined with the necessity of attracting subscribers away from the existing operator, the economic outlook for an overbuilder usually is not attractive. Services are not significantly different between operators, unless the system that is overbuilt is obsolete and limited in capacity. A capacity of about 35-40 channels is sufficient to carry most of the currently available off-air broadcast TV and satellite-delxvered programming services that appear to be of significant interest to the public.. Because of this, a more modern system (e.g., 60 channels or more) may be capable of providing more programs, but relatively little is available that might motivate subscribers to change their cable supplier. The modern system, however, obviously would be more capable of accommodating a rapid increase in attractive new program services, and also would have more capacity for local programming, such as public, educational or government (PEG) access. Some negative impact upon the franchise area is produced by overbuilds, in terms of disrup- tion caused by multiple construction projects, aesthetic impact of duplication of cables, pedestals, drops, power supplies, etc. The extent of this impact is to some degree dependent upon the level of regulation and coordination exercised by the franchising authority. Generally, the public rights-of-way can accommodate ~, and perhaps 3, sets of coaxial cables without problems arising, but more than this number approaches physical saturation, and also prevents expansion of municipal utilities in the future. Thus, there is a distinct physical limitation on the number of cable overbuilds that the rights-of-way can accommodate, without entailing excessive costs or constraints on utility operations. The fact that overbuilds currently are a factor in only a handful of over 8,000 cable systems in the U.S. is empirical confirmation that, in most cases, there is little if any economic incentive for a cable operator to consider an overbuild seriously. In recent years, however, a number of new factors have emerged which have an effect upon the conventional views toward over- building, including the following: - 8 - Rate aleregulation, an objective long lobbied for by the cable industry and achieved by the passage of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, may ironically turn out to be a stimulus for overbuilding. A 1986 Department of Justice study indicated that "under mandatory rate deregulation, it is reasonable to conclude that overbuild competition has a potentially significant welfare-enhancing role and that municipalities and operators may opt for over- building more often than in the past." Another way of stating the point is that with rate deregulation, all cable operators are free to charge what the market will bear, regardless of their costs. The argument that the operators must be protected from ruinous competition becomes considerably weaker, since the consumers have no similar protection. In fact, the cable industry maintains that such consumer protection is unnecessary, since each subscriber can simply discontinue cable service if rates get too high. This is not very different from the view that any cable operator should simply get out of the business if the competition gets too powerful. If, indeed, the combination of quasi-monopoly status and rate deregulation results in a substantial increase in overall rates, both the increased profitability of cable systems and the resentment of subscribers may lead to pressure for competition, which will mean more overbuilds. Increasing cable system profitability, based on higher rates, and the consequent increase in system values, have led to a significant disparity between the cost of purchasing a cable system, and the cost of building a new system. This disparity clearly favors building and/or overbuilding in many geographical areas, and is particularly attractive to investors interested in entering the cable business. If it= is significantly cheaper to overbuild than to buy an existing cable system, even considering all of the competitive risks, than investment capital will be more drawn to overbuilding. - 9 - The disparity in effect creates a cost "vacuum" which tends to draw new competitors toward building (and overbuilding), as the most attractive entry path. This is especially true of entrants who are not members of the traditional "cable club", which has had a tacit understanding that frowned upon "poaching" on each other's franchise territories. In areas of high residential growth, where a significant number of new residences will be built, if a cable company can gain access to the utility trenches when they are open, the cost of construction is at its lowest. Con- sequently, new franchise applicants may be interested primarily in competing for the right to contact, and make agreements with developers. This apparently was Jones' original application objective. The recent legal environment relevant to the cable industry, although not yet completely or clearly defined, to date has favored more, rather than less competition. (Although recent developments in California law, as discussed in Section IV, run contrary to this trend, due to protectionist lobbying by the entrenched California operators. ) Ironically, as in the case of rate deregulation, a segment of the cable industry has pressed the argument that cable systems should have full First Amendment rights equivalent to newspapers, and in some federal courts, this view has been largely successful. While the intent was to reduce, or possibly eliminate, any local government regulation of cable, the inevitable corrollary of that theory is that it may be virtually impossible to refuse to issue a franchise that would keep a "First Amendment speaker" out of the market. As a result, the constitutional questions and their potential impact currently make the restriction of overlapping franchises more difficult, regardless of the economic factors, at least until a definitive Supreme Court decision establishes the degree of First Amendment rights and immunities possessed by cable systems. In Temecula, where the City's ordinance requires competition throughout the City, this type of restriction is not relevant. - 10 - B. Summary In summary, the current status of overbuilds in the cable industry may be stated as follows: There are relatively few existing overbuilds that have lasted a significant length of time, since the competition inherently has an adverse economic impact on the participants. In recent years, however, overbuilds have become somewhat less forbidding, and are now being considered on an increasing basis, although in selected geographic areas. The impact of overbuilds on subscribers usually is beneficial in the short-term, resulting in lower rates and better service. These benefits can be maintained only if the competition continues. Cable programming usually is not impacted significantly, unless the existing system does not have enough capacity to carry the available desirable programs. Systems with about 40 channels or more can carry essentially all the programs that most subscribers view significantly, at the present time. Some disruption and negative impact is introduced into the franchise area by over- building construction, but this may be manageable with appropriate oversight and coordination by the franchising authority. If there are 3 or more cable competitors, however, there may be significant physical problems with respect to the public rights- of-way. With cable's First Amendment rights not yet defined precisely, it may be difficult for a municipality to decline to grant new franchises, even if satisfied with the existing cable operator. The municipality could face litigation alleging that it was preventing a "First Amendment speaker" from speaking. - 11 - The key policy issues that arise when a municipality is faced with overbuilding include the following: A determination as to whether cable competition is to be actively encouraged. A determination of franchise terms and conditions that will not unduly favor either the existing operator or the new entrant(s). The establishment of measures to protect the public rights-of-way, both for current and anticipated future use. Consideration of "area-wide" vs. "limited area" franchises, to minimize "cream-skimming". Consideration of measures to minimize potential disruption to the community that may result from such factors as multiple drop cables to homes, multiple pedestals, etc. The City of Temecula has determined that it desires to encourage, and indeed require, City-wide competition, and has incorporated this intent in Ordinance 90-12. The ordinance also establishes procedures dealing with the sharing of the public rights-of-way, and for minimizing potential disruption. - 12 - IV. CALIFORNIA LAW On September 20, 1989, a new California law, A.B. 543 (see Appendix C), was passed by both houses of the Legislature, and signed by the Governor into law and became effective January 1, 1990. This law deals specifically with the granting of multiple franchises and is incorporated as Government Code 53066.3. Some modifications to this law have been approved by the State Legislature and sent to the Governor on July 9 (A.B. 2892). As of this writing, the Governor had not signed the bill into law, but is expected to do so. Regardless, the new provisions would not be effective until January 1, 1991 so that Temecula need only be concerned with the current version. Both A.B. 543 and 2892 require that the City, before it grants an overlapping franchise, consider a number of criteria, which include the following: (a) Impact of the new franchise on the commun i ty. (b) Impact upon public or private property. (c) Disruption or inconvenience to existing users, or adverse effect on the future use of rights-of-way. (d) Technical and financial ability of the applicant. (e) Impact on the City's "interest in having universal cable service." (f) Other "societal interests generally considered by franchising authorities." (g) Economic feasibility of an additional cable system. (h) Other matters "as the franchising authority may determine to be relevant." It must be recognized that the law is basically the result of lobbying by the entrenched cable operators, whose interests are not so much to establish a true "level playing field" as to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a second cable operator to compete in a market which is, for all practical purposes, a de facto monopoly. Section 53066.3 closely mirrors laws that have been adopted in other states, again through the lobbying efforts of the state and national cable trade associations. - 13 - Consequently, it is to be expected that an incumbent cable operator will almost certainly argue that a new cable franchise would have very adverse effects on the community, the rights-of- way and "societal interests", while, conversely, a new franchise applicant will emphasize the beneficial effects of competition. The following review of the 53066.3 criteria, therefore, should not be expected to satisfy all interested parties. (1) Impact on the Community The impact of an overlapping cable franchise on the City of Temecula, or any community, will depend upon whether the cable system competition is transitory, or lasts for some significant length of time. If one of the competitors is bought out or cannot continue to compete, a good argument can be made that the second franchise was not worth the effort. For as long as it lasts, however, competition will benefit subscribers, usually in terms of lower rates and better quality of service. There may be some negative impact on the rights of way (e.g., more cables on the utility poles or in the underground easements), but this is manageable and does not appear to be a major long- term problem. (2) Impact on Public or Private Property As stated in (1) above, there may be some negative impact on public property, i.e., rights-of-way, which is considered manageable (unless 3 or more cable operators attempt to use the same rights-of-way)? With respect to private property, any infringement on private property is usually permitted by a contract with the owner (e.g., the lease of property to locate the headend), which provides for appropriate compensation. A second cable system may well have an adverse economic impact upon the existing cable system, but this is the nature of competition in any industry. (3). Disruption or Inconvenience to Existing Users, or Adverse Effect on Future Use of Rights-of-Way The "existing users" presumably are subscribers to cable services, and public agencies (e.g., City buildings, schools) that receive cable service. Almost all of these should benefit from cable system competition, as noted above. - 14 - Installing a second system does have some drawbacks, however. Residences may have to have two drop cables to allow a choice of cable vendors, or a drop cable that is pulled out, and another installed, each time the resident switches from one operator to the other. Similarly, in underground cable areas, a second pedestal (an above-ground enclosure containing the taps to which the drop cables are connected to the distribution plant, and, in some cases, system amplifiers) may be required. This redundancy of components is a necessary result of competition. (4) Technical and Financial Capability The technical and financial capability of the applicant have been examined in the previous sections, and are considered more than adequate. (5) Universal Cable Service "Universal cable service" is the availability of cable service to all residents. In Temecula, the City has made a policy decision to encourage competition throughout the City, and thus require universal service by all franchisees. (6) Other Societal Interests Probably the most important "societal interest" involved is the provision of good quality service at reasonable rates to the cable system subscribers. Competition, if it lasts, should have a better chance of achieving this objective than an unregulated monopoly operation. (7) Economic Feasibility The question of whether a second cable system can be economically feasible is perhaps the issue that carries the greatest degree of doubt. If Jones is willing to take this risk, however, it may not be appropriate for the City to arbitrarily decide that it will not allow the risk to be taken. This is particularly true where declining to grant the franchise may subject the City to some legal liability, on First Amendment grounds. It is expected that economic feasibility will become a prime topic of discussion during any negotiations with Jones prior to the award of a franchise. This would involve such factors as the construction schedule to complete the overbuild. Jones' supplemental letter indicates that it is "willing to negotiate a reasonable construction schedule which will allow Jones to do a complete financial analysis of the cost associated with said construction, and which will allow a reasonable return on investment." No schedule or financial parameters are indicated. - 15 - Because of potential litigation in this regard by either Jones or Inland or both, it may be prudent for the City to request some form of indemnification against litigation in this area, so that the City's general funds will not be utilized to defend the granting of a new franchise. - 16 - V. POLICY ISSUES When the general considerations of Sections III and IV above are specifically related to the case of Jones' franchise application, the key policy issues appear to be the following: (1) The City already has opted for full City-wide competition. Arriving at a specific schedule for overbuilding existing, already served residences will be a critical issue. (2) Assuming that Jones may not be the last franchise applicant, does the City wish to place a limit on the number of franchises it will grant, and also the number of cable systems permitted to share the common utility trenches, with the limit based upon an appropriate finding establishing the practical capacity of the rights-of-way? (3) In approaching the definition of a "level playing field", a number of factors should be considered, including the following: (a) A franchise that was granted some years ago may not contain all of the public benefits now possible, For example, the Cable Act permits municipalities to negotiate for a 5% franchise fee and PEG (public, educational and government) access facilities and equipment, and to establish consumer protection standards. Should a new franchise be structured to gain the maximum public benefits possible, or to be similar to the older franchise? (b) Should the City attempt to prohibit "exclusive" deals between developers and cable companies that prevent another operator from obtaining access to utility trenches? This is the opposite extreme to requiring equal access for all franchisees. (c) Should the City attempt to reduce the likelihood that competition will be brief, because a competitor may sell out at some point? This might be possible by establishing a requirement - 17 - that prohibits sales to another cable company serving the same area, for perhaps 5 years or more? The resolution of these issues will vary from city to city, and no universal solutions exist at this time. In most cases, it appears appropriate to attempt to strike a balance between encouraging competition, while keeping the disruption caused by overbuilds to a manageable level. - 18 - VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions The following conclusions are drawn from the evaluation of the Jones application: (1) Jones Intercable, Inc., as one of the larger cable system operators, has the financial and technical capabil~ to construct and operate a cable system in Temecula. (2) A specific, enforceable construction schedule will probably be the critical issue to be negotiated and incorporated into any franchise agreement. (3)' If the City wishes to .den. y any franchise application submitted by a technically and financially qualified applicant, it appears prudent, in the light of First Amendment uncertainties, to base the rationale for denial primarily upon a specific finding of saturation of, and disruption to, the public rights-of-way. This area seems much more defensible in the event of legal challenge, although perhaps difficult to substantiate with only two operators. B. Recommendations The following recommendations are made: (1) Since the City's policy is to encourage competition, the City should proceed to negotiate a franchise agreement with Jones. (2) The franchise agreement should attempt to establish a fair balance between the rights and obligations of the existing cable operator, and Jones' rights and obligations. This does not mean that the individual terms and conditions must be the same as the current Inland franchise, but rather that on an overall basis, neither Jones nor the existing operator should be unduly favored or discrim- inated against. - 19 - (3) Specific recommendations for items to be included in any Jones franchise agreement include: (a) An unambiguously defined overbuild construction and service schedule. (b) (c) A franchise fee at the maximum permitted by both federal and state law, 5% of gross receipts. Specific franchise enforcement provisions, substantial enough as to provide a high level of confidence that franchisee commitments will be met. (d) Detailed system design and technical standards. (e) A specific commitment to provision of PEG access facilities and equipment should be considered. (f) An appropriate franchise term, tied to and contingent upon completion of timely system construction. APPENDIX A RIVERSIDE COUNTY GRANT OF LICENSE TO JONES INTERCABLE ',TLL 27 '90 15:Z7 CITY OF TEI'IECULn 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 C(',~JhTY C(X)hSEL 3.535 10TMSTI;~EET RI'~-'f,~c-ID~ CALIFORNIA A NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR A ~RIOD OF 15 YEARS TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SYSTEM ALONG, UNDER AND ACROSS SUCH PUBLIC ROADS AS NOW OR MAY MEREAFTER EXIST IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS ADJACENT TO THE CITIES OF RIVERSIDE, MORENO VALLEY, CORONA, NORCO, LAKE ELSINORE, PERRIS, SAN'JACINTO, HEMET, BEAUMONT AND BANNING WITHIN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1. After public hearing affording due ~rocess, and after full consideration of the licenseo's legal, character, financial, technical and other qualifications, including the feasibility of its construction arrangements, a non-exclusive license is hereby granted to Jones Intercable of San Diego, Inc., heroin called "LicenSee", for a period. of fifteen (15) years from the date hereof to construct, operate and maintain a community antenna television system comprised of a system of antennae coaxial cable or other transmission line and associated equipment and facilities installed, operated and maintained for the purpose of broadband communication services within the County of Riverside, including without limitation the distribution of broadcast television-s4gnals or radio signals, specialized programming or any other video, audio or data transmission to or from subscribers, along, under and across such public roads as now or may hereafter e~ist within the unincorporated areas adjacent to the Cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona, Norco, Lake Elsinore, Perris, San Jacinto, Hemet, Beaumont, and Banning within of the County of Riverside, as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit 'A". a e "Public roads" as used in this license means any public highway, road, street, lane, alley, court, sidewalk, parkway, or easement therefor, dedicated or offered for dedication to the County of Riverside. 2. Licensee shall: Construct, install and maintain all equipment and facilities in accordance with all requirements of the County, and shall make no installation or excavation, in, on or over any road under the County's jurisdiction without first obtaining an encroachment permit under Ordinance No. 499 or any amendment or revision thereof. In any State highway, Licensee shall abide by all provisions of State laws relating to the construction, location and maintenance of such equipment and facilities. In any area of the County where existing pole lines of a public utility company are reasonably available for use by Licensee pursuant to a pole attachment agreement with the public utility company, Licensee shall not erect any poles for the -1- .ltL 2~' "fi~ 15:28 CITY C~ TEI'.EC~A P.13,'20 purpose of installing its operating equipment. Pay to the County on demand the cost of all repairs to public property made necessary by any of its operations. 4 5 Indemnify and hold the County, its officers and employees harmless from all liability for damages resulting from all operations under this license. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Remove, relocate or place underground, at its own expense, any equipment and facilities installed under this license, if the County determines that it is necessary for any reason, including construc- tion of a new road, change of grade, alignment or width of any existing road, or the construction, use or maintenance of any bridge, subway, viaduct or other public work or the use of any public pro- perty, or the construction, maintenance or reloca- tion of any installation of a public utility operating under a franchise. 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~4 Take out and maintain public liability insurance satisfactory to the County to protect License~ and the County, its officers and employees, against loss from liability imposed by law for damages on account of bodily injury, including death, result- ing therefrom, and property damage, suffered or alleged to be suffered by any person or persons whatsoever resulting directly or indirectly from any act or'omission of Licensee or any person acting under Licensee's control or direction. The insurance shall be kept in force during the term of this license in the amounts of not less than $250,000.00 for one person injured in one accident and not less than $500,000.00 for more than one person injured in one accident, and not less than $50,000.00 property damage. Proof of insurance shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 3. In any area of the County where the transmission and distribution facilities of the public utilities providing tele- phone service and electric service are underground or hereafter may be placed underground, then Licensee shall also place or relocate all of its transmission, amplification and distribution facilities underground. [RALD #. GF,,ERIJNGS '35.3'~. |oTh STREET RIvE RSID[. CAIlFORP~|A 4. Licensee, in making its service available shall not discriminate for or against any suppliers of television sets, and 26 in those areas where service is made available, Licensee shall provide service to all applicants in the order of receipt of orders Z7 .therefor, so far as reasonable and practical. No person, firm or corporation in the approved service area of Licensee shall be arbi- trarily refused service; provided, however, that Licensee shall not be required to provide service to any subscriber who does not -2- JIL 27 '_g~ 15:29 CITY OF TE~,ECULA P.14/20 I ' pay the reasonable, applicable connection fee or monthly service charge. Licensee shall not discriminate either in favoI of or against any subscriber or potential subscriber of CATV services on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color or national origin. 5. The County, State, or any city or public agency may con- struct any new road, and improve, reconstruct, repair or maintain any existing road, or portion thereof, or other public facility in which Licensee's equipment and facilities have been constructed or installed, and may abandon or remove any such road or other public improvement. Upon thirty (30) days notice being given to Licensee of the work, and area in which it is to be performed, Licensee shall do all things necessary to protect its property during the progress of the work and if ordered by the governmental agency performing such work, Licensee shall disconnect, remove or relocate its property in such manner as shall be required to permit the performance of the work, and the maintenance, operation and use of the road or public improvement. Any private easements acquired by Licensee for the construction and installation of its equipment and facilities shall be construed to be subordinate to the rights of the County, presently existing or hereafter acquired, for future road construction or reconstruction. All of such things to be done and work to be performed shall be at the sole cost and expense of Licensee. ' ' 6. If the State, County, any city or public agency shall acquire the property of Licensee, either by purchase or through the right of eminent domain, this license shall not be assigned any value, before any court or other public authority, in excess of the sum paid by Licensee to the County at the time of the appli- cation for the license. 7. Licensee may, without the approval of the Board of Supervisors, increase the rates and charges for its basic CATV service by an amount not to exceed five percent (5%) per year; provided, however, that Licensee shall have notified each sub- scriber at least thirty (30) days in advance of such proposed increase and afforded such subscriber the right to terminate its CATV service with Licensee and, provided further, that Licensee shall file each such increase in the rates and charges for its basic CATV service with the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) days afber such increase takes effect. Notwithstanding the fore- going, Licensee may adjust the rates and charges for its basic CATV service without regard to the limitation contained in this paragraph if the rules and regulations of the Federal Communica- tions Commission adopted pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 543(b), as amended, provide that Licensee is subject to effective competi- tion. If Licensee is not determined to be subject to effective competition under such rules and regulations, Licensee shall be permitted to adjust the rates and charges for its basic CATV Service as provided in such rules and regulations. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph or applicable law, the County shall not regulate the rates and charges for basic CATV service provided by Licensee. For the purposes of this license, "basic CATV service" shall mean the service tier or tiers of Licensee's -3- ._ltL .;'~' '90 15:30 CITY C~ TEI'IECLLA · P.15/.Ze I CATV system which includes the retransmission of local television broadcast signals. 8. Upon request, Licensee shall provide CATV service, with- out charge, at the following locations: Police and fire stations; b. Public libraries; C. Public Schools; and, Other public buildings owned and controlled by the County used for public purposes and not for resi- dential use. This obligation shall be limited to (i) making one standard installation at one point reasonably convenient to use at the location in question and shall not require the wiring of an entire building, and (ii) providing only Licensee's basic CATV service. In the event service calls or repairs are required for any location as to which such service is rendered without charge following initial installation, Licensed shall be entitled to charge therefor in accordance with its then effective rates'a~d charges for such service. 9. This license shall not be construed to impose upon the County any duty or obligation to construct, repair or maintain any road in which Licensee's property is located. 10. Licensee shall in good faith commence construction within four (4) months from the issuance of this license and shall diligently proceed with the completion of the work. If significant construction has not been accomplished within one (1) year of cer- tification by the Federal Communications Commission, this license shall be forfeited. The CATV system shall be installed and main- tained in accordance with standards generally accepted in the cable television industry for similar cable television systems similarly situated, the requirements of this license and the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission applicable to cable television systems. 11. All final, published rules of the Federal Communications Commission shall, to the extent applicable, be considered a part of this license on the date said final rule is adopted. This license shall, 'in all respects, be interpreted and applied so as to be con- sistent with the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as from time tO time amended (47 U.S.C. Sections 521, F,~t~Lq.), applicable California law, and the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission applicable to cable television systems. If any provision of this license or its application should be inconsistent with any of the foregoing, such Act shall prevail. 12. This license shall not be construed to require Licensed to implement a policy of construction which will require a complete wiring of the service area. However, Licensed shall be required -4- JLL ~'? 'ge 15:31 CITY OF TEI"ECLLA P.16/2~ tO extend energized trunk cable from any existing terminus of the CATV system to any area immediately adjacent thereto having a density of at least forty (40) single-family residential dwelling units per cable/conduit mile; provided, however, that Licensee shall not be obligated to service areas to which it is unable to obtain pole line facilities located in a direct route to such areas and Licensee shall not be required to erect or obtain the use of pole line facilities along any indirect or circuitous route, nor is LiCensee required to use underground conduit where underground conduit is not otherwise required in order to supply service to any such a~eas. 13. Licensee shall establish procedures for the investiga- tion and resolution of all complaints regarding its cable televi- sion service and operations. These procedures shall include a system for reporting and resolving complaints regarding the quality of service, equipment malfunctions, billing disputes and similar matters. Licensee shall maintain an office with a toll free tele- phone number in the area to be served that will be open to receive inquiries or complaints during business hours, and in no event less than 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Any complaints from subscribers shall be investigated and acted upon not ]ass than three (3) business days from their receipt by Licensee; provided, however, that where unusual circumstances exist, Licensee sh~11 have e reasonable time to respond to said complaints. Licensee shall keep records of all maintenance service. Said records will indicate the nature of each service complaint, the date and time it was received, the disposition of said complaint and the time and date thereof. These records shall be made available for periodic inspection by the County. All such records shall be kept on a calendar year basis and no records less than three (3) years old shall be destroyed by Licensee. Licensee shall, at the time the subscriber initially receives cable television service, provide each subscriber with the above information, together with the toll free telephone number of the local office which will receive all complaints, in a permanent written form which reasonably notifies the subscriber of this information. 14. All actions of Licensee pursuant to this license shall be subject to review by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or his designee. 15. Licensee shall pay annually to the County five percent (5%) of its annual gross receipts derived from the oper'ation of the cable system; however, such receipts shall not include (a) refunds made to subscribers in connection with such services to the extent that the amount of such refund has been included in the determination of annual gross receipts, (b) bad debts written off by Licensee in the usual and ordinary course of business to the extent that the amount thereof has been included in the determina- tion Of annual gross receipts, (c) amounts received from subscri- bers in the nature of refundable security deposits, and (d) taxes imposed by law on the subscribers which Llcensee is obligated to collect and pay to federal, state or county governments. Licensee shall file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, within three (3) months after the expiration of each calendar year, -5- ..ILl_ 27 '9~ 15:32 CITY OF TEHECULA P. following the issuance of this license, a verified statement showing its total annual gross receipts during the preceding year. Not more than fifteen (15) days thereafter, Licensed shall pay to the County of Riverside an amount equal to five percent (5%) of said annual gross receipts. 4 16. This license may be terminated prior to its date of expiration by the Board of Supervisors in the event the Board 5 finds, after thirty (30) days notice of proposed termination and after a full public hearing affording due process, that (a) 6 Licensed has failed to comply with any provision of this ordinance; or (b) any provision of this ordinance has becqme invalid or unen- 7 forceable and the Board of Supervisors further finds that such provision constituted a consideration material to the granting of 8 the license; or (c) the County acquires the CATV property of Licensed. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of this 9 license shall constitute cause for forfeiture hereof, in addition to all other rights held by the County. If the County forfeits 10 this license, Licensed shall be excluded from any further opera- tions hereunder. If the license is forfeited by the County, or if 11 Licensee shall cease operations under the license for any reason, Licensed shall contact the Road Commissioner and perform all work necessary to attain certification that any facilities installed by Licensee in the public roads pursuant to encroachment permit Rave 15 been removed or left in a condition that does not require removal, and that no further action is needed to protect the public 14 interest. 15 17. Licensed shall file an approved corporate surety bond in favor of the County in the penal sum of $10,000.00, conditioned 16 that Licensed shall well and truly perform every term and condition hereof and, in case of any breach of condition, the whole amount of 17 the penal sum shall be taken and deemed to be liquidated damages and shall be recoverable from the principal and surety upon said 18 bond. The bond shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board by the original licensed within ten (10) days after issuance of this 19 license. Any subsequent holder of this license shall file a similar bond within thirty (30) days of the approval of the trans- 20 far of this license by the Board of Supervisors. A cash deposit in the same amount may be made in lieu of said bond. This license shall not be effective until Licensed has filed an approved bond. If the license is forfeited, or if Licensed shall cease operatlons 22 under the license for any reason, the surety bond or cash deposit shall not be released until Licensed obtains the required clearance 25 from th~ Road Commissioner. 24 18. Licensed shall not be liable or responsible for any failure or delay in the performance of any of its obligations under this license if such delay or failure arises from any cause or causes beyond the reasonable control of Licenses, including without limitation labor dispute, strikes, other labor or industrial dis- turbances, 'acts of God, floods, lightning, shortage of materials, rationing, utility or communication failures, earthquake casual- ties, war, acts of a public enemy, riots, insurrection, freight or other embargoes, blockages, actions, restrictions, regulations, orders or quotas imposed by any government, agency or subdivision -6- JLL 2~' '9(3 15:32 CITY OF TEI.'IECLLA I P.18,-'2e thereof, inability to secure necessary parts or materials or any similar causes. 19. This license is not exclusive, and is issued pursuant to Section 53066 of the California Government Code. 20. Licensee recognizes and understands that this license may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that licensee may be subject to the payment of the property taxes levied on such interest. 21. Any transfer of this license requires the approval of the Board of Supervisors. No approval or disapproval of a pro- posed transfer shall take place unless and until a public hearing affording due process is held in accordance with the requirements of SeCtions 3, 4 and 5 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 503, as amended. The Board of Supervisors may, as a condition of approval of the transfer, require the new licensee to pay to the County of Riverside that percentage of its annual gross receipts which new applicants are then required to pay. 22. All rights, obligations and duties imposed by this license are binding on Licensee, its successors and assigns. 23. Licensee shall have the right to request renewal of its license upon written notice delivered to the Board of Supervisors not less than six (6) months before expiration of the original term of this license. The procedures and standards for renewal shall be consistent with those set forth in 47 U.S.C. Section 546, as amended. A filing fee of $750.00 shall accompany a request for a renewal. If the license is renewed, the renewal term shall be for five (5) years and upon such conditions as are contained in its license as in effect on the date of its expiration or upon such other conditions as the County and Licensee shall agree. Should the County deny the renewal request, such denial shall be accompanied by a written statement setting forth the reasons for such denial. Should renewal proceedings not be completed prior to the expiration of the original term of this license, Licensee shall have the right and authority to continue operation of its CATV system pursuant to the terms and conditions of its license until Such time as the renewal proceedings are finally concluded unless the delay or failure to complete the proceedings is due primarily to the action or inaction of Licensee; IIII IIIt I111 t111 .1111 IIII -8- JtL 27 '90 15:33 CITY OF TE~,ECULA . P.19/20 ~ but in no event shall the right to continue operation under this provision continue for more than three (3) months after the expiration date of the license. Dated: October 31, 1989 ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By ,~,;. ,, ~ . "~..,r' ."z: Deputy BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BYCha i r~, Board of Supervisors (SEAL) Licensee hereby accepts and agrees to faithfully perform and abide by all the terms and conditions of this license and understands that this license iS not effective until an approved surety bond has been filed. Dated: January 18, 1990 JONES INTERCABLE OF SAN DIEGO, INC. By Title: (Corporate Seal) SB:jf 00381it 112889 -9- APPENDIX B JONES INTERCABLE, INC. SUMMARY OF CABLE TV FUND 15 PROSPECTUS PROSPECTUS CABLE TV FUND, 15 A CAPITAL APPRECIATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,N General Parlner $400,000,000 Pre-Organizalion Subscriplions for 800,~0 Limited Parlnership Inlerests in a Series of Parlnerships at $500 per Inlerest MINIMUM PURCHASE--10 Interests ($5,000) --2 Inlerests ($1,000) for Individual Relirement Accounts This is an offering ot liratied partnership inlerests (lhe "lnleresls") in Ihe CABLE TV FUND 15 Limited Partnership Program, a series ol limiled padnerships (lhe "Partnerships") to be formed under the laws of Colorado. The Partnerships will engage primarily in lhe acquisition, conslruction, development and operation ol cable lelevision syslems in the Untied Slales. An Inveslor will be investing in one of Ihe Padnersh~s. The minimum capilalizalion of a Partnership will be $1,000,000. The General Partner and its affilial~ may p~chase Interesls, including sufficient Inlerests Io reach the minimum offering amount. Any purchases ol Inleresls by Ihe General Partner or ils affiliates will be for inveslment purposes only and not with the inlent ot resale. The prima~ objeclives of lhe Parlnerships are to obtain capital apprecialion in Ihe value ol their properties and to obtain equity buildup through debt reduction. In addition, cerlain passive tax losses may be generated, which may be ulilized Io offsel income Irom Ihe Partnerships or olher passive sources. There is no assurance !hat any ot lhese objectives can be mel. See Investmenl Objeclives and Policies. The purchase of these securities involves risk. See Risk Faclors. THESE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION NOR HAS THE COMMISSION PASSED UPON THE ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF THIS PROSPECTUS. ANY REPRESENTATION TO THE CONTRARY IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. THE USE OF FORECASTS IN THIS OFFERING IS PROHIBITED. ANY REPRESENTATIONS TO THE CONTRARY AND ANY PREDICTIONS, WRITTEN OR ORAL, AS TO THE AMOUNT OR CERTAINTY OF ANY PRESENT OR FUTURE CASH BENEFIT OR TAX CONSEQUENCE THAT MAY FLOW FROM AN INVESTMENT IN THIS PROGRAM ARE NOT PERMITTED. Per Interest (Minimum Investment Ten Interests) .......... Total Minimum ..................... Total Program ...................... Total Maximum ..................... Selling Price to Commissions Proceeds to Each Public (1)(2) , Parlnershlp $ 500 $ 50 $ 1,000,000 $ 100.000 $400.000,000 $40,000,000 $500,000.000(3) $50,000,000(3) ANY SUPPLEMENTS AND/OR STICKERS THAT UPDATE THIS PROSPECTUS ARE CONTAINED INSIDE THE FRONT COVER. The date of this Prospectus Is December 15, 1988 $ 450 $ 900,000 $360,000,000 $450,000.000(3) (1} The Dealer-Manager of the offering is Jones International Securities, Ltd., an affiliate of the General Partner, which will receive selling commissions of 10% of the gross proceeds of the offering. The General Partner has agreed to indemnify the Dealer-Manager againsl certain civil liabilities, including certain liabilities under lhe Securities Act of 1933. See Plan of Distribution. (2) From the selling commissions paid to the Dealer-Manager, there will be a reallowance of up to 7 Vz% of the sales price per Interest to participating broker-dealers. Selling commissions paid to participating broker- dealers may be reduced for certain volume purchases in any single Partnership, in which case the Dealer- Manager will refund to volume purchasers the amount of the reduction in selling commissions paid. Additional amounts from the selling commissions may be paid to certain participating broker-dealers as incentive compensalion. See Plan of Distribution. Affiliates of the General Partner.and employees of the General Partner and its affiliales will be entitled to receive a refund of all selling commissions on Interests purchased for their own accounts. (3) Inclusive of Interests that may be sold pursuant to the right of the General Partner to cause the sale of an additional 200,000 Interests. The Interests are being offered on a "best efforts" basis, which means that the Dealer-Manager and the other broker-dealers are not obligaled to purchase any Interests but are only required to use their best efforts to sell Interests to investors. This offering is anticipated to terminate on or about December 1, 1990 unless all Interests are earlier sold. All subscriptions will be held in escrow at Central Bank of Denver, Denver, Colorado or such other unaffiliated financial institution as selected by the General Partner. If subscriptions for the minimum amount Ior a Partnership are not made, subscriptions received will be promptly returned in full by the escrow agent, together with all interest earned while funds were held in escrow. In no event will an investor's funds be held in escrow more than six months before being invested in a Partnership. Interest will be earned on funds held in escrow commencing on the day the funds are deposited and until the earlier of the termination of this offering or the investment of such funds in a Partnership. See The Offering. Pending investment in a cable television system, the Partnerships may temporarily hold the funds in cash, money market accounts, government obligations, interest-bearing deposits or similar investments. Interest will be paid to investors periodically at the rate earned on the funds. In the event that the net proceeds trom this offering are not invested in cable television properties, or have not been committed for the expansion or working capital reserve of a Partnership's cable television system or have not been committed for the acquisition of cable television properties by a Partnership within two years after the close el the offering of Interests for such Partnership, all funds not so invested or committed will be returned to investors. The General Partner has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., a Registration Statement under the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to the Interests offered hereby. This Prospectus does not contain all of the information set forth in the Registration Statement, certain parts of which are omitted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commission. For further information pertaining to the Interests offered hereby, reference is made to the Registration Statement and the Exhibits flied therewith. Upon written or oral request, the General Partner will provide without charge to each person to whom this Prospectus Is delivered a copy of any of the information that has been Incorporated by reference In the Registration Statement. Such request may be made to the General Partner at 9697 East MIneral Avenue, Englewood, Colorado 80112, telephone (303) 792-3111. Each Partnership will be subject to the Informational reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. and in accordance therewith will file reports and other Information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reports and other Information filed by the Partnerships can be Inspected and copied at the public reference facilities maintained by the Commission at 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 1024, Washington, D.C. 20549, and at the following Regional Offices: 26 Federal Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10007; Everett McKinley Dlrksen Bldg.. 219 South Dearborn Street, Room 1204, Chicago, Illinois 60604; and 5757 Wilehire Boulevard, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90036. Copies of such material can be obtained from the Public Reference Section of the Commission, Washington, D.C. 20549 at prescribed rates. 2 WHO SHOULD INVEST? Interests will only be sold to a person who makes a minimum purchase of ten Interests ($5,000) and represents in writing that he has eitheh (1) a net wodh (exclusive of home, home furnishings and automobiles) of at least $20,000 plus an annual gross income of at least $20,000, or (it) a net worth (exclusive of home, home furnishings and automobiles) of at least $75,000, or (iii) such higher income or net worth required by the investor's state of residence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a minimum of two Interests ($1,000) may be purchased by Individual Retirement Accounts ("IRAs"). Such investment requirements are established to preclude investment by persons who may not be in a financial position to bear certain risks inherent in investment in these securities because of the long-term nature and lack of liquidity of the investment and the extent to which tax benefits of the investment are dependent on an investor's Federal income tax bracket. See Income Tax Aspects. In the case of IRAs, the inveslor suitability standards will be applied to the individual beneficiary of the IRA and not Io the custodian thereof. Arizona and Missoud residents must have an annual gross income of $40,000 and a net worth of $40,000 (exclusive of home, home furnishings and automobiles) or a net worth of $100,000 (exclusive of home, home furnishings and automobiles). Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming residents must have an annual gross income of $30,000 and a net worth of $30,000 (with exclusions) or a net wodh of $75,000 (with exclusions). California and Washington residents must have an annual gross income of $35,000 and a net worth of $35,000 (with exclusions) or a net worth of $90,000 (with exclusions). Iowa, Maine and Texas residents must have an annual gross income of $35,000 and a net worth of $35,000 (with exclusions) or a net worth of $1 O0,000 (with exclusions). Massachusetts residents must have an annual gross income of $40,000 and a net worth of $40,000 (with exclusions) or a net worth of $125,000 (with exclusions). in no event may Massachusetts residents purchase Interests in an amount greater than ten percent of their net worth. New Hampshire residents must have an annual gross income of $35,000 and a net worth of $35,000 (with exclusions) or a net worth of $75,000 (with exclusions). North Carolina residents must have an annual gross income of $50,000 and a net worth of $50,000 (with exclusions) or a net worth of $150,000 (with exclusions). All North Carolina residents must make a minimum purchase of ten Interests ($5,000). In no event may North Carolina residents purchase Interests in an amount greater than ten percent of their net worth. Pennsylvania residents must have an annual gross income of $30,000 and a net worth of $30,000 (with exclusions) or a net worth of $75,000 (with exclusions). In no event may Pennsylvania residents purchase Interests in an amount greater than ten percent of their net worth. Because the minimum offering amount is less than ~Aoth of the maximum offering amount, Pennsylvania residents are cautioned to evaluate carefully the Program's ability to accomplish its stated objectives and to inquire as to the current dollar volume of Program subscriptions. If a Pennsylvania resident does invest in the Program, its funds will be held in escrow, and it will have the right to rescind its offer, until such time as the minimum offering amount is V2oth of the maximum offering amount. The above suitability standards do not apply to resales. IRAs and pension or protit sharing plans or other employment benefit plans .subject to the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and other tax- exempt entities under Section 501 of the Code may receive reduced benefits from an inv,estment in the Partnerships. With respect to such investors, execution of the Subscription Agreement or payment for the Interests purchased shall constitute the investor's acknowledgement of such reduced tax benefits. See Income Tax Aspects---Tax Exempt InvestOrs. Interests in a Partnership will not be sold to any prospective investor (a) which is a national television network or a television station, television translator station or telephone company serving the area served by any cable television system owned by such Partnership, or any cable television system that the Partnership has agreed to acquire, as may be described in this Prospectus or in any Prospectus supplement, or (b) which owns, directly or indirectly. any partnership interest or any voting stock interest of 5% or more in any such entity, or (c) who serves as an officer or director o! any such entity. :.' THE PARTNERSHIPS: The CABLE TV FUND 15 Umited Padnership Program (the "Program") is a series of limited partnerships to be formed under Colorado law. A Padnership will be formed if subscriptions tora minimum of 2,000 Interests ($1,000,000) are received. See Investment Objectives and Policies. There is no requirement that any Partnership be formed other than the first one, which will be formed if subscriptions for the minimum number of Interests are received. The maximum offering is 800,000 Interests ($400,000,000), exclusive of the General Partner's fight to cause the sale of an additional 200,000 Interests. The Padnerships will pay Jones International Securities, Ltd., the Dealer-Manager, commissions of up to 10% of the gross proceeds of the offering, from which the Dealer-Manager will pay all sales commissions of padicipating broker-dealers. Sales commissions paid to broker-dealers may be reduced for cedain volume purchases by an investor in any single Padnership and the Dealer-Manager will refund to each purchaser of 500 or more Interests the amount of the commission reduction. The General Padner will bear all other offering costs in excess of 33/4% of the gross proceeds of the offering. The address of the Padnerships will be 9697 East Mineral Avenue, Englewood, Colorado 80112, (303) 792-3111. An investor will become a Limited Partner in the next Partnership formed after his subscription is accepted unless there is a Padnership already formed for which subscriptions are still being received, in which event he will become a Limited Padner in such Partnership. The economic and other aspects of an investment in the Program will vary from Partnership to Partnership, depending on a number of factors, and one Partnership may perform at substantially different profit or loss levels and make distributions at a level substantially different from another Partnership. No Partnership will be formed with subscripUons for less than $1,000,000. Subject to such limitations, the maximum size of each Partnership may vary and shall be subject to the discretion of the General Partner. In no event will an Investor's funds be held in escrow more than six months before being invested in a Partnership, or If such funds cannot be invested in a Partnership because less than $1,000,000 of Interests have been sold, such funds will promptly be returned, with the interest earned thereon. In SUMMARY OF THE OFFERING addition, in the event a Partnership is Iormed, the Partnership will invest or commit all of its net proceeds from this offering for the acquisition, expansion or working capital reserve of the Partnership within two years after the closing of the offering for such Partnership, or will return to investors all funds not so invested or committed. The first Partnership tormed will be named Cable TV Fund 15-A, Ltd., and each succeeding Partnership will be designated by the appropriate successive letter of the alphabet. While not contemplated by the General Partner, it is possible that a number of Partnerships may be formed before any cable television system is purchased for any Partnership. In such event, the first Partnership formed would have priority as to the purchase of such system, although in the discretion of the General Partner and dependent upon available funds, more than one of the formed Partnerships might own interests in such system. References in this Prospectus to the "Partnership(s)" mean the partnership(s) formed as part of the CABLE TV FUND 15 Limited Partnership Program and references in this Prospectus to the "Limited Partner(s)" mean the investors who have become limited partner(s) in the Partnership(s). TERMINATION DATE: The Partnership Agreement provides that the existence of a Partnership will continue for seventeen years unless sooner terminated. THE GENERAL PARTNER: Jones Intercable, Inc., a Colorado corporation, 9697 East Mineral Avenue, Englewood, Colorado 80112, (303) 792-3111. The General Partner is one of the nation's 15 largest multiple cable television system operators serving approximately 1,080,300 basic equivalent subscribers. The General Partner will manage and control the business and affairs of the Partnerships and their cable television systems, lor which it will receive a management lee end reimbursement for Partnership expenses. Investment decisions by the General Partner will be made by its Board of Directors, with principal responsibility being that of Glenn R. Jones. See Information About the General Partner. The General Partner may purchase Interests offered by the Program. These Interests may satisfy the minimum required to torrd a Partnership. There is no limit to the number of Interests that the General Partner may purchase. Any purchases of Interests by the General Partner or its affiliates will be for investment purposes only and not with the intent of resale. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES: The Partnerships will invest in operating cabte television systems or interests therein and also may acquire undeveloped operating authorities ("franchises") for development. The primary objectives of the Partnerships are to obtain capital appreciation in the value of their propedies and to obtain equity build-up through debt reduction. In addition, certain passive tax losses may be generated, which may be utilized to offset income from the Partnerships or other passive sources. Capital appreciation in Partnership assets may be converted to cash by the sale of Padnership assets or Ihrough one or more asset refinancings. There is no assurance that any of the foregoing objectives can be met. See Investment Objectives and Policies. The Cable TV Fund partnerships previously formed by Jones Intercable, Inc. have had basically similar objectives. See Prior Partnerships. PROPERTIES: Except as described in any supplements hereto, the Partnerships have not selected any specific cable television properties or interests therein tor acquisition or investment. During the olfering period, this Prospectus may be supplemented with a description of, and a summary of the terms and conditions of an acquisition of, or investment in, any cable television system designated by the General Partner for the Partnerships. PAYMENTS TO THE GENERAL PARTNER AND AFFILIATES: The General Partner and its affiliates will receive substantial compensation in connection with the offering. See Ma, nagement Compensation and Fees. LEVERAGE: It is anticipated that the Partnerships will each incur debt primarily for the purpose of financing a portion of the purchase price of cable television systems and for capi{al expenditures. Although no current commitments have been made, each Partnership may ultimately achieve aggregate borrowings of up to 75% of such Padnership's cable television properties' purchase price or appraised value at the time of borrowing, whichever is higher. Borrowings on any Individual cable television system, however, may be less than or may exceed 75% of such system's purchase price or appraised value at the time of borrowing. The maximum leverage on any individual system could be 100%. GLOSSARY OF TERMS: See page 29. SUMMARY OF TAX CONSEQUENCES: The following is a summary of the ex. pected income tax consequences of the operation of the Partnerships. This summary, as well as the more detailed discussions of these items included herein under the caption *'Income Tax Aspects" to which this summary is subject, takes into account the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (the "1986 Tax Act"), the Revenue Act of 1987 (the "1987 Tax Act") and the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (the "1988 Tax Act"). For additional information regarding these recent tax laws, see Income Tax Aspects. The Partnerships will file income tax returns as partnerships. There is some risk that such status may not be upheld notwithstanding the favorable opinion of counsel, and there is also some risk that such status may not be available in the future if there is a change in the law or if there are unfavorable judicial or administrative interpretations of existing law. Limited Partners are taxed on their share of Partnership income, whether or not distributed, and they report on their individual returns their share of Partnership deductions and losses. There is a risk that some deductions claimed by the Partnerships may be disallowed or capitalized by the Internal Revenue Service. Distributions from the cash flow of the Partnerships will not be taxable income to the Limited Partners unless they have no remaining tax basis. Generally, a limited partner's tax basis is equal to its initial investment plus its pro rata share of any income or gain, but less cash distributions received and less its pro rata share of partnership losses. See Income Tax Aspects. The 1986 Tax Act does not affect the characterization of income as ordinary or capital gain. This summary, as well as the more detailed discussion of tax matters included herein under the caption "Income Tax Aspects," therefore describes ordinary income and capital gain as separate items. However, the 1986 Tax Act eliminates the deduction formerly available to individual taxpayers for capital gains and the alternative capital gains rate formerly available for corporations, so that capital gain is taxed at the same rate as ordinary'incOme. Therelore, the 1986 Tax Act makes the distinction between capital gain and ordinary income less significant. Capital losses continue to be deductible only against capital gain plus, in the case of individuals, $3,000 ol ordinary income, so the characterization of income as ordinary income or capital gain conlinues to be relevanl Io~ this purpose. The 1986 Tax Act prevents Limited Padnets from using losses of the Padnerships to offset cedain other taxable income, including compensation income, active business income and podfolio income. Subject to future Treasury Regulations, losses from the Padnerships may be used to offset passive income from other limited padnerships and other passive activities, or such losses can be carried forward to offset future passive income from the Padnerships. Gain on the sale of Padnership property or upon the sale of a Partnership Interest will be taxable to the Limited Padners whether or not cash is distributed. Padnership indebtedness may affect the amount of gain realized by a Limited Padner, both in the case where Padnership property is sold or where a Padnership Interest is sold. An audit of a Padnership's return may result in an audit of a Limited Partner's tax return. For a more detailed discussion of the foregoing, see Income Tax Aspects. ALLOCATION OF PROFITS AND LOSSES: Generally, every item ol Partnership income, loss, deduction or credit will be allocated 99% to Limited Padners and 1% to the General Partner, except that income or gain from the sale or other disposition of a cable television property shall be allocated as set fodh in Section 5.3 of the Padnership Agreement. See The Padnership Agreement. DISTRIBUTIONS ;FROM CASH FLOW, IF ANY: 99% to Limited Partners and 1% to the General Padner. OTHER DISTRI9UTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE FROM THE SALE OR REFINANCING OF A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM .A, ND ON DISSOLUTION OF A PARTNERSHIP: First, to Limited Padners until they have received lrom distributions other than distributions from cash flow, an amount equal to 100% of their initial capital contributions. Second, to Limited Padners an amount equal to 6% per annum, cumulative and noncompounded, on an amount equal to their initial capital contributions (less any portion ot such initial capital contributions either not · invested in a cable television system and returned to investors or returned by the distribution to Limited Partners of prior sale or reflnancing proceeds) as determined for any particular year or portion thereof (the "6% Return"); provided, however, that the 6% Return will be reduced by all prior distributions of cash flow from the Partnership and prior distributions of proceeds of sales or refinancings that exceed an amount equal to the Limited Partners' initial capital contributions. It is not anticipated, however, that there will be any cash flow distributions. The balance, 75% to the Limited Partners and 25% to the General Partner. RISKS: This offering involves various risks. Except as described in any supplements to this Prospectus, no specific cable television properties have been chosen for acquisition by the Partnerships. There are also certain items of material risk associated with the operation of a cable television system. To develop the lull potential of a system, it may be necessary to increase significantly the size ot the system by building system extensions, to obtain and develop unbuilt franchise areas adjacent to or neighboring the system, to rebuild an obsolete system or to upgrade the technical capabilities of the system. Each of these activities would require a signiticant capital expenditure. In addition, obtaining or renewing a franchise cannot be assured, and competition from various sources may have an adverse effect on a system's subscriber base and may keep a cable television system from developing its lull potential. There are risks associated with a series of partnerships, including the fact that an investor has little or no control over the choice in which of the Partnerships he will invest and he will receive no benefits from any ot the other Partnerships in the Program. See Risk Factors, Risks of a Series of Partnerships. Other risks associated with an investment in the Partnerships include 'potential conflicts of interest between the General Partner and its affiliates in connection with the acquisition of cable television systems for the Partnerships and the operation of the Partnerships' systems when acquired, leverage risks associated with the repayment of Partnership indebtedness and the lack of any market for the transfer of Partnership Interests. See Conflicts of Interest and Risk Factors. APPENDIX C CALIFORNIA LAW A.B. NO. 543 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST ~, 1989 AMENDF.,D IN SENATE AUGUST 11, 1989 A6SEMBLY BILL No; 543 Introduced by Assembly Member Moore February 8. 1989 An act to mend Section 53066 o~c, to add Section 53066.3 to, the Government Code, relating to cable television, I~Olb1,ATWII CO~,'NSFI. I DIGE, rI' AB 5~. is ~snded, ~oore, C~ble tele~sion. ~st~g law authorizes the ~g by a oil, co~W, or cl~ nd eo~ of a cable or co~ ntsnna tele~sion s stem. ~ung law flo req~ss ~e Public U~ties ~~sion to sstab~sh nd adoroe rates, ts~s, ~d conclltions f~r pole attachments or rearrangements when a publio utility and cable television corporation or association of a cable television system withou~ a franchise. The bill would state legislative Rndings and declarations, and would specify matters that would have to be considered at a public hearing and conditions 'that would have to be met before a cable television franchise could bs granted in an area where a franchise has already bse~ granted. The bill would provide thai; nothing in the bill prevents' any city, coun, or city and county from considering the zpproval or ~enial of ~ additional cable service f-ranohise in an), area of the city, county, or city and county; or the imposing of additional terms and conditions upon the granting of the franchise. The b~l would require ~he Jurisdiction to make a/inal determination on whether or not to grant the additional franchise within 6 ~ 40 I the Sta~ o4r California may, pztrsum~ to such 3 franchiseorlieemethe~nofa~ 4 antenna televirjan sys~o_ In conm~ion t~erew~Lh~ the 5 gw~-,c.d~,bodyrnaypre~*ribear-hrule=sandgeguLdims 6 =s it deerns advir~ble ln protect the indivith,_al subscriben 7 Ix~ the aervices of auch cmnmtmity antenna ~ 8system. g (b) Theawardofthef. ~h;scorlle~aemaybemnd~ 10 on the basis of qnnlity of servi~ ra~s to the I! ineome to ~ ~, ~ or city nnd ct~nty. ~ 12 and financial reaponsib,1/ty ~ tim. ~t plm any 13 o~aer conaideratimx that wifi ~afeg~smxi ~ local ~ t4 ~nteres~,rafl~cxt~ac~msctionbid, 15 (c) The maxix'man franchise fee for any franchise or 17 punuaBt te aty otditmnee adeplaed under authotRy of 18 thiszc~o~byaan, eay oremmty oreity and eouatyshdl I9 be 5 F~e~ of the granl~e's gross receip~ from 2~ taxationundex Partga (eoem~withSeetion44000) ~t be included, ~ m July 1, lge!8, ia the gross receipts (d)/~r eabte television f,--.,chlse or liren~ awarded section may mdi3otize the grantee thereof to place 3i highways, a/leFt, public properlie~ ar public 33 ease~cs~, as t~ed ia this sectira, shall inch~de but the eRr or cxxazty or city aod county for public ub'~ty' ~oranyothaperpose~et. 37 (e) No Izrstm mxy er~~ the cautruetjon of 38 cable teIevL~on sysle~ without a franchise or Ijeezzse 40 the cable tek. vision sptem wal operate. 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 Ll 13 14 16 17 19 21 22 23 25 ~6 27 28 29 30 31 _~, 5bT_,, 3, Section S3066~ is added to the '530663. (a) lfa c/ty, co~nty, or city and co~n_fy elects whe-re a ~ 12i aJre~y been gr.-mted !:o hem-k~ noticed ixwsuant h> Section 6066. ~ a d fie roOowing have been co~dered~ (1) Whether there will be =ig~i~mt posaive (2) ~ there will be a~ u~a~, ~i= {~rs~b,~c or aesthetic impact tqxn Fzb4ic or prhrate p- ut~, Li within tl~ (3) Whether there vrl/J be aa unre=onal~e on ~,",q~ use, of ,,h'r~ty ~ public easemems, and the public ~,bta-of-way camm~ m ~ ~atenr d (4) Whetix=therrand~appiic~~!~:'-,I and Fm--v~l ability to (5) Whether tht~ i~ any impt~t m the ~ conside _cJ by fr~-ehisfng amtborities ~ be met. debennine ~ be Co) Nothing ia this section 2pwevenb any city, orc~andcem~~~~~or ~ dan addifianal ea]:~c~ frarr. hise h all or any the imposing d mR. '-'t.h-~, .~.1 ~ ~ copdi~/r~,~ upcm tJ~ grant~g dtbe fi.a -~'r, as tbe ciby, axmly, or ci~T and caemty determines/s n~eces~,T or approprhte, (c) The city, coamy, or city and c~.d~'s~al]malm a fund del~rm~on ~s to whether to grant the additional --5-- ABS43 A TTA CHMENT C A T TA C HMEN T C Mayor ,on Parks Mayor Pro Tem Karel F. Lindemans CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 (714) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 Councilmembers Patricia H. Birdsall Peg Moore J. Sal Mtffioz August 29, 1990 Mr. Donnie Clark Vice President- Development Jones Intercable, Incorporated 10791 Jamacha Blvd., Suite 1 & 2 Spring Valley, California 92078 Dear Mr. Clark: Congratulations, your application for a Cable Television franchise has been accepted. The City of Temecula invites you to begin negotiations to formulate a Cable Television franchise agreement. At the August 28, 1990 Temecula City Council Meeting, I have been authorized by the Temecula City Council to accept your application, briefly outline the franchise process, invite you to begin franchise negotiations, request the non- refundable fee to negotiate a franchise agreement, and hire Telecommunications Management Corporation as this City's Cable Television consultant to negotiate and develop a franchise agreement. Since your application has been accepted, as you are well aware, the next step is to begin franchise negotiations. Mr. Carl Pilnick, Telecommunications Management Corporation, has been retained by the City of Temecula to act as our Cable Television consultant. His objective will be to provide a draft franchise agreement and present it to the Temecula City Council for consideration on whether or not to grant a Cable Television franchise. Prior to that decision however, a public hearing is required. Within sixty days after the close of the hearing, the Temecula City Council will make a decision based upon the contents of the draft agreement and the evidence received at the hearing as to whether or not the franchise should be granted, and, if granted, subject to what conditions. If Jones Intercable desires to continue to move forward, please remit the $4,200 non-refundable franchise negotiation fee so we can proceed. Upon receipt of the fee, you will be contacted by either Mr. Joe Hreha, the City's Manager of Information Systems, or Mr. Carl Pilnick of Telecommunications Management Corporation. We appreciate your interest in our City and look forward to working with you to create a totally responsive Cable Television System that is service oriented, state-of-the-art education and entertainment, and protects our citizens. Together, I am confident we could establish such a system and achieve our goals. Sincerely, David F. Dixon City Manager JPH:jph Copy to: Mr. Carl Pilnick, Telecommunications Management Corporation Mr. Scott Field, City Attorney Mr. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems A TTA CHMENT D A T TA C HMEN T D Mayor ~onPa/ks Mayor Pro Tem Karel F. Lindemans hly 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 (714) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 Councilmembers Patricia H. Birdsall Peg Moore J. Sal Mutioz Mr. Thomas Unglaub, Inland Valley Cablevision 4077 W. Stetson, P. O. Box 12020 Hemet, California 92343-1070 Dear Mr. Unglaub: Per our discussion on July 25, 1990, it is requested that Inland Valley Cablevision consider a franchise agreement with the City of Temecula. Enclosed is a copy of our recently adopted Cable Television Ordinance that is effective on August 24, 1990. We would appreciate any comments you may have concerning our request. To negotiate a franchise agreement, the City of Temecula desires to hire a Cable Television consulting firm to act as our representative. Any new operator, without a valid franchise agreement to operate in the City of Temecula, desiring to serve our City is required to remit a $2,800 non-refundable application fee, and after application approval, a $4,200 non-refundable franchise agreement completion fee. The operator is also required to remit any additional related costs that exceed these fees. The City of Temecula will consider your request for a franchise agreement as a renewal, since Inland has been operating in the area for five years. Therefore, the $2,800 application fee is not applicable; however, the non-refundable $4,200 and all associated costs with the franchise agreement completion cannot be avoided. Please refer to Section 1.12 of the attached Ordinance. Please provide a proposal as to how we could satisfy this non-refundable fee and associated costs. We request your comments no later than 4:00 P.M., August 10, 1990. Our goal, expressed many times, is to create a totally responsive Cable Television System that is service oriented, state-of-the-art education and entertainment, and protects our citizens. We feel the enclosed Ordinance is a giant step towards our goal. At our recent meeting, you expressed these same objectives and agreed that the County franchise does not address these important issues. Together, I am confident we could establish such a system and achieve our goal. The City of Temecula thanks you for your consideration. Sincerely, Manager of Information Systems Enclosure: Copy to: City of Temecula Cable Television Ordinance dated June 5, 1990 City Attorney and Telecommunications Management without enclosure WESTERN COMMUNICATIONS CHRISTOPHER J, I. AMMER$ Vice Pre~dent August 15, 1990 Joe Hreha Manager of Information Systems Cfty of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CsJifornta 92390 Re: Inland Vall~ Cablevision Dear Mr. Hreha: In your letter of July 31, 1~)0 to Thomas Unglaub, President of Inland Valley Cablevisfon, you requested that Inland Valley Cablevision consider renegotiating its ~ranchise agreement for the City of Temecula. Although we agree that a new franchise agreement would provide a more comprehensive ~ramework within wMch cable television service is provided, circumstances are such that it is inappropriate for us to engage in such discussions at the present time. However, circumstances may be such in the ~uture as to cause us to readdress this issue. Very truly yours, Christopher J. Lainmere cJL:p~ Carl L. Badger Scott F. Field, Esq. Charles C. Thieflot Thomas K Unglaub RIncon Annex Station · Poet Office Box t 93942 · San Francisco, CA 94119 TwO RinCOn Center · 101 Spear Strsel. Suite 203 · Sen Francisco, CA 94105 Phone (415) 896-5000 EXT. (218) · FAX (415) 896-0236 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECUI. A AGENDA REPORT City Council David F. Dixon, City Managerial August 23, 1990 Copy Machine RECOMMENDATION: It is the City Manager's recommendation after discussions with both companies and analyzing their best proposals, that the City Council authorize me to enter into an agreement with Kodak for a 235AF Copier pursuant to their proposal as noted below. DISCUSSION: For the past several weeks, the City staff has been reviewing and analyzing high- speed copy machines. We have been comparing two copiers -- the Xerox 1090 and the Kodak 235AF. I have completed an analysis of the equipment and have determined that a lease/purchase program offered by either Xerox or Kodak is the most cost efficient. The lease/purchase program is based on a 60-month lease ~nd a projected 11 million copies. The projected 11 million copies is based on an initial 85,000 copies for the first month, with a steady increase to over 200,000 copies as we get into the fourth and fifth year. The analysis is as follows: XEROX 1090 The Xerox 1090 economy lease includes maintenance and unlimited copies. program is two-tiered: o Months 1 through 12 o Months 13 through 60 60 Months Purchase Option $1,097.70 x 12 months = 9 13,172.40 92,292.76 x 48 months = 9110,049.60 9123,222.00 9 8,000.00 o Sub-Total: 9131,222.00 o Tax @ 5.75%: 9 7.545.27 Total: 9138,767.27 The KODAK 235AF Kodak has submitted a very attractive 60 month lease/purchase program. O Lease/Purchase Costs: 9 926.42 x 59 months = 9 54,658.78 o Tax ~ 6.75%: (First lease payment free) 9 3,689.47 o Sub-Total: 9 58,348.25 o Maintenance costs projected on 11 million copies 9 80,322.00 Total: 9138,670.25 You will note from the analysis that the difference between the Xerox proposal and the Kodak proposal is less than 9100. We have also factored in the local sales tax benefit of the proposal by using a 5.75% tax rate as opposed to a 6.75% tax rate as the City will receive 1% of the tax benefit on the Xerox proposal. FISCAL IMPACT.' The City's fiscal impact is within the projected fiscal year 1990-91 budget as the proposal's approach contemplates a lease program and not a direct purchase. In analyzing the proposals, we must take into consideration that we have had use of a Kodak 235AF over the past 60 days and have not paid any maintenance or copy charges. The use value of that machine is about $1000 per month. Normally, a trial period does not exceed 3 to 4 weeks; and, therefore, there has been benefit derived by the City for at least 30 days from the Kodak copier. If we determine that Xerox should receive the bid, then I feel obligated to reimburse Kodak for a month of usage of approximately $1,000.00 On the other hand, if Kodak receives the approval, they have agreed to start the contract September 1, thereby giving the City an additional month bonus. A TTA CHMENTS: Back-up data is available in the City Manger's Office. DFD:sjf ITEM NO. 10 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer August 28, 1990 Travel Policy RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Travel Policy included as Exhibit A. DISCUSSION: In order to control costs associated with business travel for the City, we recommend that the City Council adopt the attached travel policy. The policy document also includes procedures for submitting travel expenses to Finance for processing. A TTA CHMEN T.- Exhibit A. MJH:jsg EXHIBIT A FY 90-91 ADMINISTRATIVE TRAVEL: POLICY AND PROCEDURE It is the policy of the City to reimburse City officials and designated City staff for the expenses of travel related to City business according to the statement of policy and procedures set forth below. POLICY Administrative travel is limited to the following classifications of expenditures for the benefit of the City in connection with "out-of-City" trips: A. Authorized Travelers Except for elected officials, Commissioners, and Council- appointed employees, attendance at conferences shall be limited to one representative of the City. The City Manager may authorize the attendance of additional City employees, if deemed appropriate, if travel funds are available in the department's operational budget. Any number of elected officials, Commissioners or Council- appointed employees may attend conferences provided that funds for such purposes are specifically provided for, and included within the annual departmental budget. In the absence of an annual appropriation, such travel must receive authorization in advance of expenditure by the City Council. Conference travel for employees shall be limited to department heads, assistant department heads, division heads or positions of highly technical or professional nature as designated. In all cases, specific travel expenses must be justified in the annual departmental budget and approved by the City Manager. Every effort shall be made to avoid the simultaneous absence of both the department head and the assistant department head. B. Transportation Use of air, train, taxi, private car or bus shall be selected on the basis of the least total cost to the City after all expense items are tabulated. Analysis should be made based upon travel time versus actual salary costs lost by commuting. Authorized travel time shall be based on that required by the most appropriate mode of public transportation. When the use of private automobile is approved, reimbursement shall be $.25 per mile. 2 When City vehicles are used, a credit card can be obtained for all routine purchases of gasoline and oil. On the Travel Expense Report, the notation should state "City Vehicle Used". If any repairs are necessary, they will be reimbursed upon presentation of the necessary receipts. The use of City vehicles should be included on the Travel Expense Report at the current mileage rate allowance and then deducted as an expense paid directly by the City. When the use of public air carrier transportation is approved, travel for all personnel shall be in coach class or equivalent service. Private automobile use, to and from the airport, shall be reimbursed for all miles at the current rate as stated above. Day parking, as well as taxis to and from the airport, will be reimbursed only with receipts. Overnight or "long-term" parking, (beyond 24 hours), is reimbursable subject to City Manager approval. While traveling, the use of rental vehicles should be limited. Courtesy shuttle service, buses, or limousine service should be utilized between airports and meeting locations whenever possible. Rental vehicles will be permitted when alternate transportation would be more expensive or impractical. When rental vehicles are used, economy vehicles should be utilized or those vehicle sizes adequate to seat multiple City travelers comfortably. Lodging Lodging shall be obtained at the most economical rate available for safe, clean and quality accommodations. Lavish or oversized accommodations cannot be justified. Conference headquarter hotels are encouraged, as they reduce the costs of other modes of transportation between meetings and conference sites. Lodging expenses and meals for spouses or other family members are not reimbursable. Any such additional expenses must be paid for by the City officer or employee directly, or in advance of scheduling, if the City makes travel arrangements. Business-related telephone charges which are added to the lodging bill may be reimbursed. The name of the party called should be indicated. No reimbursement shall be made for telephone calls of a personal nature. Reimbursement for lodging shall be at the actual cost of lodging for the City officer or employee only, including related taxes and service charges. D. Other Expenses 1. Registration: Actual cost of registration will be reimbursed if paid by the City officer or employee. To the extent possible, pre-registration should be used and costs paid directly by the City in advance. 2. Per Diem: A "per diem" amount of $50 per day for each full day involved in travel on City business for distances over 45 miles from the City limits is authorized. A "full day" is defined as travel and training involving more than five consecutive hours of travel and conference time. Less than five consecutive hours is defined as a half day; the "per diem" amount will then be computed at half rate. Receipts are required. "Per diem" will cover all expenses other registration, transportation, and lodging. than A "per diem" amount of $100 per day is approved for travel to the following cities: New York; San Francisco; Chicago; and Washington D.C. PROCEDURE A. Travel Authorization: Annual Budget Business or conference travel requests estimated to exceed $100 shall be submitted with the department's annual budget request, on the appropriate travel and training request form. Scheduled business travel within the state requiring more than one day, and requests for travel out of state require City Council authorization for City employees. B. Forms Required The Finance Director shall establish such forms as are necessary and appropriate to provide accurate records of travel requests and travel expense reimbursement in accordance with City policy and IRS reporting requirements. All travel forms must be completed in advance and contain the necessary signatory authorizations. No reimbursement will be provided without receipts. Fair Labor Standards Act {FLSA) Compensation requirements with respect to time spent in attending lectures, meeting, training programs or similar activities during work time shall be counted as working time only if authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager. No such authorization shall be given unless the lecture, meeting, program or other activity is directly related to improving the employee's ability to perform his/her current job. Time spent in attending lectures, meetings, training programs and similar activities shall not be counted as working time where such attendance is outside of the employee's regular working hours except in situations where the employee is directed by his/her department head to attend such lecture, meeting, training program or similar activity. In this case, employees, entitled to overtime shall be compensated in accordance with the approved Personnel Rules and Regulations with respect to overtime. Travel Time Time spent by an employee traveling between the employee's residence and the regular work place is not work time and shall not be treated as hours worked. Where an employee is requested by his/her department head to travel outside the City, time spent traveling between the employee's home and assigned destination shall be treated as time worked only to the extent that it exceeds the amount of time normally taken by the employee to travel between his/her residence and regular City work place. Definitions City when used shall mean the City of Temecula. Conference Travel shall be defined as travel to attend meetings or conferences that are primarily for the educational or professional enrichment of the participant and not to transact specific business of the City, but for which the City will receive a secondary indirect benefit. Business Travel shall be defined as travel at which attendance of the participant is required to conduct specific items of City business. Elected Official means a member of the City Council. 5 Commissioner means any person appointed by the City Council to an officially established advisory board, commission, committee or task force of the City. Citv Employee means any person regularly employed by the City on a full-time basis, elected officials and members of advisory commissions or boards. Council-Appointed Employee means an employee appointed by and directly responsible to the City Council. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Utilize this form for all transactions involving training and travel requests in conjunction with approved training. Utilize this form for all mileage conjunction with City business. reimbursements in All mileage will be reimbursed at $.25 per mile. Prepaid column is for those expenses paid in advance through the City Purchase Requisition/Purchase Order process. Cash allowances column is for those monies paid to traveler directly. Receipts must accompany form if reimbursement is requested. Forms may necessitate completion before and after travel, depending upon nature and amount of reimbursements requested. Authorized signatures must be secured prior to submittal to Finance. If not secured, forms will not be processed. Department heads may approve travel expenses and reimbursements up to $100 without City Manager approval. 10. Items not reimbursable 11. Items specifically prohibited include reimbursement for personal items, alcoholic beverages, personal telephone calls and non-business related entertainment, meals included in the registration or air travel fee, and meals in connection with half-day or one-day training seminars. Expenses incurred by the employee's family are also prohibited. Submissions of Travel Expense Report. Travel Expense Reports must be submitted to the Finance Department within ten (10) working days after the trip is concluded. ITEM NO. 11 APPROVAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer August 28, 1990 Banking Services for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1991 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint Security Pacific as the City's bank for the year ending June 30, 1991. DISCUSSION: In the City Council meeting of May 8, 1990, the City Council approved a request for proposal (RFP) for banking services. The RFP was sent to the following banks: First Interstate Wells Fargo Security Pacific Overland San Diego Trust Bank of Commerce Bank of America Temecula Valley North County Great America First -2- The proposals of the banks who responded were analyzed and the results of the analysis appear on Exhibits A, B, C and D. The criteria used to rank the proposals were: 1) Pricing - Monthly cost of basic services (Exhibit D) 2) Ability to provide requested account structure - Includes three accounts and a zero balance function to alleviate manual transfers. 3) Ability to provide requested information services - Includes terminal balance reporting at City Hall for cash management purposes. 4) Ability to provide a sweep account - Collected balances are "swept" into a mutual fund each night to provide interest earnings on "float". 5) Ability to provide a one year price contract - Guarantee of prices for one year. 6) Quality/usefulness of miscellaneous services - Other services offered by bank not specifically requested by the City. 7) Carry forward of earnings credit - Credits earned on collected balances that are not swept at the end of the day, which offset monthly charges. The criteria was weighted to total 100 points based on the importance of the item relative to other criteria. These proposals should not be analyzed strictly on the basis of monthly costs. Item No. 4 provides for investment income on uncollected balances. The rates offered by the institutions vary significantly. Both Security Pacific and San Diego Trust offer sweep account vehicles that have interest rates comparable to the Local Agency Investment Fund (approximately eight percent per year compared to four to seven percent offered by the other institutions). The difference in the interest rate could amount to $4,000 in additional investment interest each year. I have met with or contacted each bank representative who submitted a proposal and have reviewed the findings with them to confirm my understanding of their proposal and to inform them of their ranking. Based on the volume of cash management activity expected during the 1991 fiscal year with the start up of the capital improvement program and the eminent collection of developer fees, Security Pacific's proposal comes the closest to matching our criteria. -3- During my meetings with the bank representatives, I did express the City's desire to support the local economy and that we expected to be investing in CD's with the local banks after verifying their capital ratios and independent ratings. FISCAL IMPACT: $3,600 is budgeted for Fiscal Year 1991 for bank fees. A TTA CHMENTS: Exhibits A through D ****************** SERVICES SCORING MATRIX TYPES OF SERVICES I~EIGHT BANK OF COMMERCE SAN DIEGO TRUST SECURITY PACIFIC OVERLAND MELLS FARGO TEMECULA VALLEY PRICING 40 33 34 35 37 31 40 B ABILITY TO PROVIDE DESCRIBED BANK ACCOUNT STRUCTURE 30 30 30 30 10 30 30 C ABILITY TO PROVIDE REQUESTED 7 0 7 7 0 7 0 INFORMATION SERVICES O SteEP ACCOUNT OFFERED 13 10 13 13 10 0 6 E ONE YEAR PRICE CONTRACT 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 F QUALITY/USEFULNESS OF 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES G CARRYFORt4ARD OF EARNINGS CREDIT 2 1 0 Z 1 0 0 TOTAL 100 8Z 92 95 66 76 76 NOTES: A. Scoring System - Bank services Mere subdivided into togicat groups. Each togicat group Has given a Height based based on its retative importance. Each bank Has scored based on its ability to provide each group of services !f the bank coutd provide the service, that item Has given a score of IOOX of its Meight; if the bank coutd not provide the service, the bank Has given a score of O; if the bank coutd provide some but not art of those services, the the service Has scored batMeen 0 - 100 X of its Height. Scores for prices Here devetoped by dividing the toNest cost bank by the bank being scored and muttiptying this percentage times the Meight for pricing of 40. B. Banks not bidding - First Interstate, Bank of America, North County Bank and Great America First Savings Bank EXHIBIT B ~oo~ ~o~oo~ ~o~o~ O0'09s O0'c qlYA¥ ION £0'0 O~L 00'0[~$ 11¥A¥ ION O0'O~S 00'00~$ [ IlVAV ION VN L 0['0 IIVAV ION Z~'O L2'O SO'O 0~l IIVAV ION IIVAV lOW O0'SS llVAV ION IlVAV ION SZ'O ]IBVIlVAV lOW Z qlYA¥ ION qlYA¥ ION ]qBV~IVAV ION qlVAV ION 96'9 1IMAM ION rd'9 9~9V~IVAV ION [ qIVAV ION .~'9 qIVA¥ ION 0~'0[ a~8¥~IVAV ION [ qZVAV ION O0'St IIVAV ION 00'0 a~6VqlVAV ION [ ~IVA¥ ION ~d 00'~ qIVAV ION O0'SS 39NVHD ON ~ qlYAV ION qlVA¥ ION NH O0'OZ ~q~V~IMA¥ ION [ ~IVAV ION q!¥A¥ ION OZ'O a~8VqlYA¥ ION 00£ qIVA¥ ION O0'Og qIVAV ION O0'rJ 9V O0'S2Z 3qeVqIYA¥ ION L SW~d NDIW-k~D]N lqfid ]DNVHD 9S¥8 AIHI~-I~OBN llfid BdVl NDIW-~O]N llNd NVHD W31l NBd'IN~W]IIO~]N llfid IN3N]ll~OBa INI1D~UV BONVHD AqHINC~ - 9NIII~)dBN 9NIR AV~NINI 9Nllii)d9N 9aIR AVQVNINI ]9NVHO ]ONVNBINIVN UNII~JN BNIR ]A]l]lgdaa - ]UIR 9NlOOlrlO IBd]NNON-DNIlI~]~ BNIR gNI~Irl) INIVW NBdSNVNI ~NIR UNIOOIrlO DNIINOdBN qVB ]NONdgq]l 1NIVN 9NIINOdgN g3NVqV9 S3SNVH3 3NIl qVNINN~I 9ONYN]IN|¥W qYNIWNBI SBDIAN]S NOIIVWNOdNI ~L'L L QNVSrIOHI Ngd SllSOd30 HSVD 90'0 O~Z ~OBHO NBd )ONVH3 11S0d30 O0'S O0'L 00'£ SZ'£ 00'£ O0'S L SW~ll NN~I~N O0'SL O0'OL O0'S[ 00'9 O0'OL O0'S[ 2 SgNI~ gNIWODNI O0'L SZ'L Ot'O ~Z'L ~L'L O0'L ~Z SllSOdBa SBOIA~BS ~NOllSOd3Q SL'O [L'O OZ'O ZL'O ZL'O 9L'O S S1199Q O0'SL O0'ZL O0'~L O0'[L O0'OL O0'~Z [ SaadSNVa~ BNIR ONIODIfiO 00'0 0S'9 00'[ 2L'O O0'Z O0'L [ SNBdSN¥~ ~VNNBINI O0'OL O0'OL 00'9 00'9 00'9 O0'~i i SIN3NAVd dOIS SL'O ~L'O OZ'O ZL*O ZL'O 9['0 O~L GIrd SXDBHD SBDIANBS INBWJSNRBSIQ 00'0 O0'S Z SISAqVNV IN~IOOOV XNV8 00'0 00'~ £ SIN3NBIVIS XNV9 O0'Z 00'~[ O0'S 00'0£ O0'SL O0'OL L INrlOOOV VBZ O0'Z O0'S[ O0'S O0'S[ V/N 00'0 L ONl~O/llSOdBQ ONVN)Q O0'Z$ alBVIIVAV ION O0'Ot$ 00'05 00'9£$ 00'0S i INfiOO3V d~Bd~ 3DNVN~IN]~ INf~DDV B9NBNWOO HINON NBd BDIAN]S dO NOlldlaO$]Q AJqqYA Vqrl~BWal OOaVd Sl1~ QNVqN~AO DldlOYd AIINJ"IO]S ISfiNI 0~310 NVS dO )NVe qOA Q]IVNIIS] ****************** SERVICES PRICING SU!qlqARY ******************** BANK OF SAN DIEGO TRUST SECURITY PACIFIC OVERLAND IELLS FARGO TENECULA VALLEY COST FOR BANK SERVICES COMMERCE IqONTHLY COST FOR BASIC OPERATING SERVICES $190 $186 $181 $172 $202 $159 ANNUAL COST FOR BASIC OPERATING SERVICES $2,280 $2,231 $2,170 $2,064 $2,427 $1,902 NOTE: THE TOTAL COST FOR OPERATING SERVICES DOES NOT INCLUOE CHARGES FOR INFORMATION SERVICES AND ACCOUNT RECONCILENENT FOR BETTER CONPARABILITY, SINCE T~O BANKS DO NOT OFFER THESE SERVICES, ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECUI. A AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk August 28, 1990 Designation of Riverside County Transportation Commission to Prepare the County Congestion Management Program PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June Greek RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to prepare a formal request for representation by the City of Temecula on the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Adopt a resolution designating the RCTC to prepare the County Congestion Management Program. DISCUSSION: At the City Council study session held September 21, 1990, you directed staff to place this matter on the agenda for action· You also stressed your desire to have representation by the City of Temecula on the RCTC. Staff is recommending that a formal request for City representation on the Commission be prepared for the Mayor's signature and transmitted to the RCTC along with the approved resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DESIGNATING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO PREPARE THE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEME~ PROGRAM WHEREAS, the State legislature has adopted AB 471 (Chapter 106, Stats. 1989) requiring the adoption of county-wide congestion management programs to coordinate streets and highways transportation planning; and WItEREAS, California Government Cede Section 65089(a) adopted as part of AB 471 requires that the County of Riverside and a majority of cities within the County representing a majority of the incorporated population adopt resolutions designating the Riverside County Transportation Commission to coordinate the development, adoption and annual updating of a congestion management program within the County; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby resolves as follows: The City hereby approves the Riverside County Transportation Commission as the agency responsible for the development, adoption and annual updating of the County congestion management program development pursuant to Section 65088 et Seq. of the California Government Code. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 281h day of August, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Reaos 102 08/23/90 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISS N  3560 University Avenue Suite 100 · Riverside California 92501 ~'~' Z99~4 ~ (71) 787-7141,FAX(714) 787-~920 July 25, 1990 Mr. Ron Parks, Mayor City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP) AGENCY Dear Mayor Parks: As you may be aware, the Congestion Management Plan provisions of AB 471 became effective with the passage of Proposition 111 this past June. Chapter 2.6, Section 65089 of the legislation specifically states in part that "A congestion management program shall be developed, adopted, and annually updated for every County. The program shall be developed ..., either by the county transportation commission, or by another public agency, as designated by resolutions adopted by the county board of supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the county." At its regular meeting on July 1 lth, the Riverside County Transportation Commission voted to seek designation as the agency responsible for development of the Congestion Management Plan/Program in Riverside County. As a result, the Commission would like your agency to formally consider the matter and adopt a resolution designating the Commission as the agency responsible for development of the CMP. In order to facilitate the process, we have included a copy of a sample resolution for your agency's use. It is the Commission's intent to formalize working relationships with and participation by the Western Riverside Association of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the cities and the County toward development of an effective Congestion Management Plan/Program. Should you have any questions or would like RCTC to make a presentation to your agency, please contact Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director, RCTC, at (714) 787-7924. Sincerely, ve DLrector · ' ation Commission JR/GV:sc attachment cc: David Dixon, City Manager ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDAREPORT Dave Dixon / City Council City Manager Rick Sayre Chief of Police 08-16-90 Cal-Id Contract RECOMMENDATION: services. Council approve attached contract for Cal-Id BACKGROUND: During the budget hearings for FY90-91 council approved funding for Temecula's contribution to the Riverside Cal- Id program. Cal-Id permits latent fingerprints found at crime scenes to be electronically compared with those of persons who have been arrested in the past. Prior to Cal-Id latent prints were of no use unless an investigator had suspect information. In the near future Cal-Id will be broadening it's mission to include the current identification technologies provided by DNA (Cal-DNA), and electronic color imaging (CAL Photo). Cal-Id will be providing DNA laboratory service with a fully operational date targeted for the second quarter FY90-91. Cal-Id is supported by Riverside County and all cities in the county. The cost to the city is based upon population. Temecula's population was established by County Planning using building permit activity. FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: ATTACHMENTS: $11,356 Cal-Id has no competitor. · Member agency assessment analysis · Agreement relating to the California. Identification Systems. Budget Code 001 170 710 42 5252 i..,..~ AGENCY i=:)!~ii BEAUMONT i~i~ CATHEDRAL CITY COACHELLA HEMET INDIAN WELLS MORENO VALLEY PALM DESERT P,~LM PER-~;5 RANCliO MIRAGE SAN JACINTO TEMECULA .;.I~,~vERSsgF. COUNTY 10TAL I... I POPULATION POPULATION I/'./~.~ ' "';'~9 I #,..... o. ~..." :!: ~), ~ f ': ~ ..:2 i ...~, ~ !." e; .. :- :; .:;. ~. .'. :,>.,'." :i ,,. ~ "..i:~:. 14 t.- ,~ .., ...:.:;..2 :,.,~ ~ .. .... T ,, 10,40u 10,650 N/A 32,100 33,350 N/A 2,450 2,590 N/A 33, 150 34,300 N/A 12,800 14,950 N/A 9,275 10,200 .N/A 90,800 101,300 N/k 24,650 25,200 N/A 18.~00 19,450 N/A 31,600 31.95,3 N/A 12,400 i 5. ~ 50 N/A 8,550 8,900 N/A 206,200 209,700 N/A 13,200 ! 3.750 N/A N/L, N/A 19.000 N/A 313,200 342,300 323,300 -5.55~ !.!:'-'.7:.'1 ':' '.'."1 POPULATION PERCENT PERCENT i~/i.~'CENCY COST PER CAPITA AGENCY COST 1/11~.') ",C'~F.",~ C:.:,'.,.","" FY 92/9; :CS' .ry.;.,./~,, F'i' ~9/9C ,'/' 'c.'TTI_' ' ,, ', , . · i.I..',.".~ .",'.'. C ..:-"' $:~,.'.{i.Z) 0 f;.," .=!!"" ;" · " "" "' ' ..... ..' .";: ':.:': l~,t'Z)!ii; !;:i 'i'~.':'.". 'i '.' '.:="' $ :'!,'.!: :;"C,!::., ';." .:" 1.05% ei ~ ......$6,3650.59 ~68228 3.29% $19,933 0.59768228 0.26% 1.01~~ 9.98~ 2.48% ' 9~"': ."5. I~,~; 1.4,:,~ 20.66~ ~: 1.35~ 1.87~ .' '. 31.86% · .' I'.',"f. "'~ ~ $1,548 0.59768228 $20,501 0.59768228 S8,935 0.59768228 S6,096 0.59768228 $60,545 0.59768228 S15,062 0.59768228 S11,625 0 5976822~ $19,095 0.59768228 Son55 0 ~9~?~ $5.319 0.59768228 $125,3340.59768228 $8,218 0.59768228 $11,~56 0.59768228 S193,2310.59768228 !!::'.!: !,:'2 1 DIFFERENCE 83 vs g3 $I I..:~:'i $!:.~!: .! S'/.>"~ S~.!'!': .i S~!:.:::; $:) $6,365 S19,933 S0 Sl.548 S2o.5ol t8.9~5 So S6,096 $60,545 S0 S15,062 $0 $11,625 S0 S19,096 $0 t9,o55 S5.319 S0 $125,334 S8,218 N/A N/A $204,587 $0 S0 (Sl !.356 (S:"1 ~{":.:~!' ':' '-:.'.-:-:. :.~.:.:... :. '.:-'. :-:.'.:-: .: .: ....... :-:: ::'-:.:, :. ;::::-:.; ...-.-. :.'-'. :.:-:. :.:.:-: ...,; ::: .: ........__ ii~i~i~ COMMEN'I'S/NO'I'ES i~i Populolion da|a derived from the California Deporlmen[ of Finance Repod 89 [-1: PopulaUon Esiimoles of California ClUes and Couniies, January 1, 1988, |o ~e~! Januarl/1, 1989. Temeculo's population based upon Counl~ Planning (Mr. Dick Archibeque 782-4682) esUmate using building perrail acUvi[y. The Riverside .... CAL-I i!!!iii R.A.N. Board direclad ihat population figures for the preceding year be used for eslablishing member agency ossessmenl costs. All dollar amounls and ;{!~i percenlagesare rounded independ,,nlll Tolels may nol exacl!y eq~:ale Io rounded ind'v!dual do!lar cmou;'.!s or percenlages. i!!!.:,iEE: <....-::,: ::.: .: :: .::..:......:. :....... :..:..... :: .. :..:....:... ::x-. :. :-::-x-:::::..: :<:. :: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VVILLIAM C. KAT2ENSTEtN COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE 300 ~ - 10TH STREET RIVERSIDE. CAUFORNIA AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS THIS CONTRACT is entered into by and between the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, hereafter called the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereafter called the RECITALS WHEREAS, a region composed of the area of the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino has been formed for implementation and operation of Identification Systems. WHEREAS, the costs of the Regional System will be allocated to the users within the aforesaid Counties on the basis of fifty percent (50%) for the San Bernardino County area and fifty percent (50%) for the COUNTY area; and WHEREAS, there will be costs for implementation and operation of a regional system to be located in either Riverside or San Bernardino Counties and a local subsystem to be located in COUNTY; and WHEREAS, a local RAN Board has been established for the area of COUNTY cornpromised of the following members: A member of the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff, the District Attorney, the Chief of Police of the City having the largest number of sworn personnel, a Chief of Police selected by all other police chiefs within the County and a Mayor selected by the City Selection Committee; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY desire to enter into an agreement for the implementation and operation of Identification Systems for the benefit of the citizens of their jurisdictions; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WILLIAM C. KA'rZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE 3oe 35&5 - ]0TH STREET I~VI~SlDE, CALIFORNIA NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and stipulations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. CITY agrees to be a user of the Identification Systems established for the areas of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. CITY'S use of the System under this agreement shall be through the local subsystem for the COUNTY area. 2. It is agreed that the total costs applicable to the COUNTY area for the Regional System which are not paid by the State and the total costs for the local subsystem within COUNTY which are not paid by the State shall be allocated to each user within COUNTY based on the users percentage of the .total population of all users within the COUNTY. The population of the COUNTY for allocating COUNTY costs based on population shall be the population of the unincorporated area of the County. The population figures used for allocating annual costs to all users shall be the most recent State of California Department of Finance Population Estimates. The costs for the Regional System shall be consistent with the budgets approved by the Regional and Local RAN Boards. The costs for the local subsystem for the COUNTY area shall be consistent with the budget approved by the local RAN Board and the Board of Supervisors of COUNTY. COUNTY shall notify CITY in writing of its share of each fiscal year's budget upon approval of local and regional budgets. 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE ~Oa ~ - 1011-1 STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 3. The Sheriff of the COUNTY shall be responsible for managing and operating the local subsystem within the COUNTY consistent with directions of the local RAN Board. The Regional RAN Board shall approve procedures and policies for operation and use of the Regional Identification Systems and the local RAN Board shall approve such for the local subsystem for the COUNTY area. All such procedures and polices shall be consistent with the technical requirements of the Regional System. 4. CITY shall pay the Auditor-Controller of COUNTY its share of costs for the fiscal year 1990/1991, by August 1, 1990, or within fifteen (15) days after the approval of the CITY'S budget whichever is later. The CITY'S share of costs for the fiscal year 1990/1991 (July 1990, through June 30, 1991) shall be based on the assumption that all cities in the county will participate in the program. CITY'S share of costs for the fiscal year 1990/1991 based on that assumption shall be $11,356.00. COUNTY'S Auditor-Controller shall subsequently adjust the billing to CITY based upon the actual participation of cities. For subsequent years, it is agreed that CITY shall pay its annual share of cost by August 1 st or within fifteen (15) days after approval of cities budget whichever is later. 5. Any amendments tot he agreement shall be in writing and approved by the parties before becoming effective. 6. The term of this agreement shall commence upon execution by both parties and shall continue until terminated as hereinafter set forth. Either party may terminate this agreement by giving notice of termination to the other party on or before February I of any year to terminate this agreement as of the subsequent July I st. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Wfi_UAM C. KATZENSTFJN COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE 300 ~ - 10TH STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 7. Any notices required to be given under this agreement shall be delivered in person or by first class mail to CITY'S Clerk of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors as may be applicable. 8. COUNTY'S Sheriff shall fiscally manage the funds and expenditures of the Identification Systems and establish a separately identifiable account for allocating costs pursuant to the terms of this agreement. Payments under this agreement shall be deposited in an interest bearing trust account with any earned interest being applied for expenses of the Identification Systems. 9. Any user of the System which is allowed to enter into program participation after the System has originally been implemented shall be required to pay its fair share of original start-up, implementation and equipment costs prior to participation in the System. Such fair share costs shall be based on the percentage of population of the user to the total population of all users and the amount of the costs shall be as determined by the local RAN Board for COUNTY area. 10. Each user of the Identification Systems within the COUNTY area shall be required to be a party to an agreement with the COUNTY setting forth obligations and responsibilities of users so that all such users are treated consistently and costs are allocated to all users based on their percentage of the population of all users within the COUNTY area of the Regional System. 11. COUNTY shall provide users with a financial report at the end of each fiscal year covering the costs for the COUNTY area portion of the Regional System and the local subsystem for said area consistent with regular COUNTY practices. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE 300 a&35 - 10TH STREET RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 12. Any disputes over charges under this agreement will be resolved by the local RAN Board for the COUNTY area consistent with the terms of this agreement. 13. Each party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless form liability for acts or omissions of itself and its agents and employees in connection with the performance of this agreement. Dated: A'I'rEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By: Deputy (Seal) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: Chairman, Board of Supervisors Dated: CITYOF By: Dated: Title: 1512 RMP:db 2/27/90 5 ITEM NO. 14 ORDINANCE NO. 90-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5446, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM I-P (INDUSTRIAL PARK) TO CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON 6.51 ACRES AT THE WEST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD. The City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Public hearing have been held before the Riverside County 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 applicable 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. 5446 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 15 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 281h day of August, 1990. ATI~.ST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 310rd~)O-15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-15 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of August, 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of August, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 3lOrds90-15 CITY OF TEMECULA CHANGE OF ZONE NO. CZ :~45 M -SC / M-SO( 'Z4:548 \ \ \ I-P CZ 4078 V \, · '~Z4077 SUBJECT SITE /M-SC CZ 4607 R Change of Zone from I-P (Industrial Park) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on approximately 6.51 acres. Assessor Parcel No.: 910-200-059 Location: West side of Ynez Road, north of Winchester Road. CITY OF TEMECULA CHANGE OF ZONE NO. ~ © zor Iz ,e~4t · tO7' SUBJECT SITE LOOATIOliAL HAP · no ~4~.S NoTLb Change of Zone from I-P (Industrial Park) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on approximately 6.51 acres. Assessor Parcel No.: 910-200-059 Location: West side of Ynez Road, north of Winchester Road. ITEM NO. 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 28, 1990 PLOT PLAN NO. 69 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Mark Rhoades That the City Council: 1. RECEIVE AND FILE the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan No. 69. based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended at the Planning Commission hearing. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTAT IVE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT I ON: Penfold Communications, Inc. Bodnar Engineering Move and reduce an existing radio transmission tower. West of 1-15 and approximately 2,600 feet south of the southern terminus of Front Street. BACKGROUND: STAFFRPT\PP69 At its regular meeting of August 20, 1990, the Planning Commission approved Plot Plan No. 69 and recommended that the City Council RECEIVE AND FILE the Commission's decision. Attached is the Commission Staff Report. The only comment that the Commission made regarding the project was RECOMMENDATION: concerning the color of the proposed tower. The Commission's feeling was that the tower should be painted a camouflage color. The applicant was open to any specific suggestions that the Commission may have had. However, no specific suggestions were proposed, and the proposed tower was approved as green. Also, the applicant stated that the correct tower height should be 120 feet instead of 105 feet. Staff and Commission had no problems with the request. That the City Council: RECEIVE AND FILE the Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan No. 69. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 20, 1990 Case No.: Plot Plan 69 Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLI CANT: R EPR ESENTAT I VE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: STFFRPT\PP69 Penfold Communications, Inc. Bodnar Engineering Move and reduce an existing radio transmission tower. West of 1-15 and approximately 2,600 feet south of the southern terminus of Front Street. R-R I Rural Residential ) North: R-R { Rural Residential) South: R-R { Rural Residential) East: R-A-20 I Residential Agricultural, 20 acre) West: R-R {Rural Residential) Not requested. Vacant North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant Number of Acres: Buildings: 53.39 1 radio antenna tower and 18~x 20~ storagecontainer. City Council Resolution Number 90-10 granted Mr. Penfold an exemption from the antenna moratorium. This enabled him to process a plot plan application in order for the City to consider allowing the PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: SWAP AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMI NAT ION: applicant to move the existing 250 foot high tower located in the center of town. The application was made with the City Planning Department on May 31, 1990. Since that time, revisions to the project relative to Planning and Engineering Department requests have been completed. The applicant proposes to remove the existing 250 foot high red and white radio transmission tower from the center of the City, just north of Rancho California Road. Instead, the applicant proposes to construct a 105 foot high tower on a hillside approximately 2,600 feet south of the southerly terminus of Front Street. Accessory to the antenna the applicant proposes to place an 8 x 20 foot storage container on the site. The proposal is consistent with Section 5.1 .c. (6) of Ordinance 348, which permits broadcasting antennas with an approved plot plan. The project is proposed for a hillside, however several steps have been taken to minimize the visual impact of the proposed antenna. First, the applicant has received F. C. C. approval to paint the tower green, instead of the existing red and white scheme. This will camouflage the tower with existing hillside vegetation. Second, the F.C. C. has also relieved the proposed project from the requirement of having a flashing beacon at the top of the tower. Third, the tower is proposed at only 105 feet as opposed to the existing tower which is 250 feet. Fourthly, an existing Oak tree stands adjacent to the proposed pad. This tree is sizeable and will partially obscure the antenna from any view from the City or 1-15. The accessory storage container will be completely obscured from view. The applicant has prepared and submitted a visual analysis which accurately reflects the scale of the proposed project. The proposed antenna at completion will be approximately 280 feet below the nearest ridge, so it will not disrupt any scenic ridgeline vistas. The project is consistent with the current site zoning. The project is also consistent with the Southwest Area Plan. In compliance with the California Environmental FINDINGS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Quality Act, the proposed project has been determined to be a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from the C.EoQ.A. guidelines. Site Approval The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. The use will not generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic or other disturbances. The site for the proposed use has adequate aCCeSS. The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems· The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the General Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in the staff report. There is a probability that the project will not deter, or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the new General Plan. These findings are supported by staff analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: APPROVE Plot Plan No. 69 and the attached Conditions of Approval based on findings contained in the Staff Report· MR: ks Attachments: 1. Exhibits 2. Conditions of Approval 3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan 69 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. No Oak Trees shall be removed from the subject parcel· The antenna shall be painted green, and no beacon shall be allowed on the structure. The approved temporary antenna structure shall be removed no later than 30 days after the completion of the approved antenna. The existing 250 foot high pole located north and west of Rancho California Road and Jefferson Street shall be removed concurrently with the construction of the approved 120 foot high pole. This approval shall be used within two 12) years of the City Council approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By this approval within the two 12) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 69, 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-d-way, and shall comply with Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Engineering Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. STAFFRPT\PP69 Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fees 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. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new building and parking structure. 2 ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department August 28, 1990 VESTING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 23371-5 PREPARED BY: Robert Righetti RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council APPROVE Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23371-5, subject to the conditions of approval. DISCUSSION: Vesting Tract No. 23371 was submitted to Riverside County on January 14, 1988. It was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. The subdivider applied for phasing on January 25, 1989 and received approval for phase 5 from Riverside County Planning Department on February 9, 1989. Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23371-5 contains 75 lots within 48.89 gross acres. The tract is located east of Margarita Road, south of South General Kearney Road, and north of Rancho California Road. This tract is part of Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 and Development Agreement No. 5. The developer is Margarita Village Development Company. The following fees have been paid for Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23371-5: Signal Mitigation Fee Drainage Fee Fire Facilities Fee Inspection Fees $11,100.00 $51,038.71 $29,600.00 $12,883.00 {Deferred to Bldg Permit) I Deferred to Bldg Permit) I Deferred to Bldg Permit) The following bonds have been posted for Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23371-5: Faithful Labor Performance and Material Street and Drainage Water Sewer Survey Monuments Traffic Signal Mitigation Taxes $191,500 $95,750 $ 82,000 $41,000 $ 80,000 $40,000 $30,000 $11,100 $66,200 STFRPT\FVT23371. -5 Fiscal Impact Not determined. Summary Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23371-5, subject to the conditions of approval. RR:ks Attachments: Conditions of Approval Fees & Security Report Copy of Map Location Map O~NEM'S STATENEXT ME HERElY STATE THAT ME ARE THE OMFER9 OF THE LANO INCLDOED N/THZN THE SUeOIVISION ~HONN H~REON; THAT ME AR[ THE ONLy PERSONS M4OSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID LAND: THAT HE CONSEN TO TEE NAKXNQ M4) RECOROIN6 OF THiS SUSOIV/SION MAP AS SHOiW4 NITHIS THE DISTiNCTiVE BORO~H LINE. ME I~R(tY RETAIN LOTS 'A° THROUGH see INDICATED AS 'PRIVATE STREETS FOR PRIVATE USE FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF (X/RSELVES, OUR SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNEES, AND LOT Oe4El~ NITHIS THIS TRACT. SUCCESSORS, Akq) OUR ASSIGNEES. WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO FUel, IC USE EASEHENT FOR PUBLIC UTIUTAlll A~ ORA SAGE PUFFOSES TOGETHERN NITH THE n~,glft OF I_~.S~ NO EGRESS/gel EMERG[NCY V[HIOLES ITHIN LOTS A TPIqOUeH 8 CLUSIV[. IT XERIBT NOeSATE I~ WglLig VII THE EAI[KIIT I~1 RIUC UTIU11 ASl DR IIADE I~IRI~IEI AI ISOII BESt0N, MAR~ARITA VILLIG[ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. A ~IOINT VENTURE, BY: SUIE-HANCND CALIFQ~NIJ~ LTD., A CALIFORNIA LINITEO PJlITHER~HiP BY: TH~ SU[E CORPORATIO~ A CALIEORN[A CORPORATION BENEFICIART THE BENEFICIAL iNTEREST OF RECORD UNOER SAIO I~EO OF TMT RECOilBED OR AUGUST 14. $967 AS IUSTP4J(HT NO. 236462. ASSlCwqEO TO BUTTEIFIELD FiNANCIAl. CORPORATIOM, A CALIF01~'4IA COR- PORATION, OR D~CENBER e. IN7 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 347i8I. k4g:l~&kl V/~e 'VI~I~FI~SIOENT BENEFiCiARY  PRESIDENT e.y ,4,J,a~, SECRETARY 51GNATUR~ ONISSION ~RSUANT TO SECTION 66436 OF THE ~UBOIVISIOR HAP ACT THE SIGN- kTURES OF THE FOLLONINO ONNERS OF EASEHENTS A~)/OR OTHER INTEf~ESTS HAVE BEEN OHITTED: JNITED STATES OF AHERICA- OtelER OF AN EASEENT Fl~q PlPt~lNE P~R- JOSES THERETO PER INSTNUMENT # 3iJ3 RECOROED OCT. 27, ig4g, All) [NSTRUNENT e S7585 REC~D DEC. I. 1953. ~OIL5 REPORT k PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT NAS PREPARED BY OMEN CONBULTANTS )N NOVEMBER 8, IS88, AS REOUIREO BY THE HEALTH ANO SAFETY IN THE CITY OF TENECLIt, A. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO, 2337:t - 5 BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF AXEHOED PARCEL RAP N0.2i684. IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER RAP RECORDED IN BOOK i52, PAGES 22 THROUGH 3i INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL NAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY FEBRUARY. NOTARY ACKNONLEOGEMENT ,TI.. THE C,,,.T~ THAT EXECUTEO THE .IT,,, BEING KNOW TO ME TO BE THE GENERAL PARTNER BE BUiE-RANCHO CALIFORNIA, LTO,, THE LIHITED PARTHERSHIP THAT EXECUTED THE MITHIN INBTRUNENT, SAIO PARTNERSHIP 9EIN~ KNONN TO NE TO BE ONE OF THE 6EHERAL PARTNERS OF NARGARITA VILLADE DEVEL- OPMENT CONPANY, THE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP THAT EXECUTED THE NITHIM INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNONLEDGEO TO HE THAT SUCH CORPORATIOR EXECUTED THE SANE AS SUCH PAHTNCR, THAT SUCH PARTNERSHIP EXEC- UTED THE SANE AS SUCH pARTNERSHIP AND THAT SUCH PAHTNERSHIP EXECUTED THE SAME, HITMESS MY HAND. NY CONMISSION EXPIRES (PL SE PRINt~ NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND ~OR SAID STATE [SIGNATUnE) NOTARY HARE (PLEASE PRINT] PRINCIPAL R. ACE OF BUSINESS IN ~ ,~,/~F:~ COUNTY. (PLEASE PRINT} NOTARY ACKNOMI,EOGEHENT i990 NOTARY ACKNONLEDGEHENT ON ~ If # A BEFORE TO ~ TiT S~H C~ATZ~ EXECUTEO T~ NZT~99 NY ~TARY ~LIC IN A~SAZD STATE fmt m mmm~ ~ TAX BONO CERTIFICATE ~ ~- ~o/ff~ ,BEF. NE TNE DATED CASH TAX lIT(S9 MY Pl ~tARY ~IC IN Am ~ SAID STATE (S]~AT~) ~ARY ~ ~ A~ PR NT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A 60NO IN THE SON OF $ V HAS BEEN EXECUTEO AND FILED HITH TME 90ARO OF ~UPER ISOR9 OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, CONOITIONED UPON AND THE TIHE OF FILING OF THIS HAP NITH THE COONTY RECOROER ARE A LiEN AGAINST SAID PROPERTY BUT NOT YET PAYABLE AND SAID 80NO HAS BEEN O~I,Y APPIIOV[D BY SAID BOARO OF SUPERVX5011~, n. weyne Haiti COUNTY TAX COLLECTON BY: SHEET t OF 7 SHEETS RECORD~R'S STATEHENT FILEO THIS DAY OF , il ~ AT A~ P P .... IN BOOK OF HA S, AT AB[S REOUEST OF ~k~E CITY CLERK, CITY O~ TERECULA NO. FEE: $ MI)llea E. ConePly, COUNTY RECORDER BY:. DEPUTY 8UGOIVISION eUARANTEE: TICON TITLE INSURANCE CONPAW ENOIHEER'S STATEHENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I AN A REGISTERED CIVIL ENeIHEER S~FICXE~ T0 ERAOLE T( ~ T0 ~ ~I~, T~ A~ C~ETE AS H~, EXPI~9 6-30-H R T SUBSTANTZALLY THE SANE AS ZT APPEA~D ON TENTATIVE TRACT NAP ~. 2337i AS FILED A~ APPROVEO ~ SWERVIS~S ~ ~ER ~ 1988, T~ EXPZRATI~ DATE ~ER 8, 19gO. A~ THAT ALL ~VZSI~ ~ A~ICA~E LAN A~ C[IY ~ATIH ~VE BEEN C~ZEO k~ SAIISFI~ THIS ~ IS TEC~IC~LY C~CT. OATED Jvm~ F. Tlnnlnt ACTI~ CITY DEPUTY 6ereld A. HelDrim CLERK OF THE BOA~O OF SD~RVISORS BY: DEPUTY CITY CLERK*S STATEHENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECDLA, STATE OF C~,IFOIIqIA BY ITS DEPUTY CITY CLERK HERESY APPROV[~ ON THE TRACT MAP. ALL OFFERS OF ~DICATXHAD[ I. Ef!EOR ~ HEREBY NOT ACCEPTED. DATED 1990 SY: DEPUTY CITY CLERK, CITY OF TERECULA TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE NOTICE OF ELECTION BY LAND DIVIDER TO DEFER PAYHENT OF DRAINAGE FEES Z HERESY CERTIFY THAT ACCORDIN~ TO THE RECOROS OF THIS OFFICE AS OF THIS DATE THERE ARE NO LIENS AGAINST THE PfiOPERTY SHOW ON THE NI~HIN HAP FOR UHPAID STATE, COUNTY NOTICE IS HEDESY OZVEN THAT THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN HUttlCZPAL OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSHENTS CCLLECTEbTHE ;IETA CREEK TEHECULA VALLEY AREA ORAINAg~ PLAN NHICH AS TAXES, EXCEPT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSNENT$ COLLECTED ASHAS ADOPTED BY THE 60ARO OP 9U!~RVlSORS OF THE COUNTY OF TAXES NON IEN BUT NOT YET PAYABLE, te4ICH ARE ESTIMATEDRI~RSIDE P~RSUAHT 10 SECTlOll t0.25 OF OI~IMAI~ ~60 ~NO SECT[ON TO DE S/~,~n 6648 ET SES. OF THE 60VEIt~ COOE A/~ RAID PROBTT IS SU~CT TO ~ES FOR SAID ONAINARE AREA, NOTICE IS FURTHER OIVEN, THAT I~ART TO SECTION IO.L~J DE ...., _._ ..o. ,. ,. o.,,......,. ,o .,. ' OF THE DIIAINADE FEE TO THE TiME OF ISSUANCE OF A ONADINO ON BUILDING PERKIT FOR SA[O LOTS ANO THAT THE OMNEB OF [AON LOT, BY: AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF EITHER A ~RADIN6 OR BUILDING I~RKIT N SHALL BE HEOUIRED TO PAY THE FEE REOUIRED AT THE RATE i EFFEC AT THE TIHE OF ISSUANCE OF THE ACTUAL I~IT. ENGINEER'S NOTES AN. · AMIND P,M. NO, Ira.M, ill/el-It IN THE tININCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT N0, 23371-5 BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF AHENOED PARCEL HN=' NG, 21884, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE° STATE OF CALIFORNI AS PER I,,ffiP RECORDED IN BOOK 152, PAGES 22 THROUGH 31 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL H~PS, IN~HE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, RICK ENGIHEERING COHPANY PROCEDURE OF SURVEY MAY, ]qge SEE DETAIL "D' kt,~37qe' F0.1'IJ%.~ t3' AMINDID TAGG(D ~S IherJl,l~ L,2IeJe'I t,3S3~ LA SEREN~ PAR. 4 AMINDID P.M. NO. I III4 P,M,¶ilIII-I1 4FLIr N 771T23~ ItZr g SHEET (nmjs~jr DETAIL 'A' PAR. I AMINDID P.M, NO.~ll4 P,M, 111/II-~ FO, 2*lJ'. On TAG PER RS 71/05-q5 SET TR6 it.rE. 335e4 L~4~TF OF 7 '~;HEETS NOTES ' SEE SHEET 3 FOR EASEH~NT NOTES, SEE SHEET 7 FOR OETAILS, R,12M t,41u4q 17*~llPu VJIJe) ~ltli,ir L,~SJZ1 L,! HEADOW s rO, PUNCH(O eQLT · TiN, On iLZ'J40 TAG SET l* Um· - TM0 IV.E, 33~q1 SEE DETAIL FAll. ¶ F,M. NO. 11114 PAR. I AMINDID P,M. NO, 11114 mee, r, ew,,R,~frdw~r~ · ,M. 18 II 11-81 CALIFORNIA ROAD t. lLFm MO,O SEE DETAIL 'F' 47tit 11,1311' ~lrm Imm4Ml' 411 eel J N THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO. 23371-5 B~ING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF ~ PARCEL HAP NO. 21804, IN THE COLHTY OF RiVERSIIX~ STATE OF CALIFCI~IIA AS PF..R HAP RECCiROED IN BOOK 152, PAGES 22 TI-fiOUGH 31 INCLUSI~i: []F PN:ICLrL HN:'S, IN ~ (3FFiC~ OF THE COt)(TY RECCf-~,F..R OF SAID COUNTY. RICK ENGINEERING CI:)4~NiY MAY 1990 I' NDEX HAP ~ L 0 T 75 EASEHENT NOTES SEE DETAIL I · , 40 DETAIl "A" N,T.~ i TF3E~,i" ~a' ' 131'i1'r8 ,Lee' J ~Tfii'r ii' '" I el'l'el*l SEE DETAIL "C xrjI & ,IN. // __ jjz:e3rj. Ae ~rlLIrr Ill. if* I.u. 3r I le',fl'lrll I N.el.lrt IILM' I lf'B'll'l ' · Irll*le*t Ill. el' · · ~"/ll'lrl 81. I · (wrrl 3 OF' ileoee, 7 SHEETel ,~""' I, KESHT. I ICII tllllllX8 IIOT!I ts. od · Jfl 'll 'ere II.~' IoJI'IJ'IT' I'Sll ' IN TI, E CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE*, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO 23371-5 BEING A DIVISION Elr A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF ANE~ PARC8.. NAP NO. 21884, IN THE COLNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER HAP RE~ IN BOOK 152, PAGES 22 '~ 31 INCLUSI~/I~ OF PNqC:EL HN:~S, IN h.~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ~Y, RIO( ENGINL~!NG CON~ANy MAY 1990 NOTES: I. It'EiH~l FON EN~IIII'IRt NOTES 28 27 3 8HEIrT tlmll* rail* # )Tel 'IPl* II 91'91'1J*11 li,,' 4 OF 7 8HwwT8 filetrr/ll ]5 TRACT rio. 2JJTl-.J M,B / - 107 27 28 lie. It, 29 30 (PRIVATE STREET) , s#.**e.erm sm.N' J J 32 3J 34 SEE SHEET 17 75 IN TIE CITY OF TEIdECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8HI~EZeF CK~I~Y^OFDDIRVl~'~ ^'TAF'~T~"~''~ C0FH_TF~A~IA, A~ F~C~iNNOS/X~,~4. ,AN THE / SEE SI'EET 4 ,,,, ,..,,'-r'---."' -r'-.,."' *t'- I. NE Ilfl: i FOIl ~RI NOTES tl I ,~41'.I1'1 ~ I H'M'I'( rll I U'~ 'u'lI~. H' rlI I U'H'~'I rll l.l'J'H*E tie I l'M'l'[ I. U* ~1 rll'r( I liT4 ~ll ~ tar ~1 I'~'1' ~1.~' I~.~' Cf IPIII* t~.~' ~ I~*e~'R* ~.~* ~.~, tie I'l'r H.N' ~.l' tlJ I*)1'17 e.e' N.~' ClJrN'r I~.N* IllII'N'Ir I~.N' CII~'~'~ ~.N' I1.~' Ill 11.2 113 i14 ,, tl Z 49 50 i ;,51 Ip.171. M' t'13g. ll' 54 · r#t 'rt e~., I, JIL N' & ,ll,~ lt , .,~II IP,N'Irt S~-) 57 e2 SEE e/ 80 SHEET 5 OF 7 8HwlrT8 37 7~ IC4UI': I lN.e 'tO Irr. IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO .. 23371-5 BEING A DIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCLrL 3 OF ~ PARCEL HAP 1,40. 2|884, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIC~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PF, R HAP RE~D IN BOOK 152, PAC.~S 22 ~ 31 INCLUSi~ OF PARCEL HAPS, IN h.~ OFFIC~ OF THE COUNTY fECOROF. R OF SAID COLI~y, RIO( i:~ItiE:E:RII~ CI31~ANY MAY 1990 ,4, ,er,.erera, NOTES: J j ,5 4~ L lEE 9HT, !; INelNE~R'9 NOT~! e, let 9HT 3 FOR IAIEkIENT NOTES lie lit IJ8 SEE ,50 ,51 / jell,el,l|, leJJ'l. ll° telJe. ll* L,14.78' 's~Cl,i ~ 62 TRACT riO. 23371-4 M.B_ / - /19 PIe'it'll ' & 'll · I~ ' i-S'ee t ,$1. g ' II RMIIII IIST, U~ rl I M'H'SrE I~ l rll'el'll r) i 11'13,1y( re I/f'le'ee't' rl l is,4e,s$,( 17 1 II*N'N'E IJ. ##' NIl II'll'St't lll rl 1 IrJtJ'H'l rll · 3S'll'R'EJ, rll I Ir.u'el'l rare' tat III ~rty4 IAIIII at tit rM CI l't4'eJ'4fF.~e'84.31'JS.H' a l'~'!' /ILl' le.~* I.~' ~ I'~'l' le?.l' ILl' a 13'l'~ JeLl' I3. M' ILl' ~ I'~'~' M.N' ILU' I.~' ~11U'~'~' ~.~' ~.~' ILM' ClJII'IFN' I~.~' ~.N' CIlI$'~'r H.!' ILl' I.~' tieII'St'l' Ill' ll, lt' 45 4e TRAcT riO. 23371-3 M,B, / - 74 48 47 7] SHEET · I,"lv 64 70 65 5 69 8HwlrT - / 59 67 \ ! 6 OF 7 8HEE:T8 57 75 DETAIL "A" IN THE CITY OF TEIdECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA """"'~TRACT NO ~,~::~ ' 2 3 ,~ 7 15 .~: ~: o".:, ,,..o,.--*-- E,G.D, ,s,o. OF A PORT,O. O,P ARCE[, ,. A,..DEGP.RCEL MA": HO.,, ....  N I~~[~1 IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSlOE,STATE Of CALIFORNIA°AS PER MAP RECORDED IN tl ,e,e' BOOK 152,PAGES 22 THROUGH 31 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF ~/~s~e4r~ THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, ' RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY MAY 1990 ~"""' , '.~ ,,'."" ~ V PROCEDURE OF SURVE)' · SEE SHT. 2 DETAIL "B" NO SCALE A=44'46'ZEI' ?.:46.f:3,. -,,,---. ,,,'~.~'"I,; ,~ N.T.s, //~ NO SCN. E , · lil'f' .~,j'd;' ~ , ,.. ',~E . Z N.T.S, .':: ' DETAIL "E' ~ N,T,S, SHEET 7 OF 7 SHEETS VICINITY MAP' NOTE~: EASEMENT NOTES SEE SHEET NO, 3 j,:L!~~A,,29° 59'03" /,,- * 05'14" R-1300' .e."-- L~.. O. O,L,657. gO, ' ° ' ,~ 32 E) 7 N21 55 45 W 7000 R 58'20'57'~:~> (554.09')" SEE SHT. 2 DETAIL "F" N.T.S. ' ENVIRONMENTAL COl IN THE CiTY OF TEMECULA, CC~TY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRACT NO. 23371-5 BEING A OIVISICN OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF N4E'I, CEO PARCLrL HAP NO. ~1884. IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIC]E: STATE OF CALIFCR',IIA AS PER HAP REL"g~OED 1N BOOK 152, PAGES 22 TI'ROUGH 31 INCLUSI~q~ OF PARC8. HAPS. IN fl~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY I~CORDER OF SAIO ~. RICX ENGINEERING CC, I'ANY MAY 1990 ENVIO/~ffEtlTA/ CO~71~NT ROTe QOTICC OF e~LrCTlOft aY LaNO SEE DETAIL MilIeII'II'N IJ DETAIL "C" KT.t · IS'3ref'll Ill DETAIL "A" NT.·. 'RAINT SEE C I I*.~'l!*f l S?'3f'14*t a,l#' II'tl° 1 ,IN. SHEET ii,af,erE .rJe // &.3H.Mo ,feeit: f .tO0' I OF I' SHEETS DETAIL' "~1" ILT. I I# I ~ II.N' OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR ROAD AND SURVEY P DE ARTH Ivan E Tennant ACTING ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR May 17, 1990 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER MAILING ADDRESS: P,O, BOX 1090 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 (714} 275-6880 TO:. County Counsel FROM: Transportation Department Plan Check Section Re: Tract No 23371-5 The following are hereby submitted to your office for approval as to form: Agreements Bond No. Amount Streets XXX 7900 532468 S191,500 Water XXX 7900 532468 S 82,000 Sewer XXX 7900 532468 S 80,000 Monuments XXX 7900 532471 $ 30,000 Material and Labor XXX 7900 532468 S176,750 Taxes 7900 532466 S 66,200 Traffic Signal Mitigation Agreement 7900 532474 S 11,100 The amounts in the agreements and bonds have been checked by this office and are correct as shown above. Developer for this tract: Margarita Village Development Co. 16935 Bernardo Drive, Suite #200 San Diego, Ca. 92127 Bonding Company: ArJ.IED Mutual Insurance Company P.O. Box 1820 La Mesa, Ca 92044 Attachments By: Khaled A. Othman, P.E. Sr. Civil Engineer PLEASE C~TJ. THIS OFFICE WHEN READY Extension - 56763 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER * 4080 LEMON STREET * RJVER.qlDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 ~IDB CO13f~ ROAD IM%~ELX~/TRACT MO. 23371-5 DATE 4/18/90 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS Rtreets and ar,(naqe S 191,500 Water S82,000 Sewer S80,000 TOta .1 S3 53,500 MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY S 95,750 S 41,000 S 40,000 S 176,750 ,Maintenance Retention ( 10% ) for *(or Bonds if work is completed) Monument Security Inspection Feez (Offsite Improvements) Fee paid to date (Credit) Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee County Traffic Signing and Striping Costs Total Inspection Fees Due RCFC Drainage Fee Due Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD # 9 Road and Bridge Benefit Fee one year $ 35,350 $ 30,000 $ 51.038.71 $11,100.00 $ $17,675 $ 5,400 $12,275 $ 608 $ 12.883 **** PLP~E READ INS~RUCTICI~S BELOW 1. Securities in the amount of $5,000 or less for improvements and $2,500 or less for payment of taxes must be cashiers check or Money Order. 2. Fill in mane at top of the agreement and complete last paragraph of each agreement with name and address of developer under "Contractor". PLEASE DO NOT DATE AM. 3. All securities must be either bonds, instruments of credit, letters of credit or cashiers check. 4. All bonds, instruments of credit, and letters of credit must be on County Forms. DONUTRE-TYPE FORMS. If forms are duplicated, they must be printed on both sides. 5. All signatures must be notarized on white copy of agreements and on all securities. 6. Submit evidence of authority to sign. 7. Unit prices are updated periodically. Bond estimates are subject to change. 8. Please fill out additional sheet with names and personal residence addresses for each person signing agreements and securities. 9. Do not use Carbon paper on white copy. IT IS THE C8IGINAL :IiVE:DiDE councu. PLAnninG DEPA:IClTIEnC DATE: November 23, 19S8 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT HAP NO. 23371 Amd. 1 E. A. N L!IB ER: 32546 REGIONAL TEAM NO. Specific Plans leam Dear Applicant: The Riverside County Board of ~pervisors has taken the following action on the above referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of 11-8-88 .. x 'APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions. DENIED tentative map based on attached findings. APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map. The tract map has been found to be consistent with all pertinent elements of the Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California .Environmental quality Act of 1970. .h--e--pr~d~c..t will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declara ion has See~i-.-adopte . ~ ~.y--~ /~~ dour .' t h hf A conditionally appro~ d tentative Tract map shall expire ~months after the approval at t.. · ' ." !~ ~'-'.' ;~.,.. ;.. ,, ' .. - ~, ~,~ ." · . time. Application shall;'; beJ~F~"~:j~i~he Planning 6~e[i~~¥tY (30) days prior o t e expirati ~ date of the ten~i:a~p-:~.' 7~ ~'~ ,~~/~'~'~a'y extend the peri ~ for ~ ' at' n';a sc a.' " .... / RIVERSIDE COUNTY ROAD & SURVEY DEPARTMENT RG :nip RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director I<on 5old~nan, Principal Planner FILE- WHITE APPLICANT - CANARY ENGINEER - PINK 295-39 (gx~:v. 10183) 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 * OUBMflTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPER ,ORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~i FROM: Planning Department SUBMITtAL DATE: November 8, 1988 SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE and TENTATIVE TRACTS located in the "~-/ Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1) - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - Rancho California Zoning Area. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Receive and File the Planning Con~nission action of 9-28-88 and 10-5-88 for APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. 1, 23373 Amended No. 1, 23470 and 23471 and Tracts 22915, 22916, 23100 Amended No. 1, 2310~ 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1. Ro~, Streeter, Planning Director Prey. Agn. tel. Depts. Comments Dist. AGENDA NC FORM RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 5-2, 5-3,.5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE I - TAPE 6, SIDE 1) VESTING TRACT MAP 23373 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32548 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 348 units - 31± acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23371 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32546 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, east of Margarita Rd - 1183 units - 398~ acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT 23372 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32547 - Margarita Village Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisorial Districts - north of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 469 units on 66 lots - 44± acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A The hearings were opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32548, EA 32546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesting Tract ~ps 23373 Amended No. 1, 23371 Amended No. I and 23372 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions. Ms. Gifford also recommended approval of a waiver of the length to width ratio' for Vesting Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. The subject tract maps were located within Village A of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, and would create 1763 residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the adopted specific plan. Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purviance asked about a fiscal impact report, and was informed this report had been furnished recently for Amendment No. 1 to the specific plan. Jim Resney, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the development, advising they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement community which included a championship golf course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse · facility in the center of the project. He then referred to Condition 33{f) for all three tract maps, which required front yards to be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation, and requested that this requirement deleted for larger lots, as it was his opinion that these homeowners would prefer..to do their own landscaping. The CC&Rs would require them to comply with specific standards. Mr. Resney requested that this condition be amended by adding to the end "or shall be installed within 75 days after close of escrow as provided in the CC&Rs in the 45x100 square foot lot areas". Road Department Condition 21 for Tract ~p 23371 and Condition 14 for the other two tract maps required a debris retention wall where block walls were required at the top of slopes. Mr. Resney requested that this condition be amended by adding: "If applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Road Commissioner that a Master Homeowners Association or other entity will satisfactorily maintain the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, at his option, waive this requirement of a debris retention wall." He thought that if they could convince the Road Commissioner that there would be no silting problems and that the slopes would be maintained, the debris retention wall would not 53 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt it would be better not to have the small wall. Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and Condition 15 for the other two tract maps related to the minimum 30 foot garage setback from face Of curb. Mr. Resney felt this condition conflicted with the specific plan development standards which allowed 16 foot driveways with roll up doors, setback either from the back of curb or the back of sidewalk. He would prefer to have the specific plan standards applied, but requested that the hearings not be continued. ¢ Lee Johnson advised the slump wall delineated in Road Department Condition 21 was a wall they had been requiring for the past three or four years when the Planning Department required a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on the size of the slope, the Road Department Design Engineer could require a two block high wall at the property line to keep the debris washing down the slope from crossing the sidewalk. They would be willing to consider any other alternative the developer might suggest, as long as it accomplished the purpose of this condition. He requested that this condition be retained. Commissioner Donahoe asked whether adding to the e'nd "or as approved by the Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provide an alternative plan, and Mr. Johnson agreed that it would. Mr. Johnson advised the garage setback required by Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 23371 {Condition 15 for Tracts 23372 and 23373} was the minimum setback required by Ordinance 460. He had read the language requested by the applicant, but would prefer to retain the condition as originally proposed in the Road Department letter. Mr. Resney explained they had been discussing the possibility of providing a 4 foot sidewalk, and would like to have a 24 foot setback rather than the 26 foot setback required by this condition. However, if the Road Department preferred the existing language, they would accept it. Mr. Johnson advised the condition would not alter the width of the sidewalk in any way. Commissioner Beadling referred to Mr. Resney's request that front yard land- scaping and irrigation not be required for the larger lots, and stated she felt they should be required for all lots. Mr. Goldman requested that the condition be retained as originally written. There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. i and 23373 Amended No. I are located within Village A of the Margarita Village Specific Plan {No. 199}; the three tract maps will provide 1763 dwelling units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372 Amended No. I has been conditioned with the specific plan's condition of approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan 199, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio will be needed for Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202, and the initial 54 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts have been found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan {as amended by CGPA 150), Change of Zone Case 5107, and Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 460 and 348. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Donahoe, seconded by Commissioner Bresson and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted t.~e negative declarations for EA 32546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23371 Amended No. I with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, 23372 Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions ahd the recommendations of staff. Tract No. 23371 9 - Amend to reflect the September 30, 1988 Road Department letter. 23{2} and 23{3) - Amend to require the developer to comply with the parkway landscaping requirements as shown in Specific Plan No. 199 Amended No. 1 unless maintenance is provided by a homeowners association or other public entity. 26 - Delete the last sentence ("The final map for Vesting Tract 23371 shall show the park as a numbered lot"}. 33{c) - Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, except for the clubhouse which may have screened equipment as approved by the Planning Department; however, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices sha] 1 be permitted with Planning Department approval. Condition 34{a} for Tracts 23371, 23372, and 33{a} for Tract 23373 Add "and may be phased with the project". (to clarify that walls may be phased with the development of the tract. Condition 33{d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372, and 32(d} for Tract 23373 Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less 'than ten feet unless approved by the Department of Building and Safety and the Fire Department per Specific Plan 199 Amended No. 1. 34{e} for Tracts 23371, 23372 and 33{e} for Tract 23373 - Delete Road Department Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373 Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Department" 55 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEM 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SIDE I - TAPE 1, SIDE 1) TRACT MAP 23100 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32318 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 291 lots - 122.5± acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23101 - EA 32533 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - east of Kaiser Pkwy, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87± acres - SP/R-2-6000 Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23102 - EA 32534 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - north of La Serena Way, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.42 acres - SP/R-1 Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23103 AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 32535 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho CalifDrnia/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 18 lots - 292 acres - SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A The hearings were opened at 9:49 a.m. and closed at 10:08 a.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32318, 32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps were located within Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan, and would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and the zoning which had been applied to the specific plan through Change of Zone Case 5107. Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relating to requirements for maintenance of the open space areas, park requirements, useable yard areas, and fencing requirements. tlr. Klotz suggested modifying the last condition for each tract map by beginning with the phrase "Develop(nent of the". Commissioner Bresson requested that changes be made throughout to refer to either "public use trails" or "recreational trails" instead of "equestrian trails"; he felt these terms would more accurately describe their use. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as amended. It was his understanding that in the event any portion of the development agreement was held to be invalid {for any reason), the conditions requiring compliance with that agreement would be null and void; this was confirmed by County Counsel. There was no further testimony, and the hearings were closed at 10:08 a.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I are located within Village B of the Margarita RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Village Specific Plan; the four tract maps would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots; the tract maps have been conditioned in accordance with the specific plan's conditions of approval to mitigate impacts on the Stephens Kangaroo Rat; the tract maps have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a waiver for the lot length to width ratio will be needed for Tract 23103 Amended No. 1. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts have been found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract maps conf6rm to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. The proposed projects will not have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative declarations for EA 32318, EA 32533, EA 32534 and EA 32535, and approved Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. Tract Map 23100 Amended No. 1 22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association}. 23. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract 23100,.the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended No. 1. 24. Replace with the standard'alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 37(b)*, Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 38. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. I shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. i and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Map 23101 17{h) Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average flat area of 2000 square feet. 22. Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association}. 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 23. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract 23101, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended No. 1. 24. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-2B of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. ' / 3B. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall comply with all rovisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development greement No. 5 Tract Map 23102 21. Amend to conform with Condition 33 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association. 33. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 35{b} Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 36. The development Of Tentative Tract No. 23102 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Map 23103 Amended No. I 21. Amend to conform to Condition 22 (to provide for ~aintenance of the -common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Homeowners Association. 34(a) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-2B of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. 1 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 1-3 AND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE 1 - TAPE 1, SIDE 1) TRACT MAP 22916 - EA 32505 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 259 lots - 103.3± acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 22915 - EA 32504 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho Vista Rd, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 lots - 91.6± acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23471 - EA 32518 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 155 lots = 44± acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A VESTING TRACT MAP 23470 - EA 32517 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - north of Rancho Vista Rd, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Schedule A The hearings were opened at 10:10 a.m. and closed at 11:10 a.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 subject to the proposed conditions, and a waiver of the lot length to width ratio for all four tract maps. These four tract maps were located in Village C of Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots, provide a 10 acre school site, a 5 acre park site and 3 tot lots. Staff had found the proposed maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, the adopted specific plan, and the zoning which had been applied to the property through Change of Zone Case 5107. Ms. Gifford recommended several changes to the conditions of approval; these changes related to the minimum lot size, lot length to width ratio requirements, park requirements, landscaping/irrigation requirements, and a requirement for development of the tract maps in accordance with the adopted specific plan and approved development agreement. Commissioner Beadling questioned Ms. Gifford's recommendation for deletion of the conditions for Tract Maps 23470, 22915 and 22916 requiring landscaping and irrigation. Ms. Gifford explained these three tentative maps proposed minimum 7200 square foot lots and the County did not normally require landscaping and irrigation for lots of this size. Mr. Streeter felt this condition could be retained, as it was County policy to require landscaping and irrigation for 7200 square foot lots in the Rancho California area. Robert Ktmble, representing the applicant, advised they would prefer not to provide the front yard landscaping and irrigation, and requested that the condition be deleted. Commissioner Beadling asked whether Mr. Kimble had seen the letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Pipher objecting to the density proposed in the area adjacent to their estate type homes. At her request, Mr. Kimble located Mr. Pipher's subdivision which was next to Rancho Vista Road. They were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for this area. Ms. Gifford advised the tract map was a refiling of a previously RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 approved map, and there was no change in the density; the proposed tract map was within the density range allowed by the specific plan. Commissioner Beadling quoted from the letter, which requested that the density be reduced to the density originally proposed by the specific plan. She wanted to know what this density was, and was informed there had been no change in the density. Mr. Kimble requested that Condition 4 of the Flood Control District's letter for Tract 23471 be deleted. This condition required maintenance ramps in the Long Canyon Channel; these ramps were not needed because they had desi ned this channel for their underlying map wit 4:1 slopes. Mr. Lotz agree~ the toh deletion of this condition. Mr. Kimble then requested that Road D~partment Condition 26 for Tract 22915 and Condition 28 for Tract 22916 be amended by adding to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner"; Mr. Johnson agreed to this change for both tract maps. Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and developed prior to the issuance of building permits for 150 units, and Mr. Kimble requested that this condition be amended to require the Vyrk prior to the issuance of occupancy for the 259th lot. Providing the ful improved ' park prior to 150 units would be a burden to the developer. Ms. Gifford advised Mr. Kimble's request would delay completion of the park until after the entire tract had been completed; staff felt 150 units would afford the applicant an opportunity to build some units, and at that point the improve- ments could be tied into road improvements. The park would also be useful for the tract to the north, which was being developed by the same developer. Mr. Kimble requested clarification of the new condition staff had suggested for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Mr. Goldman explained this condition referred back to the specific plan condi- tions, which required either a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply with the Countywide program being established by Riverside County. Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was actively involved with the task force'appointed by the Board of Supervisors regarding the Stephens Kangaroo Rat program. There was no set program at the present time, and he wanted to know whether they would be charged the $750 per lot fee, or whether they would be held up until a specific program was estab- lished. He did not want to be dela ed, as they would be read to pull build- ing permits within the next few wee{s. Mr. Klotz explained ~e Board had generally endorsed the concept of having a developer make a deposit of $750 per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted; this would allow the project to go forward. He felt this option would be available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily the ultimate fee, but was onl a security to be deposited a~ainst the ultimate mitigation fee. This explanation satisfied Mr. Dudonay s concerns. Mr. Kimble advised it was their understanding that in the event Development Agreement No. 5 should be held invalid at some time in the future, the approval of the four tract maps would still stand, but the condition for 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 compliance with the development agreement would be null and void. Mr. advised this was explicitly provided within the development agreement. OPPONENTS: K1 otz Bob Pipher, 41825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advised the development in which he lived {known as Green Tree} contained approxim..tely 96 acres and he and his wife owned approximately one-third of this property..They had submitted the letter requesting that the portions of the subject tract maps adjacent to their area be required to create lots similar in size. Mr. Pipher had a map of the Margarita Village Specific Plan dated March 30, 1986, which showed the density in this area to be approximately half of the density currently ~roposed. Mr. Pipher advised this was an equestrian area, and people residing in the area needed riding trails. He requested a connecting trail from Pauba to Rancho Vista along the boundary between their subdivision and the subject development or along Kaiser Parkway; this would provide an additional landscaped buffer area. Mr. Pipher advised they had no problem with the proposed school site, but felt the circulation system proposed to serve the school was inadequate. In his opinion, Street "B" should be extended to Kaiser Parkway; this would then provide access to both the school site and the park from Kaiser Parkway. At the present time there was a steady flow of traffic, and providing an access to the park site and school from Kaiser Parkway would help everyone in the area, in addition to making the park more accessible. Because of the traffic on Kaiser Parkway, Mr. Pipher thought it would be difficult for people living on the other side to reach the park. He therefore suggested that one or two ~arks be required on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, to benefit residents in hat area. Mr. Pipher requested a solid wall along the boundary between their development request nga and the subject project. The people residing in this area were i buffer, and would appreciate anything the Commissioners could do to help there was no street between the area he was representing and u ite; the lots from the subject tract map were backing up against the lots in his subdivision. When Mr. Pipher again requested equestrian trails, Ms. Gifford briefly reviewed the proposed trail system, which included a trail along Rancho California Road, going up the Kaiser Parkway and WMD easement; no trails were proposed in the southern area as requested by Mr. Pipher. Commissioner Bresson requested that these trails be designated as public access or recreational trails instead of equestrian trails. Mr. Burnell advised that an equestrian trail had been established all along Pauba Road, going east and west, and there was a north/south trail in the Metropolitan Water District easement going by the school administration site, along Rancho California Road to Kaiser Parkway. The residents of the Green Tree area could use the trail along Pauba, which connected to the trail along Green Tree Lane. This was a regional trail system, established under the direction of the Parks Department. 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Commissioner Bresson requested information on the type of buffer to be provided. Mr. Burnell advised there would be masonry walls in the area north and south of Rancho Vista Road; he thought this would satisfy Mr. Pipher's concerns. Mr. Burnell advised the Margarita Village Specific Plan had originally been approved with a slightly higher density in this area. They had added land with the amended specific plan but had not changed densities in the area of the subject tract maps. The exhibit presented by Mr. Pipher was a conceptual exhibit prepared by the engineer for internal use only and had never been presented to the County. Mr. Kimble responded to Mr. Pipher's request for an additional park on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, by advising Costain Homes was providing a park planned for Tract 22715 to the north; they were planning to upgrade both parks over and above the requirements of the specific plan. Commissioner Donahoe asked whether staff was recommending that a condition be added to require the wall as a buffer between the subject tract maps and the area represented by Mr. Pipher, and was informed this was a condition of the specific plan. Lee Johnson referred to Mr. Pipher's sug estion that "B" Street be extended to Kaiser Parkway, and advised both he and 3ohn Johnson {Transportation Planning Section of the Road Department) felt this was an excellent recommendation. Circulation in this area might be improved by making this connection rather than having the school served by a cul-de-sac street. This would also give both the school and the park site access from a 66 foot wide street. When Commissioner Bresson asked whether this could be accomplished without redesigning the map, Mr. Johnson replied he felt the map would have to be amended. Mr. Streeter felt this provide a much better access.. Commissioner Beadling felt that a long cul-de-sac street going into a school was poor planning, as it required the cars and school busses bringing in children to wrap around and come-back out the same way. Extending the street would allow the vehicles to drop off the children and go out a different way. Commissioner Bresson was concerned about creating a 4-way intersection, and Mr. Johnson agreed that a 3-way intersection created les~ problems. However, he still felt that providing access to Kaiser Parkway would result in better circulation service to the school site. Mr. Burnell did not feel it was necessary to extend "B" Street to Kaiser Park- way in order to provide adequate circulation for the school. He was concerned that the change in the roadway might cause problems with regard to the sewer lines. Mr. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-way intersection at Kaiser Parkway; he felt retaining the existing 3-way intersection would provide an overall better circulation system for residents of the area. Commissioner Bresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because it would not encourage through traffic along the school site. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there would be less opportunity to eventually obtain signalization for a 3-way intersection than for a 4-way intersection. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Mr. Kimble advised they had met with the school district and showed them the tentative map; they were pleased with the configuration of the school site as well as the proposed street system. Mr. Burnell advised their original design showed the school/park site adjacent Kaiser Parkway, and the school district had objected to this plan because they did not want the children adjacent to a major street. Commissioner Bresson supported the tract map as currently designed, as it was satisfactory to the school district. There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 11:10 a.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 22915, and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 are located within Village C of Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. I (the Margarita Village Specific Plan}; the four tract maps would divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots; design manuals have been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps have been conditioned to comply with Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a waiver for the lot length to width ratio will be needed for all four maps. All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIR 107, EIR 202, and the initial studies for these tract maps, and no significant impacts were found; the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 and Change of Zone Case 5107; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. MOTION: Upon ni~ ion adopted the negative Beadling and u u declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved Tentative Tract Maps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract Maps 32470 and 23471, all with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions and based on 'the above findings and conclusions and the recommenda- tions of staff. Tract No. 23470 17(a) - All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net. 17(b)':- Delete entirely 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units, one tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 21 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 275 units, the second tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 27 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same} 36 - The development of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23470 shall comply with its Design Manual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and with Development Agreement No. 5 Tract No. 23471 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 200 units, one tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 26 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same) 32(f) - All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and manually operated, permanent underground irrigation. Flood Control Condition 4 - Delete entirely 35 - The development of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23471 shall'comply with its Design Manual, with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and with Development Agreement No. 5 Delete Condition 4 of the Flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988. Tract No. 22915 24 - Prior to the issuance of building permits {balance to remain the same} 32 - The development of Tentative Tract Map 22915 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5 Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner". Tract No. 22916 2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratio. 20 - Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 150 units in Tentative Tract 22916, the park shall be fully improved and developed. 25 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same} 32 --The development of Tentative Tract )lap 23916 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5 33 - Prior to issuance of grading permits, impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat shall be mitigated per the specific plan conditions of 'approval. Road Department Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner". 10 Zoning Area: Rancho California Supervtsortal District: First and Third E.A~ Nos: 32546, 32547, 32548 Specific Plan Sectton Vesting Tentative Tract Nos.: 23371Amd. No. 1, 23372 Amd. No. 1, 23373 Amd. No. 1 Planning Commission: I0-5-88 Agenda Item No.: 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 I/VERSIDE IX)IJR'TIr PLARNING DEPAR~ · STAFF IEI~tT e 0 S, 0 Appl t cant: Engineer: Type of Request: Location: EXisting Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Site Characteristics: Area Charactertsttcs: Comprehensive General Plan 10. Land Division Data: Vesting Tract 23371 Amd. No. 1 23372 Amd. No. 1 23373 Amd. No. I Acreage 394 37 31 Hargartta Village Development Co. Rick Engineering Company The 3 tracts will subdivide 472 acres into 1763 residential units East of Margarita Road, north of Rancho California Road R-R (Change of Zone 5107 heard by the Board of Supervisors on 9-13-88 proposes SP 199 Amd. No. I zoning). Zoning to the north and west is R-4, A-2-20, R-R, R-l; Zoning to the south is R-R Vacant land traversed with low hills Located on eastern edge of Rancho California communit) Rancho Villages (General Plan Amendment No. 150 proposes a general pl an dest nation of Specific Plan No. 199 Ameniment No. 1) Units Density (Du/Ac) 1183 3 232 6 348 11 ~!. Agenc~ Recommendations: 23371 ~d. No. I 23372 Amd. No. 1 23373 Amd. No..1 Road 9-22-88 3-22-88 9-22-B8 Heal th 7-25-88 9-7-88 7-25-88 Flood 7-22-88 7-22-88 7-22-88 Ft re 8-17-88 8-17-88 8-17-88 Sher~ ff 6-10-88 6-10-88 6-10-88 12. Letters: None received as of this writing 13. Sphere of Znfluence Znfluence Not wtthin a City sphere ANALYSIS: Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 23371Amd. No. 1, 23372 Amd. No. 1, and 23373 Amd. No. I implement Village as a planned retirement cormunity in the Margarita Vtllage Specific Plan (SP 199 Amd. No. 1) Spectftc Plan No. 199'Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5107, General Plan knendment No. 150 and Development Agreement No. 5 were heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1988. These tracts have been designed to be consistent with these documents. The table below summarize the tracts' relationship and consistency ~th the Specific Plan's planning areas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the permitted number of residential units. COHPARISOR OF TRACTNI) SPECIFIC PLAR [NE1,LI!IG tINITS Tract No. Proposed Specific Plan N f o. o Units Area Pemttted No. of Untts VTT 23372 Amd. No. I 1183 33-37, 42-45 1197 VTT 23372 Amd. No. I 232 41 234 V1T 23373 Amd. No. I 348 38 348 TT~ I77~ A design manual has been prepared for a11' three vesting maps which provides guidelines for landscaping, floor 1arts, elevations and zonlng. Acoustical studies have been proposed and w~l~ be Implemented as required by the conditions of approval. Mittgatlon for potential Impacts to Mr. Palomar are also included in the conditions of approval. Additional evaluation found no cultural resources onsite. Vesting Tentative Tract 23371, Amended No. I tncludes an 18 hole golf course. As also required by the speclfic plan conditions, the tract has been condtttoned to tmprove the park tn Planntng Area 45. In conformance with the specific ~an Vesting Tentative Tract 23372, Jimended No. I has been condttioned for mlttgatton of tmpacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. It should be noted that the number of units for congregate care are on estimate and will be reviewed at the development plan stage. Environmental assessments have been prepared on all three tracts. Environmental impacts ~epe assessed tn EIR 107 and EIR 202 prepared for the Rancho Vtllage Specific Plan and the 14argartta Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluation has been provided by the reports prepared for the spectftc plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for the three tracts. No significant environmental impacts have been found. F/NDI~: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 ~nended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1 ape located in Vtllage A of the Nargarita Village Specific Plan. 2. The three tracts will provide 1763 dwelling units and golf course open space on ~54 164 acres. (Amended by Planning Commission 10-5-88) 3. Tract 23372 ~ended No. I has been condittoned per the Specific Plan's condition of approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. 4. The tracts have been condtttoned to comply wtth Specific Plan No. 199, Change of Zone No. 5107 and Development Agreement No. 5. 5. A waiver for length to width ratio will be needed fo Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. CONCLUSIOMS: All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202 and the initial studies for these tracts and no significant impacts have been found. 2. The tracts are consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 150 Change of Zone No. 5107, and Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1. 3. The tracts conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. RECOI~DIDATIORS .- ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for EA Hoe. 32546, 32547, 32548 on a finding that the projects will not have a significant effect on the environment. APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1 subject to the attached conditions of approval. KG:mcb:mp RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL o VESTING TEMTATIVE TRACT NO. 23371 AMENDED NO. I STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. 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 concernin Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1, which action is brought agout within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 6649g.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to pr.emptly 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. i-~ 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and Ordinance 460. Se The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of But.lding and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Oepartment of Butldtng and Safety. The h - plan shall comply with t e Uniform Butldtng Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these co ditions of approval. n Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 2337Z knended No. Z Page 2 A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Sa ety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. Rny delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall comply wtth the street improvement recommendations outlined fn the Riverside County Road Department's letter.dated g-;2-88 9-30-88 a copy of ~hich ts attached. (Amended by Plannlng Commission I0-5-88) Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. Al1 road easements shall be offered for dedication to the publtc and shall continue tn force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved the Road Comntsstoner. Street names shall be subject to approval of e Rod Commissioner. a Easementst when utilities, etc., within the land conveyances shall Surveyor. required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, shall be show~ on the final map if they are located division boundary. All offers of dedication and be submitted and recorded as directed by the County ~ter and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be installed to accordance with the provisions set forth tn the Riverside County Health bepartment's letter dated 7-25-B8a copy of which ts attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County find Control Otstrtct's letter dated 7-22-88 a copy of whtch (s attached. Zf the land dtviston lies within an adopted flood control dratnage area pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of .Ordinance 460 a propflare fees for the construction of area drainage facilities sha~l ~ collected by the Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall c~mply with' the fire improvement recommendations outlined In the County Ftre llirshal's letter dated 8-17o81 a copy of which ts attached. tdubdtvts¶on phastng, Including any proposed common open space area t app 1cable, shall be subject to Planntng Improvement phasin , Department approval. ~n ~ y p oposed phasing shall provtde for adequate vehicular access to 811 lots tn each phase, and shall substantially confom to the tntent and purpose of the subdivision approval, L Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23371 knended No. 1 Page 3 17. Lots created by thts subdivision shall comply with the followlng: e. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be rovtded with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 465 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. b. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 ZOne. c, When lots are crossed by major public uttllty easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easement. d. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or rovtded with other erosion controq measures as approved by the ~irector of Building and Safety. ee Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. Prior to RECORDATION of the ftnal map the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordatton of the final mp the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met. Couaty Fire Department; CMI~' Flood Control C his Departament I~'l~'~:Munictpal Water Dfst. County . Rmncho Miter District Prior to the recordatton of the final map, General Plan Amendment 150, S~ctftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1, Development Agreement No. 5, and Change of Zone No. 5107 shall be approved by the Board of. Su 1sots nd shall be effective. Lots created by this land dtv~ston sha~l be in conformance with the development s andards of the t zone ultimately applted to the property. Condt ttons of Approval Tentative Tract No, 23371 Amended No, 1 Page 4 19, All extsttng structures on the subject property shall be removed prtor to recordatton of the ftnal map, 20. lhe:.~Ommmn n space area shall be shown is a mmbered lot m ,tbeffinal '. mmp:;~ shalle~ menaged by a ester property owners* essoctation~ ~- ,; ," '.. 2i. Prior, to recordation of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall tte which documents shall be subject o h approval of artment and~ the Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and 2) A sample document conveyed title to the purchaser' of an individual lot~ or unit which provides that the declaraUon of covenants, conditions . end restrictions is Incorporated therein by reference, ..~.!!.~. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted review shall (a) provide for a minimum tem of 60 years, . (b) provtde:~ t comprised of the,, for the establishment of a property owners' assoc atton owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the con~non and (d) contatn to following provisions verbatim: · Nothwtthstandtng any provision in thts Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: '- The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', mre particularly described on Exhibit 'III-17' of the specific plan attached hereto, and shall not sell or'transfer the 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of. Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property owner's association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unlt for the reasonable .cost'of maintaining the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the -property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of .a · h maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, s all be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice ~of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien, This Declaration shall not be terminated 'substantially' amended or ropetry deannexed therefrom absent the prTor written consent of the ~lanntng Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest- A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of. the 'common area'. Conditions of Approval Tentathe Tract No. 23371/mended No. 1 Page 5 in the event of any conrltct beteen this Declaration and the Artkles ' the Bylaws or the propart o~ners' assochtton Rules. Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and shall be recorded at the same ttme that the final map ts recorded. 22..l~q~'::-:.to reconlat(on of the final map, ~,lea~"lhall IktPI/l~ltt~nilterl}tstr(ct relative to the protection of applicable easements affecting the subject property, Lot line adjustments shall also be completed. The developer shall comply ~th the following parkway landsca tng ~equtrements as sho~ tn Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 unless maintained by a HOA or other public enttty: (Amended by Planning 1) Prtor to recordatton of the final map the developer shall file an application w~th the County for the formation of or annexat~ion' to, a parkway matnt. enance dtstrtct for Vesttng Tentative Tract No. 23371 Amended No. 1 tn accordance w~th the Landscaping and Lighttrig Act of 1972, unless the project ts wtthtn an extst(ng parkway maqntenance. 2) Prior to the issuance of butldtng pemtts, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and Irrigation plans from the County Road and Planntng Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and'specifications shall be prepared tn a reproducible format suitable fop permanent filing wtth the County Road Department. 3) The developer shall post a landscapa perfon~ance bond ~htch shall be h of subdivision performance' released concurrently N(th t e release bonds, quaranteeing the vtabtltty of all landscaping ~htch ~11 be - installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. ." 4) The developer,' the developar's successors-in-interest or assigneeS; shall be responsible for ali park~a~ landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the d(str~ct. :.: The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of 811 slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as. those o erattons are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the P~annlng Director, ;.::!!.:. Street lights shall be provided ~thin the subdivision in accordance' ~4th the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: / Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23371 Amended No. 1 Page 6 1) Concurrently with the filtng of subdivision improvement plans with Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed ~:.,. street light layout first from the Road Department's traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor. .,' 2) Following approval of the street lighting layout by' ~he~ Road' Department's traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an application with LAFCO for the formation of a street lighting district, or annexation to an existing lighting district, unless the,' site is within an existing lighting district. 3) Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer. shall secure''~' conditional approval of the street lighting application from LAFCO, unless the site ts within an existing lighting district;' 4)** 411 street lights and other outdoor lighting shall'be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety: for pl an check approval and she11 comply wtth the requtrements ** of:- Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County. Comprehensive General Plan. 61 The park area {Planning Area No. 45) of the specific plan shall be improved along with all road improvements prior to the issuance of building permits for 800 dwelling units in Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. The n ng Commission lO-5-BB) 27, Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prior to the issuance of. grading permits, detailed common open space area parking 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.. 1) Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. 2) Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque toe minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. 3) 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. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23371 Amended No. t Page'7 8. ge 4) Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth bemtng, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering stdewal ks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where appropriate as epproved by the Planning Department and Specific Plan No. 199 A~n~ndment No. 1. 5) Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points wtthtn the project. 6) Where streets trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, -: they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way. 7) Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. 8) All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject pro erty shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall note tKose to be removed, relocated and/or retained. 9) All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 10. Parking layouts shall comply with Ordinance 348, Section 18.12. All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall 'be reiDcared or replaced with s actmen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees sha~l be noted on approved landscaping plans. If'the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading. permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: *' 1) Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentatton during and after the grading process. .2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which ~aybe graded during the higher probability rain mnths of January hrough Narch. 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23371 Amended No. 1 Page 8 4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: A1 cut and/or ftll slopes, or tndtvidua combinations therof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height sha~l be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan, increase slo ratio it.e., 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined wttKetrrtgatton. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical heights shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: 1) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. 2)' Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. 3} The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. 4) Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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, redtract or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERHITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: In accordance with the written request of the developer to the County of Riverside, a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the the County of Riverside, no agreement between the evelo and building ermtts ~ Riverside for shall be sued by the County of any parcels w~thtn the subject tract until the developer, or the develo er's successors-in-interest provided evidence of compliance with ~e of td Development Agreement No. 5 for the financing terms sa of public facilities. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23371/mended No. :~ Page 9 tfith the submittal of butldtng plans to the Department of Building and Safety the developer wtll demonstrate compliance wtth the acoustical study prepared for Vesttn Tentative Tract 2337:Z Amended No. t which established appropriate mitigation measures to reduce ambient tritertot no(s, levels to 45 Ldn and exterior nots, levels below 65'Ldn. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted wtthtn the subdivision, except for the clubhouse whlch may have screened equipment as approved by Plannfng Director. However Solar equipment or any other energy savtng devices shall be permitted with Planntng Department approval. (Amended by Planntng Commission ~0-5-88) d. Building separation between ali bufldings Including fireplaces shall not be less than ten {lO) feet unless approved by Department of · ' Building and Safety and Fire Department per S ectftc Plan No. t99 hnendment No. Z. (Amended by Planning sston ~-5-88) Commi e. A11 street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. f. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic t rrtgatt on. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the final building inspection approval, by the Butldtng and Safety De artment, walls shall be constructed along Kaiser Parkway and Rancho California Road, La Serena Nay, Kaiser Park Way and ~rgarita Road per the Design ~nual. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safty and the Planning Director and ma be phased within the project ~Ainended b~Planntng Commission %0-5-88~, Wall and/or fence locations shall conform to attached Figure III-17 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. c. All landscaping and trrtgatto~ shall be Installed tn accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. if seasonal -conditions do not permit planting, interim landsca tng and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the P~;nnlng Director and the Director of Building and Safety. d. M1 parklng landscaping and Irrigation shall be ~nstalled in accordance ~th approved plans and shall be verified by a Planntng Department field inspection. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23371 Amended No. 1 Page 10 e,--CeR6rete--s4dewalks-skaql-be-~emstr~ed-thre~ghe~-the-svbd4v4s4~R-4~ eccerdanee-w~th-the-sta~ar~s-ef-gr~(aamee-46~-a~d-Spe~f46--Pl~--Ne- 3gg-Ame~dmeR¢-Ne=-{= (Delete b~ Planning Commission 10-5-88) f, Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision In accordance wtth the standards of 0rdtnance 460 and Spectftc Plah No. 199 Amendment No. 1 Developnent of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23371 Amended No. I shall comply wtth all prov(s~ons of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5. KG:mcb:mp LAND USE, $P 199 MARGARITA VILLAGE :s';~, ~- --~.I ""'~ .." ' !\ .,:~'..-..-..l_..~ - ::; VACANT ' VACANT ,,o. c,L. No. s~ ,.o. CAL. ,O ~ MAP IIO. 647 u&P NO. I01 HI~Y VACA~. !. RES LEGEND .... TRACT BOUNDARy N.A.P. N01 & PART C~. C~~ . ,-~ T': IliQ. titan I1 i // I .,AP iT. ,~.T. TRACT..~: VILLAGE 'B" ; '/r '~:,;~7'- ...." "' \ .- .,-,/.-- ... \" ' ./~.~ VIii. TENT. VIIACT '~/ ' ' ' ~. ~:4~4F ~33)'1 // VII/. 11N1. ',! V ,:I :;',~'~ . .,,/; |,"~:, ,. ,:,,~, ,,::,_,,,,:~,.v, LLAG,~ 'A-. -."'--,,_,, ;)' s~ T.c~l,. au. . · EXISTING ZONING I SP 199 '~,R-A-20 LeRoy D. Smoot IOd, D E:~Vq~U,~NII & COUNTY I, UIVIYOI OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR September 30, 1988 COUNI'¥ aDMINII?IIATiy[ CIN'~IR II&ll, IMI ADO111111 I%0. .01 telO IIIVIIIIIOIo Ce, lielp6lMl& IIlOl TIL'IEIII4ON! 11141 'II7,1114 RIverside County Planning Con~tssion 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Tract ~p 23371 - Amend #1 - Road Correction Schedule A - Team SP I~p #1 Ladles and Gentleran: Vtth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map. the Road I:)eparl~nent recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road*dedications in accordance with O~!nance 460 and RIverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 451). It ts understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that their mission or unacceptablltty may require the mp 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 be referred to the Road regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall Commfssfoner's Office. '. 1, The landdivider shall protect downstream properlies from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, t,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, A11 drainage easements shall be show~ on the final map and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachmania by land fills are allowed", The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department, 2, The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of. ell offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site, In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivlder shall provide adequate drainage" facilities as approved by the Road Department, , lract Map 23371 - Amend #1 - Ro. $~ptember 30, 1988 Page 2 Correction Map #1 MaJor drainage is Involved on this landdivision and Its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. Kaiser Parkway shall be Improved wtthtn the dedicated right of way tn accordance with County Standard No. 101, (38'/50'). La Serena Way shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, (32'/44'). Street "A', 'B' (from Street "C" to "D") shall be ImproVed as approved by the Road Commissioner. (66'/66'). Street "B' (from Street "D" to "E" and from Street "C' to La Serena Way) and Street "C" (from Street "B" to approximately 700' west of Kaiser Parkway) shall be improved in accordance with Madflied County Standard No. 103, Section A. (48'/48'). Street 'C" (700'~ westerly of Kaiser Parkway) shall be improved tn accordance with Hodifled County Standard No. 102, (60'/60'). Street "X", Street "B" (from Street "I" Wly), Street "HM" (from Street "B" to Street "SS") shall be Improved tn accordance with Hodtried County Standard No. 103, Section A. (44'/44'). Street "R", shall be improved tn accordance with Madifted County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/40'). 11. Streets "D" thru "H", "I", "J" thru 'Q", "S" thru "W", "Y" thru "DD" Street, "EE", Street "FF", "GG" thru 'LL", Street "HM" (from Street "SS" Sly), Streets "NN" thru "AAA" and two unnamed streets running between Street "B" and "BB" and between Street "B" and Street "CC" shall be Improved In accordance with Hodtiled County Standard No. 105, Section A. (36'/36'). -12. South General Kearny Road shall be Improved within the dedicated right of way tn accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. (22'/33'). The lenddivider shall provide utility clearance from Rmncho Calif. liter District prior to the recordatlon of the final map. 14. The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15, The minimum centerline radii' ~ha11 be es approved by the Road Department, e t6. Rancho Calif. Road End Mmrgarlta Road shall be Improved with .. concrete curb end gutter located 43 feet from centerline end match up asphalt concrete pavin; reconstruction; or resurfaclng of existing paving as determined by the Road Con~lssloner within a 55 foot half width dedicated right of way In accordance with County · Standard No. 100. 17. Prior to the filing of the final map with the Count)~ Recorder's Office, the developer shall provide evidence of continuous maintenance of all proposed private streets within the development as approved by the Road Co~nlssloner, 18. SIdewalks within the development shall'be as approved by the Road Commissioner. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet unless otherwise specified in the particular zoning classification. 20. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. A minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed between driveways. 21. When blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road Comma ss i oner. The minimum garage setback shallbe 30 feet measured from the face of curb. Should the developer provide evidence of roll up doors on the building plans, a reduction of 4' may be. allowed but in no case shall the garage be closer than 20 feet from back of sidewalk or curb in the absence of sidewalk. Prtnmrlr and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road main- tatned by the County shall be constructed within the public rl ht of way in accordance with County Standard No, 106, Section ~, 13Z'/ /60') at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Commissioner. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.OOper lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should , :Tr~ctipap Z3371- Amend I1-* 'Sep'~en~ber 30, lg88 Page 4 ad Correction Map #1 7e ~ develoFir choose to defer~J~ tim of pa~ent, he may enter into witten agreement with the Counter deferring said pa3nuent to the time of issuance of a butlding FirmIt. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending ·mtnfmum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road Improvements does not imply accept. IRce for maintenance by County. Electrical and connuntcatlons 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 aspl~alt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throghout the landdivision. Corner cutbacks in conformance wtth County Standard 14o. 805 shall be show~ on the final map and offered for dedication where applicable. Lot access shall be restricted on Rancho Callfornia.'Foad, Parlarita Road, Kaiser Parkway an~l La Serena ~f and so noted on the final map. Landdivtslons 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. Al1 centerline intersections shall be at The street design and Improvement concept of this proJecg shall be coordinated with TR 23372 and TR 23373. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the sulxlivtsfon. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator detemines ~hether ~his proposal qualifies under an TTa~tlqaP 23371 o Amend Jl - Road Correct(on ~p I1 m Sepia bar 30, 1988 Page S existing assessment district or not. Zf not, the land onset shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a "LIghting Assessment DIstrict" In accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. 35. All private and public entrances and/or Intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shom on the street Improvement plans. 36. A striping plan Is required for Rancho California Road. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsiblll~ of the applicant, Traffic signing and strlplng shall be done by County forces with all Incurred costs borne by the applicant. The main entrance gate shall be located a minimum of 160' from the flow line of Rancho California Road. GH:lh ~ Gus~aD~on~"Engine;~® County of Riverside July 2r~- 1988 ~IV[RSIDI~ COUNTY FL&NN;NG OEpM~T!~[NT DA~: Artfit Cathv G1ffor~ .~ ~OX, Tract 23371- ~nded No, I 1he [nvlronmentel Health Services has reviewed lract Itap 23371, Amended Nap · 8 s llo- I dated July Ig, 1988- Our current c~nts ~111 re, in a ~reviouslY stated In our letter dated June 13 198 , JUL 2 ? I~88 RIVERS: D~ CO~INTY PLA!;NI~ C~EPARTM,=,NT .'::COUNTY RIVERSIDE ' ' DEPARTMENTof HEALTH ..~,4~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street RIVEHSIUECOUNTy Riverside, CA 92502 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' &tan: Kathy Gifford Iammmm~ &svlai.&~4.. CA lieOil &ill ltlllllll Iltli fllAl!ll DIq. fillIll tllqrllltll LeNDIN RE; TRACT IKAP 23371: That certain land situated in the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside. State of California, being Parcels l, 2,3,4 and 5 of Parcel Hap 21884 as shown on k map thereof filed in Book 144. Pages 24 through 33 of Parcel Haps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County together with a portion of the Rancho Temecula granted by the Government of the United States of America to Luis Vignes by patent dated January 18, 3860 and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. California C1.02g Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Hap He. 23371 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company end the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum Wc,le 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 joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction cf the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. S, Part 1, Chapter ? of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. eweera: l~iverside County Planning Dept. Page T~o .. J~ttn: Kathy Gifford June 13, 1988 The plans shall be signed by · registered engineer and water company with the following certification: certify that the design of the water system in Tract Nap 23371 is accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service,storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract at -'any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company, This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District a~reeing 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 has a statement from the Eastern Hunicipal Water District agreeing to allow the s~bdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate. along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications a~d the size of the severs at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: 'I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract ~ap 2~71 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Nunicipal Water Dietr~ct and that the waste disposal system is adequate at Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Three JkTTN: Kathy Gifford June 23, 3988 this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract.' will be necessary for financial arranJements to be made pr~or to the recordation of the final map. , Sincerely, artinez: $r.~anitarian Environmental Health Services SM:tac II, el IIAIqKl'r ITRI;rT P. O. BOX IOll 'rIL. IPNONt (714) 717-1011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Riverside County Planning Department CountyAdministrative Center Riverside, CalSfornla 4mended No. I Me have revteued thts case and have the following comments: Except for nutsance nature local runoff ~htch may traverse portions of the property the project ts 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 conststs of well defined ridges and natural water- courses uhich traverse the property. There ts adequate area outside of the natural uatercourses 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 38 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This pro~ect drainage plan regul at1 o.ns. is in the Area fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~les and The proposed zoning ts consistent with extsttng flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the traplied density. The Dtstrict's report dated 3,,e =o o Iqte ts still current for this project. The DIstrict does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply. -- Very truly yours, CO: ~ntor CIvil Engineer II:NNI'!I,I I,,, IIII MARKET rrlltql. P, O. BOX loll UNONI (Ill) '7174011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLC)OD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT IIIV~I~IIDI,, CAI,,,!II'~IINIA IIlOl Oune 20, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attentionz Specific Plans Kathy Gifford Ladies end Gentlemenx Rex Vesting Tract 23371 This is a proposal to divide about 400 acres in the Temecula Valley area. The site is along the east side of Margarita Road between Rancho California Road and La Serene Way. This project ks sportion of Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village). Offsite flows from two major watersheds are tributary to the site's northeast and southeast corners. The applicant proposes to accept and convey the flows from the northeast with a storm drain system, and the flows from the southeast with a golf course grass channel from where the flows cross under Rancho California Road in a culvert. Onsite flows would be drained into the above two systems with streets and storm'drains according to their natural drainage pat- tern. According to the applicant, the site would be roughly graded with offsite and onsite flows directed into the proposed golf course and temporary drainage facilities. This is allowable if the natural drainage patterns are preserved and the temporary facilities have the 100 year storm capacities. ~oll.cwlng are the District's recommendationst This tract is located within the limits of the Hurrieta 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 Planss, amended February 16, 1988s Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner as part of the filing for record of the subd~vision final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a final parcel map is waived, drainage fees shall be paid as a condition of the waiver riot to recording a certificate of compliance evide~ing the waiver of the parcel map~ or Riverside County Planning Department Re8 Vesting Tract 23371 -2- June 20, 1988 At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting ale ferment of the Payment of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grad- ing permit or building permit for each approved par- eel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map= provided however, this option to defer the fees may not be exercised for any parcel where grading or structures have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3 year period, or permits for either ac- tivity have been issued on that parcel which remain active. Pads should De elevated at least 1 foot above the 100 year flood plain in the adjacent drainage facilities. Erosion protection should be provided for all fill slopes exposed to the potential erosion hazards. Hydrological and hydraulic calculations for both the tem- porary and ultimate drainage facilities should be submit- ted to the District for approval. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, eDrainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions'. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be re- corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria 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- ~/verside County Planning Depart~aent ]te.s Vesting Tract 23371 -3- June 20, 1988 The property*s street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or di- wetted storm flows. A col~ of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the recordation of the final map- If the tract is built in phases, each phase shall be pro- tected from the 1 in 100 year tributary storm flows. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. Development of this property should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not diverted from one watershed to another. This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or offsite construction and grading. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be sub- mitted to the District and County for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda- tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Cues~ions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang of this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, Rick Engineering Company KENNETH L. EDWARDS i f~E~ine~ .c.enior Civil Engineer RCzpln 8-17-88 40~0 Lemo~ S~me~ tad, 11L 1Swede. CA 925O1 (714) ~LkRXINC DEPAITHDrr A1TN: IAl~f GXFFORD TIACT23371 -AKEHDEDI1, IOADCORXECTION I1 Vith respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department tecoufnends the foilsring fire protection measures be provided In accordance vith Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FI~E PROTECTION The rarer mains shall be capable of providin2 · potential fire flov of 2500 and an actual fire flov available from any one hydrant shall bs 1500 GPH for hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. Approved super fire hydrants, (G"x4"x2Jx2|) shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction vith no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. · Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the rarer system plans to t~e Fire Department for rayicy. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shell meet the fire flov requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local rarer company Math the fellerinS'certification: wI certify that the design of the vater system is in accordance vith the requirements prescribed by the ~iverside County Firs Bepartmentom Yire flows for the country club viII be determined vheu plot plan is.revieved, The required rarer system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate vater agency prior to any combustible buildins material beans placed on an indlvidua, lot. " &ll ~ufl~ings shall be constructed vith fire retardant roofing material as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any used shin:lea or shakes shall have m Class saw rating and shall be spproved by the Firs ~epsr/ment prior to installation. ***" ,.~SubJect~ Tract :23371 ~', Page 2 MITIGATIOH Yrtor to the tecordatlon of the final map, the developer shall deposit vlth the Riverside County Fire Department,ks cash sun o! 0400.00 9er lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection tapacts, Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a vrltten agreement v~th the County deferring said 9aTuent to the tire of issuance of a building permit, All questions regarding the ueani~g of conditions shall be ,erefred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff, IAYHONDB, lEGIS Chief FIre Department Planner YGeorge S, Tatus, Planning Officer ; D~PART/e~ENT OF TRANSPOR, ^TION B6tltcr I, P.O. ICB; 231 IAN BL~NABI:Nt¢O, CA. 13482 OfOtG[ IXUr,.v, LHXN. ~ Development Review 08-Riv-15-q .98 Your Reference: VT 23371, 23372, and 23373 ReZated to SP 199 Nargarlta Vlllage Ylsnntng Department Attention Kathy Gtfrord County of Riverside ~080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Ns. Gtf£ord: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Vesting Tracts 23371, 23372, and 23373 located easterly of 3:-15 and Nargartta Road between Rancho CsZlfornta Road and Ls Serena Way in Rancho California. 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 Celtfans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please c811 Mr. Patrick M. Cormally st (71q) 383-q38q- Tery truly yours, ~/. N. LEtANDOWSKI District Permits Engineer oc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department IG;~tL]ZE TO NOTE: houBh the I ^^' ~ drainage generated by this proposal dotr~not appear to hav~ · signirtP-ant effect on the state highway ayetan, consideration must be given to the eunulatlve effect of continued development In this area. Any measures necessary to mltlgate the eunulatlve 1rapact of qw*r "'**- · .drainage sh~aZd be irovlded prlor to er wlth development of the area that necessitates them. Xt appears that the traffic vi ~- ~, generated by this proposal could have e signIFIcant effect on the state highday system or the area. Any measures necessary to mltlgat, e the traffic - ..... j trapacts sh~ald be Zncluded with the development. 31tie portlon of state hlghway ls lncluded In the California HasLet P]an of State !!lghways Ellgtble for OfflclaZ Scenic HIghway Designation, and In the future your qency nay. wish to have this route off totally designated as, state scenic h$ghwa~.* Thts portlon of state hlghway has been officially designated as a aisle acerite highway, and development In thta corridor should be compatible with the acerile .hlgYMay concept. Zt'* Is ~ecoGnlzed that there ls conslderabZe publlc concern about noise hveZs adjacent to heavily traveled highways. Land developments In order to be compatible; vtth thls concern, my require special noise attenuation measures. Development of property should ~nclude any necessary noise a~tenuatton. E I~ECO~lZ)= Non~al right of ~ay dedication to provlde half-~idth on the state highway. Normal street hnprovements t~ provide __ half-width on the state highway. Curb and gutter, State Standard *__ along the state hlgh~sy. Yarklng be prohtblted along the stqte highway by patntlng the curb red and/or by the proper placemen~ .of eric parking" signs. radius curb returns be provided st intersections with the state highway. ]['F~ndard wheelchair ramp mJs~ be provided in the returns. A~osttlve vehicular barrier along the property frontage be provided to limit* l~ys}eal access to the state hlSh~aY. lrehtculer access not be developed directly to the state hlghway. 1ehfcular access ~o the state highway be provided by ezlstlng public road lrehtcutar access to the state btghway be provided by standard ""- dr1 yeaaye. lrehteu2ar access shall not be provided vlthtn of the Intersection at lrehtcular access to the state highway be provided by a road-type connection. 'Form 8-R:)19 CRev. 5/87) (Continued on reverse) lcc~ss points to l distsr~e for state hiZh~ray be developed in S sph alcr~ the state hiShway. aner that will P~ovide sight, Lsndsesping slalg the sts~e high~sy be low and fc~giving in nstu~e. A left-tram lsne, including any necessary widening, be provided on the s~s~e .high~sy st . Consideration be given to the provision, or fUture provisiqm, of sl~nallzatlon and lieheinZ of the intersectlc~ of and the state highway. I traffic study indiestin2 us- mad eff~lte flw patterns and vol~es, probable impscram and proposed mitigation measures be prepared. ldequste off-street parking, Which does not require bscklnt onto the s~st, e highway, Parking lot be developed in s msnner that will not cause any vehicular movement conflicts, including parking stall entrance and exit, within of the entrance frcm the state hilhway. Handicap parking not be developed in the busy driveway entrance ares. Care be taken When developing this property to preserve and perpetuste the existing drsinsge I~ttern of the state hiEhway. Particular consideration should be given to cunmlstive increased storm runoff to insure that s highway drainage problem is not created. ~ ~ecesssry njtse attenuation be provided as part of the development of this properelf . Please refer ~ attached sddition~ c~nts. k'E kDUI..D LIKE TO RECEIVE: copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval. copy of any documents providing sdditionsl state highway right of way upon recordargon of the rap. VOULD LIKE THE OPFORllJNITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS: _~ lay proposals to further develop this property. It copy of the traffic ~r environmental xt~, ~f required. It check print of the Pares1 sr rrsui NaPs J.f required. check print of the ?lane for x~y improvements within the state highway right of may, if required. I check print of the Grading end Drainage Plans for this property when svstls~!e. Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92503 RIVERS~DI5 COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attention: Kathy Gifford, Planner Regarding: VestingTracts: 23371, ~argarita Village Dear'Hs. Gifford: 23372 and 23373 We are'in receipt of your letters dated June 1, 1988; received by this'office on June 9, 1988. St. Deputy Snijders has reviewed the material, and we offer the following information for your upcoming report. Project 23371, will increase the population growth by approximately 4,788; project 23372 will increase th9 population by approximately 1,936; and project 23373 will increase the population by approximately 1~392. The combined projects, upon completion will impact the Rancho California area by an increase of 8,116 persons. These figures are arrived at by assuming that all residences have a minimum of three bedrooms. The desirable resident/deputy ratio is 1.5 deputies per 1,000 persons. This pro~ect, upon completion of all three phases, will require 12.1 deputies to facilitate law'enforcement protection. It is of importance to note that this area is within our designated Beat 31 area, with an existing population of approximately 43,000 per- sons. At present, we have one deputy to cover this area. If you'~ave any further questions or concams in regards to the inforr-ation offered, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sinc erely, Lake Elsinore Station ITEM NO. 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department August 28, 1990 SOILS AND MATERIAL TESTING CONTRACT PREPARED BY: R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: Robert Righetti That the City Council ADOPT the attached criteria for use by soils and mater. ials testing consultants in developing structural recommendations for streets, trench backfill and related work within all City rights-of-way. That the City Council REJECT all proposals received under the soils RFP authorized by Council on June 25, 1990. DISCUSSION: On June 26, 1990, City Council authorized the City Engineer to solicit proposals for the provision of soils and material testing services for fiscal year 1990-1991. On July 9, a Request for Proposals {RFP) went out to eleven (11) firms who perform soils and materials testing within the City. Eleven firms responded with completed proposals detailing their qualifications, experience, fee structure, and range of services. After reviewing the proposals, it was found that all of the firms could adequately provide the necessary service, and their fees were basically similar. Staff also contacted ten cities in the area to find out how they are administrating the soils and material testing within their jurisdictions. It was found that only three (Moreno Valley, Chino, and Corona) employ a contract STAFF R PT\SO I LS soils and materials testing service, while the majority allow the developer to select the testing firm and merely provide the criteria which must be used to arrive at the final recommendations. This eliminates the need for the City to collect advance fees for the payment of a consultant, and also allows for competitive pricing as well as efficient scheduling between the soils firm and the developers. It was also discovered that Moreno Valley is discontinuing their contract soils testing service because of problems with scheduling for the contractors, and also due to problems involved in administering the funds collected from the developers to pay the contract soils firm. Although certain advantages exist with a single-source provider of these services, such as uniformity and control of the structural quality of construction within the City right-of-way, final review of all of the proposals has demonstrated that this quality can be achieved without a contract service. By establishing the criteria used in making structural recommendations, the City Engineer can effectively control the minimum standards by which street and trench construction will be performed. It is recommended that the following criteria be immediately adopted as minimum guidelines: TRAFFIC INDICES AND PAVEMENT DEPTH Minimum Street Type T.I. Minimum A. C. Thickness { Feet ) Divided Major Arterial Modified major Arterial Divided Arterial Arterial Minor Arterial Industrial Collector Collector Residential Cull-de-Sac Designated Truck Routes 10 0.45 10 0.45 9 0.40 9 0.40 8 0.35 10 0.45 7 0.30 6 0.25 6 0.25 10 0.45 Additionally, intersecting arterial streets shall be designed for a minimum T.I. of the larger intersecting street plus one point. The intersection shall be defined as the B. C. R. plus an additional 50 feet on each intersecting leg. 2 FISCAL IMPACT: None. All costs for the performance of work by the soils and materials testing service will be paid for by the developer or permittee. SUMMARY: It is recommended that the City Council ADOPT the attached criteria to establish minimum standards for soils materials testing consultants in developing structural recommendations for streets, trench backfill and related work within any City rights-of-way. Also, in view of the acceptable qualifications of all those who responded to the RFP, it is recommended that the City Council reject all proposals and allow the individual developers or permitees to contract their own soils and materials testing consultants. ITEM NO. 18 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 28, 1990 PLOT PLAN NO. 11621 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Deborah Parks Approval of Plot Plan No. 11621 subject to the Amended Conditions of Approval per the August 20, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: Koll Company Construction of a 116,368 square foot industrial business park. This proposal is Phase II of a larger industrial park that currently exists. The combined floor area of Phase ) and II is 195,272 square feet. STA FFR PT\PP11621 7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 20, 1990 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11621 Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: The Koll Company REPRESENTATIVE: Markham & Associates PROPOSAL: Construction of a 116,368 square foot industrial business park. This proposal is Phase I I of a larger industrial park that currently exists. The combined floor area of Phase I and II is 195,272 square feet. LOCAT ION: Westerly of Ynez Road and northerly of Winchester Road EXISTING ZONING: I-P (Industrial Park) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: ) -P South: I -P East: ) -P West: Interstate 15 SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Interstate 15 BACKGROUND: The application for Plot Plan 11621 was originally submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on November 27, 1989. The proposal was reviewed by the Riverside County Land Division Committee on three separate occasions; December 21, 1989, March 15, 1990, and May 14, 1990. Minor revisions to Plot Plan 11621 were requested at the May 14, 1990 Land Division Committee meeting. On May 18, 1990, the file was transferred to the City of Temecula. STAFFRPT\PP11621 ANALYSIS: Area Settinq The majority of the site was previously graded as part of a mass grading effort for the business park. The western most portion of the site, where buildings "D" and "E" are proposed, will still require grading. A drainage easement currently exists in this area as illustrated in the northwest corner of the site plan. The existing landscaped slope adjacent to Interstate 15 will not be affected. The concrete drainage swales at the foot of this slope will also remain, diverting water run-off from Interstate 15. Circulation/Traffic The City's Engineering Department reviewed the Traffic Study which was transferred from the County with the case file and an update was requested of the applicant's Traffic Engineer. The updated information clarified all of the items addressed in the original report. The City's Engineering Department is satisfied with the updated report and agrees with the findings. Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 11621 have been included which will mitigate the traffice impacts of the project. Parkinq/Internal Circulation The proposed project ( Phase I I ) will generate 273 parking spaces; the site plan proposes 317 spaces. The total project, including Phases I and II, will provide 545 spaces. The parking code requires 501 spaces for the project. Access to the site will be provided by three driveways on Ynez Road. The internal site circulation plan provides adequate space to comfortably drive through the project and park. Architectural Compatibility The proposed exterior elevations of Buildings D - H are consistent in materials and style with existing Buildings A - C. The materials used will include a combination of sandblasted concrete tilt-ups and glass. Panels will be a GENERAL PLAN/ SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: neutral grey color accented with green paint and tenant identification signs. The existing buildings and landscaping are well maintained. The project site is designated L-1 (General Light Industrial) by the Southwest Area Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the general policies for industrial uses. It is anticipated that the project, as conditioned, will be consistent with the City's forthcoming General Plan. An initial study has been completed for the project and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the proposal· FINDINGS: Site Approval The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. The use will not generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic or other disturbances. The site for the proposed use has adequate aCCeSS. The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the General Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in the staff report. There is a probability that the project will not deter, or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the new General Plan. These findings are supported by staff analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. 3 The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PP 11621, and APPROVE PP 11621, Request for Site Approval, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. DP:ks Attachments: 1. Exhibits 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Initial Study '4 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANN I NG DEPARTMENT Conditions of Approval Plot Plan No. 11621 Council Approval Date: ExpirationDate: Planninq Department This project shall comply with the provisions of State law and the City Development Code. This conditional approval shall expire in three (3) years, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the provisions of applicable State law and local ordinance. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following agencies shall provide verification to the Building and Safety Department that all pertinent Conditions of Approval and applicable have been met: A. Planning Department B. Temecula Union School District C. Fire District D. Engineering Department E. Rancho California Water District F. Department of Building and Safety G. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services ( DEHS ). This project must comply with all Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 19677. Architectural elevations of all proposed structures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. The elevations shall substantially conform to those submitted November 27, 1989· A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. STAFFRPT\PP11621 10. 11. 12. 13. All site amenities, including landscaping and irrigation, as shown on plans approved by the Planning Department, shall be installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping shall utilize drought tolerant/desert-appropriate landscaping wherever feasible. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of such approval, or, in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any Court costs and attorney"s fees which the City, its agents officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. Applicant shall submit the site plan as approved by the Planning Department to the Department of Building and Safety concurrent with application for building permits. All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with double or hairpin lines on the surface of the facility. Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be designed so as to reflect away from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares· All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Southwest Area Plan. Signs shall be reviewed under separate application. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Riverside County Department of Health Services prior to Certificate of Occupancy. { revised 8/20/90 Planning Commission meeting) If cultural resources are encountered during grading, the resources and site shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Enqineerinq Department 15. The developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City ordinances and resolutions. 16. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. 17. The developer shall submit four {4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" 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. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District. Except for nuisance nature local run-off, 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 construction should comply with all applicable ordinances. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit. A permit shall be required from CaITrans for any work within CalTrans right- of-way. The developer shall submit four (4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to 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. if a fair and equitable share of the developer's cost of transportation improvements has not been determined at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is needed, the developer shall be required to deposit $10,000 into a City established Road Benefit Fund. The developer is also required to sign an agreement with the City to either pay an amount or receive a refund equal to the difference between his estimated fair share and the amount of deposit with the City. and signing fees have already been paid to the County of Riverside thru the County shall install any required signing and striping plan. ( revised 8/20/90 Planning Commission meeting) 30. Prior to occupancy, Ynez Road shall be dedicated, or right-d-way shown to exist to 50 feet from centerline. 31. Prior to occupancy, all signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the approved signing and striping plan. 32. At the discretion of the Traffic Engineer, left turn restrictions may be imposed at any or all of the dirveway access points as deemed necessary for safety reasons, based on future traffic volumes. Fire District 33. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 35. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2 1/2 x 2 1/2), will be located not less that 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant{ s) in the system. 36. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 37. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. 38. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 fee of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buildingl s) . A statement that the buildingl s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. Buildinq and Safety 39. A preliminary soils report shall be filed with and approved by the building official prior to issuance of building permits. Grading plans are to be submitted to and approved by the Department of Building and Safety. A pre-construction inspection and permit is required prior to any land disturbance activity to verify requirements for erosion and sediment control, flood hazard and native plant protection and management. Rancho California Water District ~2. The water purveyor shall be Rancho California Water District. L~3. Sewer Collection and disposal shall be by Eastern Municipal Water District. Temecula Union School District This project is subject to State law requirements for school impact mitigation. U. S. Postal Service The United States Postal Service encourages that the final map shall show easements or other mapped provisions for the placement of centralized mail delivery units. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Public Works Department. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services "Will-serve" letters from water and sewer agencies are required prior to building plan approval. If there are to be any food establishments, 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. If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: A. Underground storage tanks. B. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. C. Hazardous Waste Disclosure l in accordance with AB 2185). D. Waste reduction management. California Department of Transportation ~9. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit a copy of 5 Conditions of Approval and Grading and Drainage Plans to CalTrans. CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. !tmse of Proponent: K011 Business Center Ranchn California laclress and Phone Number of Proponent: 7330 Engineer Road SaN Diego. CA g2111-1404 (6191 292-5550 Date of Znviroamental Assessment: 6-12-90 4. ~genc7 Requiring Assessment: Nsme of Proposal, if applicable: PP 11621 6. Location of Proposal: Westerly of Ynez Road and Northerly of Winchester Road Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ae Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X be Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Ce Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or or off site? BLANK I ES/FORMS - 1 - 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 aimliar hazards? Air. Wild the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? fe Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Yes Maybe No ..X X X X BLANK I ES/FORMS -2- Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species. or number of any native species of plants {including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? bo Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? CO Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects ) ? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes X Maybe No X X X BLANKIESIFORMS -3- 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticicles, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 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 mjclitional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe N_.9o X X X X X X X X BLANKIES/FORMS -q- b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantia| effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Perks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a ned for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Y, es X X X X Maybe No X X X BLANKIESIFORMS -5- 17. 18. 19. Communications systems? Water? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: aG Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (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? 20. Cultural Resources. a8 Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? y,~s Maybe X X N_9 X X X X X X X X X BLANK I ES/FORMS -6- 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe No X BLANKIES/FORMS -7- III DIscussion of the Environmental Evaluation See Attached County Evaluation BLANKIESlFORMS -8- 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 slgni- ticant effect on the environment, there will not be e eigni- ticant effect In this case beceuse the mitigation measures described on stiRchad sheets and In the Conditions of approval have been add,d to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have e significant effect on the environment, and en ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. XX 24 July_lg90 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA BLANKIESIFORMS -9- :tiVE::DiDE COUrlC,u 'PLAnninG DE :tCmEnC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: ~ ~--/-1l Z,. MODULE NUMBER(s): PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(S): NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E.A.: "--J - STANDARD EVALUATION L PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size Ind uses as .Iq}plicable): B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES 15.7y ; or SQUARE FEET C. ASSESSOWS PARCEL NO.(s): D. EXISTING ZONING: E. PROPOSED ZgNING: F, STREET REFERENCES: IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? - G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~"j~'(--- ~-~" H. BREF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS: II. COMPREHENSNE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly. r-I All or pad of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," 'REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Are". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI. ~}~or part of the project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV {A, B and D only), V and VL All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned IIXNe. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI. ~9S-70 (New 12/871 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Ind~tethenatureofthepr~p~sed~ndu~eudMz~dr.~fr~mthedee~pt~ns~sf~undIn~Gener~P~nFi~ure I/I.3 (~ One), This information is Mcesury to g:,:;. ,,~-~ the appropriate knd ute tuitsbUity ratings in Section II].B. NA - Not App~kx~de Cdtios~ F. eermal NOr~eH4~h R~ Noah-Low Risk B. ~nicatew~h~yes(Y~Orn~(N~whethe~nyenvir~nment~haz~rd8nd/~rree~ur~ei~ue~m~y8ign~~Or~ed by the proCx~al. NlreferancedfiguresarecontabtedintheCo,,ie./,ertlve0enealPlen. For any issue merked yes (Y) write IddtUonl dNa sources, lge~cies conaulted,~ndings of fact lnd lny mitigltion rneesums under Sectlon V. Neo, where indicated, ~rcle the Iplyol:~date land use suitability or noise ec~.eplabllity rating(s). (See ddirdtions at bottom of this page). HAZARDS 1 ~ Nquist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault 12./V Hazard Zones (Fig. VI.1 ) NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3) Jb/ 2, ~'' Liquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. V!.I ) 13._ NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.4) 3. tJ ,ro, n,., akin;<Fig W. 1> 14. _.Y_ ;-NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5) ~v/ Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps) 15._ Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16. ~ NA S PS U R (Fig. Vl.6) Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) Expansive Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys) Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys) Wind Ersosion & Blowsand (Fig. VI.1, Ord. 460, Sac. 14.2 & Ord. 484) Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) Floodplains (Fig. VI.7) NA U R (Fig. VI.8) 17. 18. rJ 19, 20. 21.'~ 22. 23, 24, 25. Airlxxt Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18,11 & V1.12 & 1984 NCUZ Report, M.A.F.B.) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 ) Flailroad Noise (Fig. V1.13 - V1.16) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 ) Highwe Noise (Fig. %/1.17 - VI.29) (~)-the~: C D (Fig, VI. 11 ) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 ) Project Generated Noise Affecting Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VI.11) Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI.11 ) Air Quality Impacts From Project Project Sensitive to Air Quality Water Quality Impacts From Project Project Sensitive to Water Quality Hazardous Materials and Wastes Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - VI.31) Other Other RESOURCES 28...Y_.r 3~)~-~0/ 36. 31 ,,_, 37. 26 PJ Agricu,ure (Fig. V1.34- VI.35) 32._~__ 27-1,"j' In or Near an Agricultural Preserve ~4~ (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation Contract Maps) Wildlife (Fig. %/I.36 - %/1.37) Vegetation (Fig. VI.38- VI.40) Mineral Resoumes (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42) Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - %/1.44) 35./U Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45) Historic Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI,33) Archaeological Resources (Fig. VI.32 - V1.33 & VI.46 - VI.48) Paleontological Resources (Paleontological Resources Map) Other Other Definitions for land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable B - Ceffiitionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 395-70 {New ~ 2/e7} 2 IV. LAND U~E DETERMINATION A. C~mp~etethispartun~essthepr~jectis~~ca~~din~Ad~pt~dSped~~cP~ans"~-REMAP"~r~~Ran~h~ Viiages Community Policy Areas." 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): ~- r, Jc..n- ,G5 cl~¢',,J --7,:>/o~:~-e: , 2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: 3. SUBAREA, IF ANY: 4. COMMUNITY POUCY AREA. IF ANY: s. COMMuNnY N r: LI 6. ~MUN~ ~ ~SG~T~(s), IF ~: L t 1. ~M~Y OF ~UCIES ~~NG ~O~ For all projects, inidcate with a yes (Y) or no (N) whether any public facilities and/or services issues may significantly affect or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Ran. For any issue marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1Z Circulation (Fig. IV. 1 -IV. 11. Discuss in 10. Aj S.c. v Existing, Planned & ReQuired Roads) 2./L~ BikeTrails(Fig. IV. 12- IV.13) 11._~, Sewer (Agency Letters) . Y' Fire Services (Fig. IV.16 - IV.18) 6 AJ ShedffServices(FiglV.17-1V.18) .. Schools (Fig. IV. 17 - IV.18) 15-/~ ..__ Solid Waste (Fig. IV.17 - N. 18) 16. ~' s-/J Rec tion FiO. N.lS-N 01 17. L/ EQuestrian Trails (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.24/ Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps) Utilities (Fig. N25 - N26) Libraries (Fig. IV.17 - IV. 18) I-iea!ffi Services (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18) Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4, 11.18.8 - 11.18.10 & N27 - N.36) Disaster ~ness Cily Sphere of Influence Other If all or part of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", ""FIEMAP" or '*Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas", review in detail the epecific policies applying to the proposal, and complete the following: 1. State the relevant land use designation(s): 2. Based on this initial study, is the proCx:sal consistant with the policies and designations of the appropriate document. and Iherefore cctmistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain: N. LAND U~E DETERMINATION (oonttnued) D. ~or~art~fthepr~jects~teisin~Are~sn~tDesign~ted~s~penSpace"~ndIs~~m~~~p~te eWestions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 ff tt is in a Community Plan. 1. Land use cztego~ies) necessary to euS:q:~t the proposed project. Also Indicate ~and use type use type 3. If D.1 dim from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the developnent stage? Explain: 4. Community Ran designation(s): 5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies and designations of the Community Ran? If not, explain: e Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses? ff not, explain: Y~--~-'-2 7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? ff not, reference by Secticm and Issue Number those issues identifying hoonsistencIss: }'~'/--~ E. If all or pad of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following: 1. State the designation(s): 2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? ff not, explain: 3. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: 295-70 (New 12/87) INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: DATE DATE ADEQUACY SECTION/ INFORMATION INFORMATION NFORMATION DETBqli~TIO~ I&SUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NOJ;)ATE) B. For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections !II.B and IV.B, identify the Section and issue number end do the folowing, in the format as shown below: 1. List all additional relevant data sourceS, including agencies consulted. 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 is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to Subsection A. 5. ff additional sheets are needed to complete this msction, check the box at the end of the section and attach the necessary sheets. SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: 295-/0 {New 12/87) V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (conUnued) SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: D SeeaUachedpages. Vl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION: r-I The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and 8 Negative Declaration may be (or) !'1 The project could have 8 significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures clescdbed in Section V have been applied to the project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) r-I The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report is required. Name: hate: Prepared by (New 12/87) 6 ITEM t7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 20, 1990 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 11621 Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: The Koll Company R EPR ESENTAT I VE: Markham S Associates PROPOSAL: Construction of a 116,368 square foot industrial business park. This proposal is Phase II of a larger industrial park that currently exists. The combined floor area of Phase I and II is 195,272 square feet. LOCATION: Westerly of Ynez Road and northerly of Winchester Road EXISTING ZONING: I-P {Industrial Park) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: I -P South: I -P East: I -P West: Interstate 15 SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Interstate 15 BACKGROUND: The application for Plot Plan 11621 was originally submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on November 27, 1989. The proposal was reviewed by the Riverside County Land Division Committee on three separate occasions; December 21, 1989, March 15, 1990. and May 1~4, 1990. Minor revisions to Plot Plan 11621 were requested at the May 1~, 1990 Land Division Committee meeting. On May 18, 1990, the file was transferred to the City of Temecula. STAFF R PT\PP 11621 ANALYSIS: Area Settincl The majority of the site was previously graded as part of a mass grading effort for the business park. The western most portion of the site, where buildings "D" and "E" are proposed, will still require grading. A drainage easement currently exists in this area as illustrated in the northwest corner of the site plan. The existing landscaped slope adjacent to Interstate 15 will not be affected. The concrete drainage swales at the foot of this slope will also remain, diverting water run-off from Interstate 15. Circulation/Traffic The City~s Engineering Department reviewed the Traffic Study which was transferred from the County with the case file and an update was requested of the applicant~s Traffic Engineer. The updated information clarified all of the items addressed in the original report. The City~s Engineering Department is satisfied with the updated report and agrees with the findings. Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 11621 have been included which will mitigate the traffice impacts of the project. Parkinq/Internal Circulation The proposed project ( Phase I I ) will generate 273 parking spaces; the site plan proposes 317 spaces. The total project, including Phases I and II, will provide 545 spaces. The parking code requires 501 spaces for the project. Access to the site will be provided by three driveways on Ynez Road. The internal site circulation plan provides adequate space to comfortably drive through the project and park. Architectural Compatibility The proposed exterior elevations of Buildings D - H are consistent in materials and style with existing Buildings A - C. The materials used will include a combination of sandblasted concrete tilt-ups and glass. Panels will be a 2 GENERAL PLAN/ SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: neutral grey color accented with green paint and tenant identification signs. The existing buildings and landscaping are well maintained. The project site is designated L-1 (General Light Industrial) by the Southwest Area Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the general policies for industrial uses. It is anticipated that the project, as condition·d, will be consistent with the Cityis forthcoming General Plan. An initial study has been completed for the project and a Negative Declaration is recommended for the proposal. FINDINGS: Site Approval The proposed use will not have a substantial adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. The use will not generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic or other disturbances. The site for the proposed use has adequate access. The proposed project will not inhibit or restrict future ability to use active or passive solar energy systems. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the General Plan once it is adopted, based on analysis in the staff report. There is a probability that the project will not deter, or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the new General Plan. These findings are supported by staff analysis, minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and her·in incorporated by reference. 3 The lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PP 11621, and APPROVE PP 11621, Request for Site Approval, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. DP:ks Attachments: 1. Exhibits 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Initial Study CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Conditions of Approval Plot Plan No. 11621 Council Approval Date: ExpirationDate: Planninq Department This project shall comply with the provisions of State law and the City Development Code. This conditional approval shall expire in three (3) years, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the provisions of applicable State law and local ordinance. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following agencies shall provide verification to the Building and Safety Department that all pertinent Conditions of Approval and applicable have been met: A. Planning Department B. Temecula Union School District C. Fire District D. Engineering Department E. Rancho California Water District F. Department of Building and Safety C;. Riverside County Department of Envi tonmental Health Services ( DEHS ). This project must comply with all Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 19677. Architectural elevations of all proposed structures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. The elevations shall substantially conform to those submitted November 27, 1989. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. STAFFRPT\PP11621 10. 11. 12. 13. All site amenities, including landscaping and irrigation, as shown on plans approved by the Planning Department, shall be installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping shall utilize drought tolerant/desert-appropriate landscaping wherever feasible. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of such approval, or, in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. Applicant shall submit the site plan as approved by the Planning Department to the Department of Building and Safety concurrent with application for building permits. All parking stalls shall be clearly striped and permanently maintained with double or hairpin lines on the surface of the facility. Any lights used to illuminate the site shall be designed so as to reflect away from adjoining properties and public thoroughfares. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Southwest Area Plan. Signs shall be reviewed under separate application. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the Riverside County Department of Health Services prior to Certificate of Occupancy. During the grading process of the site, a paleontologist shall be present to supervise the grading and determine the significance of any unearthed paleontological resources. If resources are discovered, all grading shall cease until a determination of the find is made by the paleontologist. If cultural resources are encountered during grading. the resources and site shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Enclineerinc~ Department 15. The developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City ordinances and resolutions. 16. 17. All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans. The developer shall submit four (4) 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 2 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 21~. 25. 26. 28. 29. Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" 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. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District. Except for nuisance nature local run-off, 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 construction should comply with all applicable ordinances. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit. A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within CalTrans right- of-way. The developer shall submit four I~) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property. no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to 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. If a fair and equitable share of the developer~s cost of transportation improvements has not been determined at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is needed, the developer shall be required to deposit $10,000 into a City established Road Benefit Fund. The developer is also required to sign an agreement with the City to either pay an amount or receive a refund equal to the difference between his estimated fair share and the amount of deposit with the City. Prior to occupancy, a signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered traffic engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for all streets and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 3 30° Prior to occupancy, Ynez Road shall be dedicated, or right-of-way shown to exist to 50 feet from centerllne. 31. Prior to occupancy, all signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the approved signing and striping plan. 32. At the discretion of the Traffic Engineer, left turn restrictions may be imposed at any or all of the dirveway access points as deemed necessary for safety reasons, based on future traffic volumes. Fire District 33. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 35. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants. on a looped system 16" x 4" x 2 1/2 x 2 1/2), will be located not less that 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant{s) in the system. 36. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing. and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 37. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection measures. 38. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 fee of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building{ s) . A statement that the building{ s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. Buildincl and Safety 39° A preliminary soils report shall be filed with and approved by the building official prior to issuance of building permits. Grading plans are to be submitted to and approved by the Department of Building and Safety. A pre-construction inspection and permit is required prior to any land disturbance activity to verify requirements for erosion and sediment control, flood hazard and native plant protection and management. Rancho California Water District The water purveyor shall be Rancho California Water District. ~3. Sewer Collection and disposal shall be by Eastern Municipal Water District. Temecula Union School District q~. This project is subject to State law requirements for school impact mitigation. U. S. Postal Service qS. The United States Postal Service encourages that the final map shall show easements or other mapped provisions for the placement of centralized mail delivery units. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Public Works Department. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services uWill-serve" letters from water and sewer agencies are required prior to building plan approval. If there are to be any food establishments, 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. !f there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch {Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: A. Underground storage tanks. B. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. C. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185). D. Waste reduction management. California Department of Transportation Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit a copy of Conditions of Approval and Grading and Drainage Plans to GaiTtans. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Mama of Koll Business CPnter Ranrhn California · cldress and Phone ))n-her of Proponent: 7330 Engineer Road SaN Diego, CA 92111-1404 (619) ?92-5550 Date of EnvLwonmental ~ssessment: 6-12-90 4. AgencTRequ.~'.b~g )tssessment: Name of Proposal, if applicable: PP 11621 6. Location of Proposal: Westerly of Ynez Road and Northerly of Winchester Road Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets. ) .Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or or off site? BLANKIES/FORMS -1- 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? 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: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Ce Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? de Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? fe Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Yes X Maybe No X X X X BLANK I ESI FORMS -2- Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: 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? Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life· Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes X X Maybe No X BLANKIES/FORMS -3- 10. 11. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 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 ~clditional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Y.es Maybe X No X X X X BLANK IES/FORMS -~*' be ee Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? 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? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: 16. ae Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? bo Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? Yes X X Maybe x No X X X X X BLANKIESIFORMS -5- 17. 18. 19. Communications systems? Water? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (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? 20. 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? 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? Yes Maybe N_9o X X X X X X X X X X BLANKIES/FORMS -6- 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? {A project's |mpact 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. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes Maybe No X X X BLANK I ES/FORMS -7- III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation See Attached County Evaluation BLANKIESIFORMS -8- ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a slgnificant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ticant effect on the environment, there will not be · signi- ficant effect In this case becauee the mitigation measures described on attRched sheeta and In the Conditions of approval have been edded to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED, I find the propoaed project MAY have e significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. XX 24 July 1990 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA BLANKIES/FORMS -9- · . VE:t. iDE coun(y --PLAnn;r DEPA:IDTiEn( ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E.A.) NUMBER: ~ ~j'/-f( 7_- MODULE NUMBER(s): PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E.A.: -,,J . STANDARD EVALUATION L PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot ize end tees ee .W:~plicable): iNFJ,,~_%Tt~.~,~d_- e. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES f ~. 7y ; or SQUARE FEET C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s): C/I(:::) ' ~ ' ~ 7~/' D. EXISTING ZONING: E. PROPOSED ZgNING: '7'- F. STREETREFERENCES: i~[:~'T' ~I~_~- IS THE PROPOSAL IN ODNFORMANCE? IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? Y'~'~ J - G. SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~'(-- ~.r-,' ! H. BRIEF~/~E~SCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS: j I. COMPREHENSNE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the appropriate option(s) below end proceed accordingly. [] Afl or pad of the project site is in "Adopted Specffic Pins," 'REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B end C only), V and VI. D'~AIAII or pad of fie project site is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV Oak, B and D only), V and VI. [] NI or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned 8bove. Complete Sections III, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI. i 111. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND FIESOUFICDS ASSESSMENT Be Indk~te~enatureofthe~Q~edi~ndu~e~s~ddc~a~w~:~frornthedeecripti~n~f~ur~in~~~~n~9ure VI.3 (Circle One). This information is neceesary to dYv, ,,jr~ the appropriate land use 8ultabiity fMings in Section IIl.e. NA - Not Applicable CdUcal ElBahill Normal-High Rt~ Normal-Low Risk Indiclte with · ye~ (Y) or no (N) whether any envtronmentll hlzlrd Ind/or meoume ~ rely lignifk3ntly affect or be affected by ~e proCxaal. All referenced figures are contalrmd in the Co,,(~m General Plan. For any issue marked yes (Y) write ~dd~ti~ni a~~urces'8gencies~~rmu~ted~~nding~off~c1~~d~nym~gNi~nmee~ure~underSect~~~V. AIBo, where indicated, ctrole the appropriate land use suitability or .noise acceptability rating(s). (See defirdtions 8t bottom of this page). HAZARDS Nquist-Pdolo Special Studies or County Fault Hazard Zones (Fig. %/1.1 ) NA PS U R (Fig. %/1.3) L.kluefaction Potential Zone (Fig. %/1.1) NA S PS U R (Fig. %/1.4) Groundshaking Zone (Fig Vi.1 ) NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5) Slopes (Riv. Co. 8(:X) Scale Slope Maps) Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16. ~ NA S PS U R (Fig. Vl.6) Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. Expensive Soils (U.S.D.A. Soil 18.,/~J Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. ~ Erosion (U.S.DA. Soil Conservation 20. Service Soil Surveys) 21. Z Wind Ersosion & Blow·and (Fig. VI.1, 22, Ord. 460, Sac. 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23, ~ Dam Inundation Are· (Fig. VI.7) 24. Floodplains (Fig. VI.7) 25. Other NA U R (Fig. %/1.8) 12. ~ Nrlx,1Nolee (Fqi. 11.18.5, 11.18.11 & VI.12 & 1984 NCUZ Report, MAF. B .) ~J NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 ) 13. __ Railroad Noise (Fig. %/I.13 - V1.16) NA A B C D (Fig, VIA 1) 14. i Highwa Noise (Fig. V1.17 - VI.29) c D {Fio, NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Project Generated Noise Affecting Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VI. 11 ) Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VI.11 ) Air Quality Impacts From Project Project Sensitive to Air Quality Water Quality Impacts From Project Projed Sensitive to Water Quality Hazardous Materials and Wastes Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30- VI.31 ) Other RESOURCES 31~/ 36. 37. 27Z Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35) ~4-'~ In or Near an Agricultural Preserve (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation Contact Maps) Wildlife (Fig. %/I.36- VI.37) Vegetation (Fig. VI.38 - VI.40) Mineral Re~ouroes (Fig. VI.41 - VL42) Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VI.44) Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45) Historic Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33) Archaeological Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33 & VI.46 - %/1.48) Paleontotogical Resources (I=~leontological Resources Map) Other Other Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally A~x',eptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 3e5-7o ~Ne~ ~ 2/e7~ 2 1. OF~N SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): ~ C:~"~,J .-~(~,c~__,~ , 2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA: 3. SUBAREA, IF ANY: 4. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IF ANY: 6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION($), IF ANY: /.-t-- },.4~r.i,T-iNi~,:.I.-i~A~I.,.. 7. SUM ,J Y O, POUCIES Am CnNG ,ROF'OS t .n" Be For all projects, inidcate with a yes (Y) or no (N) whether any public facilities and/or services issues may signirr,.,antly affect or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Ran. For any issue marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consuited, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V. PUBUC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1t Circulation (Fig. W.I-IV. 11. Discuss in 10. S.c. V Existing, Ranned & Required Roads) 2-/~J Bike Trails (Fig. W.12-IV. 13) 11, 3_.~__. Water (Agency Letters) 12 ' · Y' Fire Services (Fig. IV. 16 - W.18) 6. ~ Sheriff Services (Fig IV.17- IV. 18) 7, ~ Schools (Fig. IV. 17- N. 18) 15,_E 8./J Solid Waste (Fig. W. 17-W. 18) 16. 8,/~ Parks and Ration (Fig. IV,19- N.20) 17,.. Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.24/ Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps) Utilities (Fig. N.25 - W.26) Libraries (Fig. IV.17 - IV, 18) Health Services (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18) Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4, 11.18.8 - 11.18.10 & N.27 - N.36) Disaster Preparedness C, ity Sphere of Influence Other Ce ff all or part of the project is located in "Adopted SpecirK: Plans", "REMAP" or "Flancho Villages Community Policy Areas", review in detail the specffic policies applying to the proposal, and oomplete the following: 1. State the relevant land use designation(s): 2. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate document. and therefore consistant with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain: D. ~f~rpart~fthepr~ject~teis~n~Are~sn~tDe~t~d~s~pen~pace~ndi~n~tin~mm~mp~te Questions l. 2, 3, 6 and T. Complete queslions 4, 5, 6 and Tif it is in aCommunity Plan. 1. land use calegory(ies) necessary 1o 1~~.~oposecl project. ~ Indicate land use type (i.e. co me,da , etc.) 3. If D.1 diffem from D.2, will the difference be rmmived It Ihe dcvabC.,~nt stage? 4. Community Ran designation(s): I-l" 1,..Ir-q r'~T' I/VE~r~Y'; .~.1.. 5. Is the proposed project consistent wtth the policies and designations of the Community Ran? ff not, explain: y't~ 6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses? If not, explain: 7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If noL reference by Section and Issue Number Ihoee issues identifying inconsistencies: E. If idl or pad of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following: 1. State the designation(s): 2. ks the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? ff not, explain: 3. Based on this initial study, is ~e proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Ran? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues identifying inconsistencies: 295-70 (New 12/87) IIFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. N:)DITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL .aSSF,.qSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: DATE DATE ADEQUACY SECTION/ INFORMATION BITION INFORMATION DETERkeIAT~N ISSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/NO]:)ATE) For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B and N.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the fOIowing, in the format as shown below: 1. List 811 additional relevant data sources, including agencies consulted. 2. State all findings of fact regarding anvironrnental concems. 3. State specific mitigation measures, if iclentifiable without requiring an environmental impact repod (E.I.R.) 4. ff additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to Subsection A. 5. ff additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the box 8t the end of the section and attach the nece~sary sheets. SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continue) ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: O See attached pages. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION: The ixoject will not have a signfficant effect on fie environment end a Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) I"1 The project could have 8 significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures clescdbed in Section V have been applied to the project end 8 Negative Declaration may be prepared. (or) 1"1 The project may have · significant effect on the environment end on Environmental Impact Reporl is required. Name: note: Prepared by 295-/0 eiew 12/87) ITEM NO. 19 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SU BJ ECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager City Engineer August 28, 1990 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR FACILITIES DISTRICT 88-12 (YNEZ CORRIDOR) COMM U N I TY RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award the work for professional engineering services for Community Facilities District 88-12 {Ynez Corridor) to J.F. Davidson, direct the City Engineer to issue a notice to proceed, and authorize the City Manager to negotiate a final scope of services and fee subject to Council approval. DISCUSSION: On August 16, 1990, representatives of the City Engineering Department along with representatives of Bedford Properties (the largest property owner n the District) interviewed four local engineering companies to determine the best qualified candidate for the City to negotiate a professional engineering services contract to complete the design and construction of certain improvements within Community Facilities District 88-12. Based on their experience with the California Department of Transportation's District 8 Policies and the minimum number of subconsultants needed by their firm, J.F. Davidson and Associates was selected as the best qualified to provide the service. Due to the magnitude and complexity of the project, it has been very difficult to arrive at a scope of services and an associated fee. Attached for your review is a proposed scope of service {Exhibit A) along with an opinion of the project cost for each phase I Exhibit C) . Exhibit A divides the work into the four projects listed below along with their probable costs. Project 1 Ynez Road Widening 389,075.00 Project 2 Winchester Ramp 591,264.00 Project 3 Rancho Cal. Ramp 520,428.00 Project 4 Apricot Overcrossing 573, 187.00 TOTAL $2,073,954.00 The above costs are an opinion of the probable costs to complete all the design documents necessary for construction. It is anticipated that some of the costs as shown on Exhibit C for the individual items will vary as the results of the initial studies and data collection become available. However, it is anticipated the total shown will not exceed unless change orders are authorized by the City Manager. In an effort to expedite that entire process and proceed to the construction stage as soon as possible, J.F. Davidson and Associates has indicated a willingness to start work as soon as the notice to proceed is issued; and will continue to refine the scope of services and opinion of probable cost until an agreement is reached with the appropriate City officials. The design costs will be funded through the bond sales associated with the district. Also attached for your review is an anticipated design schedule. ZXHZBZT "A" 8C0P2 01 8EItVZCE~ Project Xdentifications The following projects identifications and descriptions are provided to determine a general understanding of the scope of work that this contract will encumber. The following project identifications shall involve: Project I - Ynez Road Widening Project Project 2 - Winchester Road Interchange Modifications Project 3 -Apricot Avenue Overcrossing Project Project 4 - Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications All engineering services associated with Project i shall utilize criteria established by the City of Temecula's current Standards and specifications. Engineering services performed for Projects 2 thru 4 shall utilize criteria established by the State Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Standards and Specifications. Project Descriptions / Work Exclusions In general, the engineering services envisioned for each project is described as follows: Project I - Ynez Road Widening Pro~ect. Perform design surveys and mapping, geotechnical engineering, and prepare plans, specifications, and estimates (PS & E) for the widening of Ynez Road from Palm Plaza to Rancho California Road, a distance of approxinmately 7,500 feet. Plans shall include designs for curb and gutter, sidewalks, pavement sections, storm drain culvert extensions, power pole relocations, traffic signal modifications, traffic signing and striping, waterline relocations, and other appurtenant items. In addition to the items indicated above, the following improvements shall be involved under this contract: Geotechnical engineering and environmental clearances shall also be perfomed. Right-of-way engineering, beyond coordination efforts by JFDA, shall be the responsibility of others. Traffic signal modifications at the Rancho California Road, Solano Way, and Tower Plaza intersections are included under this contract. CONTRACT:ADS.ACl ~ | Storm drain improvements within Ynez Road other than existing culvert extensions are not included under this contract. The design of master planned facilities is not included under this contract. Project 2 - Winchester Road Tnterchange Modifications. Prepare a project study report (PSR), project report (PR), environmental reports, traffic studies, traffic safety index reports, traffic management plan (TMP), geometric approval plans, design surveys and mapping, and PS & E documents for the addition of a northbound loop ramp system within the southeast quadrant of the existing interchange. In addition to the items indicated above, the following improvements shall be involved under this contract: The existing Winchester Road Bridge crossing over the 1-15 shall be widened to accomodate the added northbound loop ramp. A bridge widening of the San Gertudis Creek Bridge on 1-15 is also expected to accomodate the new loop ramp runoff. Traffic signals at existing ramp intersections that are planned to be installed under a separate contract shall require modifications under this contract. In addition, modifications to the Jefferson Street intersection are included in this contract. Landscaping and irrigation improvements to the southeast quadrant shall be required to re-establish removed improvements. Right-of-Way maps for the new loop ramp improvements shall be prepared. A Categorial Exemption for environmental clearance is anticipated for this project. Design surveys are limited to the setting of aerial controls for mappAng purposes~ cross sections of Winchester Road from Jefferson to just east of the interchange~ and cross sections on 1-15 within the limits of the new on-ramp runoff. Bridge engineering and geotechnical work include the possibility of designing a tie-down retaining wall at the Winchester Bridge crossing to accomodate the new loop on ramp. CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 e Z Project 3 - Apricot Avenue OvercrossinG Project. Prepare a project study report (PSR), project report (PR), environmental reports, traffic studies, traffic safety index reports, geometric approval plans, design surveys and mapping, and PS & E documents for the construction of Apricot Avenue from Ynez Road to Jefferson Street including a bridge overcrossing of the 1-15 freeway. In addition to the items indicated above, the following improvements shall be involved under this contract: Traffic signal designs at the Ynez and Jefferson intersections are not included under this contract. A mitigated Negative Declaration is anticipated for environmental clearance for this project. Retaining wall designs other than those necessary to support the proposed roadway are not included in this contract. Pro~ect 4- Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications. Prepare a project study report (PSR), project report (PR), environmental reports, traffic studies, traffic safety index reports, traffic management plan (TMP), geometric approval plans, design surveys and mapping, and PS & E documents for the addition of a northbound loop ramp system within the southeast quadrant of the existing interchange. In addition to the items indicated above, the following improvements shall be involved under this contract: The existing Rancho California Road Bridge crossing over the 1-15 shall be widened to accomodate the added northbound loop ramp. Traffic signals at existing ramp intersections that are planned to be installed under a separate contract shall require modifications under this contract. Landscaping and irrigation improvements to the southeast quadrant shall be required to re-establish removed improvements. O Right-of-Way maps for the new loop ramp improvements shall be prepared. A Categorial Exemption for environmental clearance is anticipated for this project. CONTRACT:ADS.ACl ~ ~ o Traffic signal modifications at the Jefferson Street intersection is not included in this contract. o Design surveys are limited to the setting of aerial controls for mapping purposes; cross sections of Rancho California Road from Jefferson to just east of the interchange; and cross sections on 1-15 within the limits of the new on-ramp runoff. Bridge engineering and geotechnical work include the possibility of designing a tie-down retaining wall at the Rancho California Bridge crossing to accomodate the new loop on ramp. The scope of Projects 2 through 4 are subject to change through the development of their respective PSR, PR, and TMP reports. We reserve the right to renegotiate any fees described herein that are affected by these pending studies. CONTRACT:ADS.ACl ~ BXHIBIT "COt FEE SCHEDULE Costs shown herein shall considered as lump sum not-to-exceed charges unless the scope of work described under this contract changes. Sub- consultant charges for geotechnical engineering and bridge engineering have been marked up 3% for JFDA handling costs. PROJECT I - YNEZ ROAD WIDENING PROJECT Data Collection: Street Improvement Plans: Right-of-Wa~: Traffic Signals: Waterline Xelocation: Utility Coordination: H~drolog~ Studies: Storm Drain Plans= Drainage Structures: Striping and Signage Plans: Detour Plans: Meetings/Processing: Cost Estimate= Geoteclmical Engineering: Environmental Clearances: Qualit~ Control Plan: 51,640.00 51,865.00 10,600.00 12,500.00 24,950.00 15,000.00 24,800.00 55,000.00 10,000.00 10,120.00 17,050.00 35,050.00 23,000.00 25,000.00 17,500.00 5,000.00 TOTAL $389,075,00 CONTRACT:ADS.AC1 J/ Highway Drawings Reproductions Mileage & Deliveries CADD Charges Project Study Report Project Report Traffic Study & Safety Index Traffic Management Plan Quality Control Plan Environmental Report Design Surveys Aerial Mapping Bridge Engineering Bridge & Material Report Winchester $288,750 $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 30,400 15,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 5,000 17,500 20,300 $ 9,350 $100,425 $ 44,539 Rancho Ca $264,650 $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 30,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 15,000 $ 5,000 $ 17,500 $ 18,400 $ 9,350 $ 72,100 $ 28,428 Xpricot $204,550 $ 5,000 $ 1,500 $ 20,600 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ -0- $ 5,000 $ 17,500 $ 15,000 $ 9,350 $202,910 $ 56,777 TOTAL EACH PROJECT $591,264 $520,428 $573,187 TOTAL OF PROJECTS 2 SOUGH 4: $1,684,879 CONTRACT:ADS.ACl B Z ITEM NO. 20 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 28, 1990 Tentative Tract 23209, Amendment No. 4 PREPARED BY: Scott Wright RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Staff and Planning Commission recommendation to Deny Tentative Tract 23209. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to the City Council's direction, the Planning Commission considered Tentative Tract 23209 at their meeting of August 6, 1990. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny Tentative Tract No. 23209 on the basis that the proposed density is inappropriate due to the proximity to the vineyards and the amount of grading that would be required. SW:jsg DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DIRECTORS MEMORANDUM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 2, 1990 Planning Commission Ross Geller, Planning Director TentaUve Tract No. 23209 On June 19, 1990, the Temecula City Council directed Staff to present the above referenced project to the Planning Commission. The County Planning Commission has tentatively approved the project and recommended that the City receive and file the project. The direction of the City Council is that the Planning Commission review Tentative Tract No. 23209 and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the project. RG:ks CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: TITLE: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209 DEPT HD MTG: (o- te~ -q~ CITY ATTY DEPT:-p~,,,~. CITY MGR RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Tentative Tract No. 23209, based on the analysis and findings contained in this staff report. PROJECT INFORMATION Owner: A pp I icant: Eng i neer: Proposal: Location: Area Plan: Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Uses: Laverda Edmond Alba Engineering, Inc. Alba Engineering, Inc. To subdivide an 80 acre site into 257 parcels with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. West of Butterfield Stage Road, east of Walcott Lane, and approximately 1.25 miles north of Rancho California Road. 2-~ dwelling units per acre RT-Mobile Home Subdivision (also permits conventional dwelling units) North: South: East: West: RA-5 and RA-2 1/2, Residential Agricultural S-P, Specific Plan (Margarita Village) A-1-10, Light Agriculture and R-R, Rural Residential R-T, Mobile Home Subdivisions and Mobile Home Parts North: South: East: West: Scattered single family residential Vacant - Masterplan undergoing grading Vineyards Single family residential, undergoing grading with some construction underway. Project Information: Density: 3.21 dwelling units per acre Acreage: 80 acres No. of Units: 257 ANALYSIS PROJECT BACKGROUND Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 was continued from the County Planning Commission Hearing of December 20, 1989, at the request of the applicant and the City of Temecula. The Comqty Planning staff was concerned that the proposed subdivision was incompatible with the vineyards east of the site and was not consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan design policy, requiring buffers to minimize land use conflicts between agricultural land uses and other land uses. - -2- County staff pointed out that the Margarita Village Specific Plan south of the site stipulates densities of one (1) dwelling unit per acre and 0.7 dwelling units per acre adjacent to the vineyards. County staff also requested that the applicant redesign the project with lots of at least 10,000 square feet, gradually transitionlng to 20,000 square feet adjacent to the vineyards east of the site. The applicant refused to redesign the project, and County staff prepared a recommendation of denial. Subsequent to the continuance from the hearing of December 20, 1989, the applicant met with County planning staff. The applicant agreed to incorporate sloped landscaped buffers 20 to ~0 feet wide along Butterfield Road and 20 to 50 feet wide along the portion of La Serena way which is visible from Butterfield Stage Road. Block walls are included at the tops of the landscaped slopes. These provisions satisfied the County staff, and a recommendation was made at the Planning Commission hearing of February 7, 1990, to adopt the Negative Declaration, to approve a waiver of the required lot length to width ratio for Lots 76, 102, 103, 136, 137, and 1~1, and to approve Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amendment No. ~. The County Planning Commission recommended that the City of Temecula adopt the Negative Declaration, approve the waiver of lot length to width ratio, and approve the Tentative Tract. AREA SETTING The 80 acre site lies in hilly terrain containing steep slopes in several areas and is traversed by several well-defined washes. There is an existing single family residential development and another development under construction west of the site. The easterly site abuts vineyards. There are scattered residences on large lots north of the site, and the Margarita Village Specific Plan is south of the site. The site is near a designated Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat habitat and areas of sensitivity for archaeological and paleontological resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is to subdivide an 80 acre site into 257 single family residential lots. The minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet. Lot sizes range from 8,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet. As a buffer between the proposed project and the vineyards east of the project site, the proposed map shows landscaped slopes 20 to ~0 feet wide along Butterfield Stage Road and 20 to 50 feet wide on both sides of La Serena Way. The map indicates a six foot block wall at the top of the landscaped slopes. Portions of ~3 of the proposed lots are contained in the landscaped slopes which are to become a landscape easement maintained by a homeowner~s association. A waiver from the subdivision design standard that lot depth shall not exceed 2 112 times the lot width for lots of 18,000 square feet or less is requested for six of the proposed lots. One of the six lots is located on a cul-de-sac. The others abut straight or slightly curved streets. -3- SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS ACCESS Access to the site from paved and maintained streets is taken from La Serena Way on the westerly side of the site, and from Butterfield Stage Road on the easterly side of the site. The nearest major arterial street with freeway access is Rancho California Road. TRAFFIC IMPACT A traffic study was not submitted to the County for the project in question. Therefore, information is not available regarding estimates of project generated traffic and traffic impacts on the levels of service of streets in the vicinity. The Southwest Area Community Plan suggests a target Level of Service C and a target peak level of Service D. The project could be inconsistent with the Area Community Plan on the basis of project generated peak hour traffic impacts on Rancho California Road at Highway 15. The County Road Department specified a fee of $150 per lot for traffic signal improvements. A traffic study is still needed in order to determine the distribution and volumes of existing traffic, projected future traffic, and traffic generated by the proposed subdivision. GRADING Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, Amendment No. ~, indicates that the project as designed would require over two million cubic yards of excavation on the site. There would be 2,158,759 cubic yards of cut, 2,037,969 cubic yards of fill, and 120,790 cubic yards of earth exported from the site. An average of approximately 7,900 cubic yards of earth per lot would be moved on the site, and an average of approximately ~70 cubic yards of earth per lot would be exported from the site. This amount of excavation constitutes a substantial alteration of the existing terrain. Staff suggests that topographic alteration to this extent substantially alters the character of the site and diminishes the character and flavor of the community as a whole. DRAINAGE Several drainage courses traverse the property, and the site is subject to storm run-off from several small watersheds. The developer proposes to intercept off- site runoff and convey it through the site in a storm drain system. The tract is located within the Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley and Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. Drainage fees must be paid to the County Road Commissioner at the time of recordation of the final map. Drainage easements must be obtained from affected property owners for off-site drainage facilities. Said easements must be recorded prior to recordation of the final map. Proposed parcels 160 through 171 are located downslope from several parcels of Tentative Tract No. 221q8. This will likely require cross lot drainage and recordation of drainage easements on lots 16L~ through 170. Future drainage problems could then be the responsibility of the City. KANGAROO RAT HABITAT A biological survey revealed that the Stephens Kangaroo Rat occupies parts of the site. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits for the site, the secretary of the interior must have approved the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and issued a Section 10 |a| permit for incidental taking of Stephens Kangaroo rats. A report documenting the amount and quality of the species habitat subject to disturbance or destruction by the proposed tract must be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. Any disturbance to the site requires appropriate federal permits, including grading, disking, clearing, and construction. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed density of 3.2 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan (S.W.A.P.) designation of 2-/4 residential units per acre. All of the proposed lots contain at least 8,000 square feet of total area and conform to the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the RT zone. However, the usable area of/43 of the proposed lots is reduced by the landscaped slope easement and the block wall. Fifteen of the lots have less than 7,200 square feet of usable area. Some parcels have as little as 6,000 square feet of usable area. Eight of the proposed lots do not have 100 feet of usable lot depth. Lots with less than 7,200 square feet of usable lot area are not consistent with the intent of the SWACP designation of 2-/4 units per acre. This intensity of development may not be consistent with the Future General Plan given the natural topography and adjacent vineyard. PROJECT NOT CONSISTENT WITH SWACP POLICIES SWACP General Design Policy states that adequate buffers shall be encouraged in order to minimize land use conflicts between agricultural operations and other land uses. The vineyards east of the site are part of the citrus/vineyard/rural policy area. One of SWACP goals for this policy area is to preserve the rural lifestyle and wine making atmosphere of the area. A landscaped slope 20 to feet wide and a block wall are inadequate as a buffer between a rural vineyard area and the proposed 257 lot subdivision which would generate a substantial amount of traffic on Butterfield Stage Road adjacent to the vineyards. PROJECT NOT COMPATIBLE WITH MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN The proposed tract is not compatible with the Margarita Village Specific Plan south of the site. The Margarita Village Specific Plan stipulates densities of 0. 7 to 1.0 unit per acre adjacent to the vineyards. -5- LAND USE The proposed intensity of residential development is inappropriate for the property in question. The hilly terrain of the site and the proposed amount of excavation in excess of two million cubic yards of cut and fill indicate that residential development of a substantially lower density than that proposed would be more appropriate. The location of the site adjacent to a vineyard also suggests a lower intensity of development pursuant to SWACP policies encouraging buffers between agricultural operations and other land uses and preservation of the rural life style and wine making atmosphere of the vineyard areas· FINDINGS Due to its hilly terrain and the adjacent agricultural use, the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The proposed intensity of development is inconsistent with Southwest Area Community Plan {SWACP) policies encouraging adequate buffers between agricultural uses and other land uses and preservation of the rural lifestyle and wine making atmosphere of the adjacent vineyard area. The proposed tract is not compatible with the Margarita Village Specific Plan south of the site in that the specific plan stipulates densities of 0. 7 to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre adjacent to the vineyards. The proposed subdivision is technically consistent with the requirements of the R-T zone regarding lot area and dimensions and conforms to the density of 2-/4 units per acre as designated in the SWACP. However, the landscape easement along Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way reduces the usable lot area of fifteen lots to less than 7,200 square feet of lot area and the usable depth of eight lots to less than 100 feet. A total of 18 lots do not have adequate usable lot area and/or usable lot depth to satisfy the minimum requirements for lot area and dimensions in the R-T zone. Said 18 lots are not in conformance with the intent of the SWACP land use designation of 2-/4 units per acre. Six of the proposed lots do not conform to subdivision design standard that lot depth shall not exceed 2 1/2 times lot width. There is a possibility that the proposed subdivision will be inconsistent with the policies and land use designations of the City's General Plan when it is adopted. The City has 30 months from the date of incorporation to adopt a General Plan. There is a possibility that the proposed subdivision could constitute a substantial detriment to or interfere with the Cityss General Plan. -6- Since no traffic study was conducted for the project, the volumes, distribution, and impacts of project generated traffic on the streets in the vicinity are undetermined. It is possible that cumulative traffic impacts could result in levels of service inconsistent with the requirements of the Southwest Area Community Plan and/or the new City General Plan when it is adopted. It would be inappropriate to adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract No. 23209 in the absence of a traffic study. The location of lots 160 through 171 downslope from parcels of an adjacent tentative tract could cause drainage problems and could constitute a legal liability for the City. Tentative Tract No. 23209 is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act regarding passive use of solar energy that the proposed lots have significant southern exposure which allows for passive heating opportunities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council DENY Tentative Tract No. 23209 based on the analysis and findings contained in this staff report. 'TENTA, T roVE, 'T'I~A,CT ', THE VINEYARD SERENA. kLIFOR Winery Vineyards ':, ~ .~- 330L""2 ~ertson ~. V/C' /AJ /T F MAP l'. SO0' RIVEiSIDE CX:)UNIY PLANNING DEPAF1TMENT .o roeALE 23209 ~ '1~'~~ix TE N'FATIVE MARLBOI~IOUG;-I VILLAGE. SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: Riverside County Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE:April 6, 1990 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209, AMENDED NO. 4 - Alba Consulting - First Supervisorial District - Skinner Lake Area - 80 Acres - 257 Lots -Schedule A - R-T Zoning. RECOMMENDED MOTION: RECEIVE AND FILE the above referenced case acted on by the Planning Commission on February 7, 1990. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33254 based on the findings incorporated in the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209, AMENDED NO. 4 subject to the attached conditions and based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated February 7, 1990. PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located west of Butterfield Stage Road and north of Rancho California road in the City of Temecula. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 4 is a proposal to subdivide 80 acres into 257 lots. The property in question is zoned R- T. Surrounding zoning is A-1-10, R-R, R-A-5, R-A-2 1/2, R-T, and Specific Plan No. 194 (Margarita Village). The property in question is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses include vineyards, scattered large lot residential, residential under construction, and Specific Plan No. 194. The proposed project design is compatible with the existing vineyards adjacent to the east, and the project design is consistent with the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan Land Use Policies and the General Design Considerations of the Southwest Area Community Plan which call for adequate buffering between agricultural land uses and residential land uses. All environmental concerns outlined in the environmental assessment can be mitigated through the conditions of approval. Zontng Area: Sktnner Lake Supervlsortal DIstrict: Ftrst E.A. Number: 33254 Regtonal Team No.: One TENTATIVE TRACT NAP NO. 23209 ANENDED NO. 4 Planntng Commission: 2-7-90 Continued from 12-20-89 Agenda Item No.: I RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT STAFF REPORT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. Applicant: Engtneer/Rep.: Type of Request: Location: Extstlng Zontng: Surrounding Zoning: Site Characteristics: Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: Land Division Data: Agency Recommendations: 12. Letters: 13. Sphere of Influence: Alba Consulting Alba Consulting Subdivide 80 acres tnto 257 lots West of Butterfield Stage Road and northerly of Rancho California Road R-T R-A-5, R-A-2 1/2, R-R, A-1-10, R-T, and SP 199 Hilly vacant land traversed by several washes. VIneyards, vacant land and an approved tract under construction Land Use: Category II Density: 3.8 dwelllng untts per acre Total Acreage: 80 Total Lots: 257 DU Per Acre: 3.8 dwelltng unltsper acre Road: 01-24-90 Health: 01-22-90 Flood: 01-22-90 FIre: 01-22-90 Bldg.& Safety: Land Use: 01-24-90 Gradtng: 01-23-90 Opposing/Supporting: None Not wtthtn a ctty sphere ANALYSIS: Pro~ect Description: Tract Nap No. 23209, Amended No. 3 proposes to subdivide 80 acres tn 257 lots. The proposed project ts located west of Butterfield Stage Road and north of Ranch California Road tn the newly incorporated Ctty of Temecula. Land Use/ZontnQ: The proJect site ls presently vacant. Surrounding land uses tnclude vineyards adjacent to the east, scattered large lot residential to the north, residential under construction to the west, and Specific Plan No. 194, Nargartta VIllage, to the south, southeast and southwest. TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209, AND. NO. 4 Staff Report Page -2- The stte ts currently zoned R-T. Surrounding zontng to the east ts A-1-10 and R-R, to the north R-A-5 and R-A-2 1/2, to the west R-T, end SP zoning to the south, southeast, and southwest. General Plan Consistency and Area Comoattbtlltv: The project site as of December 1, 1989 ltes wtthtn the newly Incorporated City of Temecula. The project also 1tee within the approved Southwest Area Con~nuntty Plan. The SWAP designation for this site ts 2 to 4 dwelling untts per acre. The proJect's proposed density is 3.8 dwelltn9 untts per acre ts consistent with the SWAP designated denstry for the slte. The proposed project ts zoned R-T which allows mobilehome subdivisions and mobtlehome parks as well as single family residential development. The project site ts adjacent to vineyards to the east whtch are designated a Citrus/VIneyard/Rural Policy Area on the Southwest Area Community Plan. The northern boundary and the northwest corner of the proposed project are bounded by land zoned R-A-5 and R-A-2 1/2. Spectflc Plan No. 194, Margarita Village, lies adjacent to the proposed project to the south, southwest and southeast. Elements of thts Speclftc Plan are adjacent to the vineyards to the east. These elements have denslty designations of one (1) d~elltn9 untt per acre and (.7) dwelltng units per acre. Clearly, these low density designations tn Spectfic Plan No. 194 are designed to buffer the higher denstty elements of SP No. 194 from the vineyards to the east. The General Destgn Considerations sectton of the Southwest Area Community Plan states that, "Adequate buffers shall be encouraged In order to minimize land use conflicts between agricultural operations and other land uses." Staff has requested that the project be designed wtth buffers along the boundary adjacent to the vineyards. Staff has also requested the project be destgned wtth larger lots of 10,000 square feet tn the westernportlons of the project, transitiontrig to 20,000 square feet on the eastern boundary of the project adjacent to the vineyards and the lo~ denstry element of SP No. 194. The project applicant has refused to design the proposed project to meet these concerns and as such the proposed project ts Incompatible with the exlsttng vineyards adjacent to the east. Staff finds that the proposed project has a density which ts consistent with the Land Use Element of the Southvest Area Community Plan, but the design of the project is not consistent wtth the element of the Southvest Area Community Plan which calls for adequate buffering between agricultural land uses and residential land uses, and that the proposed project as destgned Is Inconsistent wlth the compatibility requirements of the Southvest Area Conlnunlty Plan. Therefore, Staff ftnds this project to be Inconsistent wtth the Comprehensive General Plan and Incompatible wtth area development. TENTATZVE TRACT NAP NO. 23209, AMD. NO. 4 Staff Report Page 3 Environmental Analysts: An tntttal study for Environmental Assessment No. 33254 was done for the project, The Environmental Assessment 1dentilted the following concerns: Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habttat (SKR), slopes, vegetation, energy resources, paleontologtcal resources, and schools. BIological report No. 361 was prepared for the project stte. Thts report 1denttried Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat on the project stte, Conditions have been drafted and approved by County Counsel for cases where Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habttat has been identified In areas outside established Stephens' Kangaroo Rat study areas. The conditions of approval for this case include the applicable SKR conditions. These SKR conditions requtre a habitat conservation plan be established prtor to the tssuance of butlding or grading permits, and that the project comply with the provisions of thts habitat conservation plan. Exhlbtt D 1denttries the areas of the proposed project which has Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat. The project proposes significant cut and f111 slopes. Thts concern can be addressed through the recommendations outlined In the County Geologtst's letter. All other environmental concerns wtll be mitigated through the conditions of approval. FINDINGS: Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 3 Is a proposal to subdivide 80 acres tnto 257 lots. 2. The property tn question ts zoned R-T. Surrounding zoning ts A-1-10, R-R, R-A-5, R-A-2 1/2, R-T, and Spectftc Plan No. 194. 4. The property in question ts currently vacant. Surrounding land uses tnclude vineyards, scattered large lot residential, residential under construction, and Specific Plan No, 194, 6. The project lies withtn the newly Incorporated Ctty of Temecula. The proposed project denstry of 3.8 dwelling untts per acre ls consistent wtth the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-4 dwelltng untts per acre, The proposes project destgn is incompatible with the existing vineyards adjacent to the east. i TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23209, AMD. NO. 4 Staff Report Page 4 9. The proposed project design is Inconsistent with the General Land Use Poltcies and General Design Considerations of the Southwest Area Community Plan whtch call for adequate buffering between agricultural land uses and residential land uses. 10. All environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 3 ts Incompatible wtth Area Development. 2. Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 3 is inconsistent with the compatibility requirements of the Southwest Area Community Plan and therefore is inconsistent with the Comprehensive General Plan. RECOHHENDATIONS: DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209, AMENDED NO. conclusions as found In the staff report. 3 based on the findings and RW:lg9 12-11-89 FURTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Date: February 7, 1990 Tentative Tract Nap No.23209 was continued from the December 20, 1989 Planning Commission Hearing at the request of the City of Temecula. The applicant had met with staff prior to the December 20, 1989 Planning Commission Hearing to request a continuance and a meeting with staff to address staff's concern about the project design. Staff and the applicant have met, and as a result, the applicant has Incorporated landscape buffers and block walls Into the project destgn to address staff's concerns about project compatibility wtth the vineyard area adjacent to the east. Staff ftnds that the project design now meets tts concern about compatibility with area development. The redestgned tract (Tract No. 23209, Amd. No. 4) reflects these changes. · Therefore, staff now finds the project to be consistent with the compatibility requirements of the Southwest Area Coa~nuntty Plan. The design of the project Is consistent with the element of the Southwest Area Community Plan callln9 for adequate buffers between agricultural uses and residential land uses, and that the project is consistent wtth the Comprehensive General Plan and compatible wtth area development. The conditions of approval have been amended In order to reflect amended project design. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23209, AMD. NO. 4 ,taff Report Page 5 FINDINGS: 1, Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, Amended No, 4 is a proposal to subdivide 80 acres into 257 lots, 2, The property in question is zoned R-T, 3, Surrounding zoning is A-1-10, R-R, R-A-5, R-A-2 1/2, R-T and Specific Plan No. 194, 4. The property in question is currently vacant, 5. Surrounding land uses include vineyards, scattered lar9e lot residential, residential under construction, and Specific Plan No. 194. 6. The project lies within the newly incorporated City of Temecula. ?. The proposed project density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre is consistent. with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-4 dwelling units per acre. 8. The proposed project design is compatible with the existing vineyards adjacent to the east. 9. The proposed project design is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Policies and General Design Considerations of the Southwest Area Community Plan which call for adequate buffering between agricultural land uses and residential land uses. 10. All environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval. 11. There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the General Plan proposal bein9 considered or studied by the City of Temecula, or which will be studied within a reasonable time by the City of Temecula. (Added by Staff 2-7-90) 12. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the City of Temecula's future adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with the Plan. (Added by Staff 2-7-90) 13. The project complies with all other applicable requirements of State Law and local ordinances. (Added by Staff 2-7-90) CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amd. No.4 is compatible with area development. Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amd. No. 4 is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan, and the Comprehensive General Plan. The environmental concerns can be mitigated through the conditions of approval. ENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23209, AMD. NO. 4 Staff Report Pa9e 6 RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPTXON of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33254 based on the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, APPROVAL of the waiver of the lot length-to-width ratio for Lots 76, 102, 103, 136, 137, and 141; (Added by Staff 2-7-90); and APPROVAL of TENTATIVE TRACT 23209. AND. NO. 4, subject to the conditions of approval. RW:!gg:cs~ 1/24/90 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23209 ANENDED NO. 4 DATE: EXPIRES: STANDARD CONDITIONS: The following conditions of approval are for Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 4, e The subdivider shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, tts agents, officers, and employees from any claim, actton, or proceeding agatnst the County of RIverside, tts agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of RIverside, advtsory agencies, appeal boards, or legtslattve body concerning Tentative Tract No. 23209, Amended No. 4, which actton ts brought within the ttme period provided for In California Government Code, Sectton 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, actton, or proceeding agatnst the County of Riverside and w111 cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such clatm, actton, or proceeding or fatls to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, Indemnify, or hold harmless the County of RIverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A, unless modifted by the conditions ltsted below. This condlttonally approved tentative map w111 exptre two years after the County of RIverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provtded by Ordinance No. 460. The ftnal map shall be prepared by a 11censed land surveyor subSect to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and Ordinance No. 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the RIverside County Surveyor's Offtce and two coptes to the Department of Butldtng and Safety. The report shall address the sotls stability and geological conditions of the stte. Zf any gradtn9 tf proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive gradtng plan to the Department of Butldlng and Safety. The plan shall comply wtth the Untform Butldlng Code, Chapter 70, as ended by Ordinance No. 457 and as may be additionally provtded for tn these conditions of approval. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Butldlng and Safety prtor to commencement of any gradtng outside of County maintained road right- of-way. TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209 AMENDED NO. 4 Conditions of Approval Page 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15, 16o 17. 18. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall comply with the street Improvement recommendations outlined tn the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated Bep~embef-er-q4Jegl, January 24, 1990, a copy of which ts attached. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90) Legal access as required by Ordinance No. 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County 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 Road Commissioner. Street names shall be sub3ect to the approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated AtH3tmt-+6r~;C;, January 22, 1990, a copy of which is attached. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90) The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dated Beptembef-~r-HJ~h, January 22, 1990, a copy of which is attached. If the land division ltes within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance No. 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90) The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined In the County Fire Harshal's letter dated Abltmt-gaT-4969T, January 22, 1990, a copy of which ts attached. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90) The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department - Land Use Sectton's transmlttal dated 6el~embeP-er-Heh January 24, 1990, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department - Grading Sectton's transmlttal dated Sep~elRbef-)T-4989T January 23, 1990, a copy of whtch is attached. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90) 'ENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209 NENDED NO. 4 Conditions of Approval Page 3 19. 20. 21. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Geologist's transmittal dated April 28, 1989, a copy of which is attached. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: All lots shall have a minimum size of 8,000 square feet 9ross. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance No. 460 with the exception of lots 76, 102, 103, 136, 137, and 141. (Amended at Planning Commission 2-7-90) Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.88 of OFdinance No. 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-T zone. When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easement. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Trash bins, loading areas, and incidental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. 'ENTATZVE TRACT NO, 23209 ~NENDED NO, 4 Conditions of Approval Page 4 22, 23. 24. Prior to the RECORDATION of the final map, the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County Health Department County Flood Control County Planning Department County Parks Department County Airports Department Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Prior to the recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. ae The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "County Slope Stability Report No. 115 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department." (Renumbered by Staff 2-7-90) The landscape easements shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 23209, Amd. No. 4 shall be delineated on the environmental :onstraints sheet. {Added by Staff 2-7-90) The notice appearing in Section 6.a of Ordinance No. 625, the Riverside County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet, with Lots No 110-134, 242-255, and 6-10 identified therein, tn the manner provided In satd Section 6.a., as being located partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of, land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes by the County of RIverside. (Added by Planning Commission 2-7-90) If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual gradtng plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for Individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. 'ENTATZVE TRACT NO, 23209 NENDED NO. 4 Conditions of Approval Page 5 Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. 25. 26. 27. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceed ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following gra~in9 techniques: The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Angular forms shall be discourage~. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. Where cut and/or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: 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. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval· All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23209 ANENDED NO. 4 Conditions of Approval Page 6 28, 29. 30. Prior to the Issuance of OCCUPANCY PFRNZTS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prtor to the ftnal bulldtng Inspection approval by the Bulldlng and Safety Department a 6 feet high block wall shall be constructed along the landscape easement as shown on Tentative Tract Nap No. 23209, Amd. No. 4, and a 6 feet high block wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of the project on all lots and portions of lots along the perimeter of the project not covered by the landscape easements. (Amended by Staff 2-7-90) All landscaping and irrigation shall be Installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be vertfted by a Planning Department field Inspection. Development Mitigation fees shall be paid in accordance with County Ordinance No. 659. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision tn accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision tn accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 460. Prior to issuance of grading permits a Paleontological Study shall be performed and submitted to the Planning DepartJnent for approval. Zf the potential for paleontological resource are 1dentilted prior to the tssuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed gradtng with respect to potential paleontologlcal impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential ts high for tmpact to significant resources, a pre-grade meettng between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily dtvert, redtract or halt grading acttvlty to alloff recovery of fossils. Prtor to the issuance of gradtng or buildtng permtt: The Secretary of the Intertot must have approved the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habttat Conservation Plan and any proposed taktn9 of the SKR must be In compliance wtth the approved plan. The Secretary of the Zntertor must have tssued to the County, the Section lO(a) Permit required by the Endangered Spectes Act of ,1973 and satd Permit must be tn effect; and tENTATTVE TRACT NO. 23209 ANENDED NO. 4 Conditions of Approval Page 7 32° A report, prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Ftsh and Wlldllfe Servtce to trap the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat for scientific purposes, documenting the amount and qualtty of occupted Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. Habltat subject to disturbance or destruction must have been submitted to end approved by the P]annlng Director. Prtor to the Issuance of a gradtn9 or building permit, the applicant shall comply wtth the provision of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth In that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of Habitat Conservation Plan prtor to the payment of the fee requtred by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant sha~l pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as Implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to the recordatlon of the ftna] subdivision map, the subdivider shall submit the fol]owlng documents to the Planning Department for revtew, which documents shall be subject to the approva~ of that department and the Office of the County Counse3: 1. A declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; and, A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an Individual lot or untt whtch provtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions ts Incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provtde for a mintmum term of 60 years, (b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the o~ners of each individual lot or untt as tenants tn common, and (c) contatn the following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding any provision in thts Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: The propertyudners' association establtshed heretn shall manage and continuously malntatn the 'common area', more particularly described on "Tentative Tract Nap No, 23209, Amd, No, 4", attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area' or any part thereof, absent the prtor wrttten consent of the Planning Dtrector of the County of RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest. The property o~ners' association shall have the rtght to assess the ovners of each Individual lot or untt for the reasonable cost of maintaining the 'conwRon area' and shall have the rtght to 1ten the property of any such owner who defaults In the payment of a maintenance assessment. As assessment 1ten, once created, shall be prtor to all other 11ens"recorded subsequent to the nottce of assessment or other document creattng the assessment 1ten. TENTAT:ZVE TRACT NO. 23209 tENDED NO. 4 Conditions of Approval Page 8 Thts Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended, or property deannexed therefrom absent the prtor wrttten consent of the Planntng Dtrector of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-In-interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage, or maintenance of the 'common area'. the event of any conf11ct between this beclaratton and the Arttcles of Zncorporatton, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, tf any, this Declaration shall control." Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map ts recorded. (Added by Staff 2-7-90) R~:csf, lgg 12/11/89 1/25/90 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER & COUNTY SURVEYOR [.tRoy D. Smoo~ lOAD ~I~!ISSIONLR & COUNTY $UF. VLrYOR January' 24, 1990 COUNTY ADMINI.qRATI~ CENT[/ MA/LD, IG ADDRF~: P.O. BOX 104)0 ~r. CALITORN[A 92502 (714) 787-6554 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Ladies and Gentlemen: Tract 23209 - Amend #4 Schedule A - Team i - 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 improvements, 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 elevations, 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 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., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/ or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows~ "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. e The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all of#site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. COUNTY ADHINISTRATI%~ CENTER * 4080 LENON STREET * FaVEP~E, CALDDRNIA 92501 aa~Uate. y 24' 1990' Page 2 e 12. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. Streets "A", 'B", 'C", 'D", 'E", 'G", 'H", "J", "L" and 'M" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60') Streets 'F" and 'I" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A. (36'/60') La Serena Way shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, Section A. (66'/88', including 32'/44' along APN 914-310-006) Butterfield Stage Road shall be deddicated right of way in accordance No. 100, Section A. (43'/55') improved within the with County Standard Walcott Lane shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. (22'/33') Comer cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. 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 Con~nissioner. Cc~npletion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-cie-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. 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 Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. The landdivider will provide east and west bound left turn lanes on La Serena Way at the intersections with Street 'B', Street 'J' and Butterfield Stage Road as approvedby the Road Department. Tract 23209 - Amend #4 ~anuary 24, lg90 Page 3 L6e 18. 19. 20. 21a. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho California Water District prior to the recordatton of the final map. The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of Ordinance 461. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line or as approved by the Road Conunisstoner. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalks). The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. A minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed between driveways. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights of way to provide for primary and secondary access road(s) to a paved and maintained road. Sald access road(s) shall be constructed in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60') at a grade and alignment approved by the Road Con~nissioner. Said offsite access road shall be the westerly extension of La Serena Way to the paved and maintained portion of La Serena Way or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Said offsite access roads shall be the southerly and easterly extensions of Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho California Road or as approved by the Road Coggnissioner. Prior to the recordatlon of the final map, or the granting of a waiver 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, a written agreement may be entered into with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. .January 24, 1990 Page 4 3. 4. 5. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 1e Electrical and con~unications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Lot access shall be restricted on Butterfield Stage Road and La SerenaWay 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. When blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road Con~nissioner. If the existing right of way along La Serena Way exceeds that which is required for this project, the developer may submit a request for the vacation of said excess right of way. Said procedure shall be as approved by the Board of Supervisors. If said excess or superseded right of way is also County owned land, it may be necessary to enter into an agreement with the County for its purchase or exchange. The applicant by design is requesting a vacation of the existing dedicated rights-of-way along South General Kearny Road and the 66 foot road easements as shown on the underlying P.M. 1/44-46. Said vacation shall be applied for by the applicant and approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the recordation of the final map or any phase thereof. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with PM 1/44-46, PM 14/93-95, PM 88/49-50, Tentative TRs 23101, 23103, 22148 and 20761. 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, 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 tmpro~nt plans. Tract'23209 - Amend #4 ~anuary 24, 1990 Page 5 A striping plan is required for La Serena Way and Butterfield Stage Road. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs berneby the applicant. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act any subdivision which is pan of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said Section. Road Division Engineer Arm SKINNER LAKE 'RcL Ic Pg. 8~>C Dmls 11/20/89 Dr~wn RIAL--. I10' CO0' OOUNTY ING DEI~NT RIVBiSDE 2 I~r. NO 8grA L ~ RD. TR e3~09 2 1/2 PROPOSED ZONING -A-5 12 ' ' · I _R-A-20 t~° 5 II .R-R .R-R "- WY, '~',,:,,,,, "'~"Z , .~-.: ' R 8P ZONE ',.~-- .. ~ 8K C. INTO 257 LOTS LOCATI~N4L 4~A; NER LAKE lee . · ~, ,,'**,*,', · . . . ,, (u~s) i slzfj. sia. ~eee 41 u,,is % eee (! lI~llXi ~ · e eo ,q= ."':~"~<D~S-'.: .!.~,.~ '::,>',j.'.:.'-......: ' '' .." '.T': ..'. . Oun~.~e~o er :~ n~;of.."~~s~:'?.~re still. S..CU~ren~ for ~.~.':':~'~6~S~Z~;'~;~S~;~,T'..'- .7',.."~..'~,-~: ..~ ~ T.?-'-~.-. ; ..' .'· .'· -. ·· ..,. ,.,, ~r~ . .L~...~.:.~~.~..:i. ,. :......... :...../-}.~ ~f 'l~',;'~re ":"" .... '; "-'- .....",": '1' ' .' Da~e .?~f.~T~%:,.,.f,;~.:~.,~?.?.:~?..~;.:~ .....~.., .-1.:....,.:.-..~.,1,...:....:-. y-...... · ..--,~¢.,2,-/.. .. T~e.,.. -' C ~unty of Rivers_de TO:RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. DATE: August 16, 1989 ATTN/y~ndy Wilson FROM: AM MARTINEZ, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST IV ~~ 23209, AMENDED N0. 3 RE: Environmental Health Services has reviewed Amended No. 3 dated August 15, 1989 . Our current comments will remain as stated in our letter dated January 26, 1989. SM:tac GEN. FORM 4, (R~v. 8/87) COUNTy oF RIVERSIDE t' --, DEPARTMENT =.-.,,,..-T' tLC ~ January 26, 1989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 lallllll loss RANSE'V STREET till 7~40 MARG,4JIIIflTA ltYEIISJD~, Ca II&O4 CO~C)~A. Ca II?,'O IlllET IIO NORTH STATE IT. liBtO IS-lOt ~llll ITIIEET I, ill gLeNlees Io~os wealER Det. kAlE SLINI4NiE. Ca. IllSO late II,~O LNd(N ITIIIET liIvERIID(, Ca. eliot emil Ill. lOll eLVD. RE; TRACT MAP 23209: All that certain real property situated ~n the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside, State of California, described as Parcels l, 2, 6, lg, 20, 31 and 50 as shown in document recorded June 27, 1986 is Instrument No. 15005 of Riverside County Records, all in the Murr~eta portion of the Tamecull Ranthe. as shown by map of the Tamecull Land and Water Company, on file in Book 8, Page 359 of maps, records of San Diego County, Callforni$ (304 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tent·alva Map No. 23209 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of Yalves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the sixe of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 6, Part l, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: Alex Gann January 26, 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 Tract Nap 23209 is accordance with the vator system expansion plans of the R,ncho California Water District and that the water service,storage and distribution system v111 be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This certification does not constitute guarantee that it v111 supply water to such tract at any specific quantities. flows or pressures for fare protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by m responsible offmoil1 of the water company. _T13_!_Rlans must be !Vbmitted to the Surveyor's Of£)ce to review at leas~_~)g_!R!~)_9Emor to 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 lubd~vider. It wi~l be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from 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 specmfications 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 ,h, ll ,how the intern, 1 pipe diameter. loc,tion of m,nhole,. complete profiles. pipe and joint specification, · nd the ,ixe of the ,ever, at the ~unction of the new ,y, tem to the existing ,y,tem. A ,ingle pl,t indicating location of ,ever line, and water line, ,hall be , portion of the ,ew, ge plan, and profile,. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer ,rid the sewer district with the following certification: "l certify that the design Of the sewer system in Tract Map 23209 is an accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste dispea,1 system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract." Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Three Attn: Alex Gann January 26, lg8g must be submitted to the ~9_£!y~!~_~&_l~ast two vee~,!_~ior to the It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordat~on of the final map. It will be necessary for annexation proceedings to be completely finalized prior to recordatmon of the fznal map. Environments1 Health Services SN:tac ~ KENNETH L EDWARDS 1995 MARKET STREET P.O, BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (714) 787-2015 FAX NO, (714) 788-9965 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 Riverside County P1 anni n9 Department County Admi n i strat i ve Center Riverside, Cal ifornia Attention: Regional Tea No I Re: "T'/~ 2~2¢~ PlannerlP~.~ ~,'15~ A e.,l d We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports.' This project is in the Area drainage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~les and regulations. The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. __. This project is a part of The projuct will he free of ordinary storm flood 'hazard when i~provemen{~'have been constructed accordance with approved plans. The attached conmmnts apply. H. KASHUBA ior Civil Engineer DATE: J. ~, :zt I ~ q0 KENNETH L I:~ARI:~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RNI:IISIi:)E, CJd. IFOIINIA September 27, 1989 lies MARKlET I'l"Wrrr P.O. BOX IO33 'TEl. IF, HONE {?t4) 117-2015 FAX NO. ('/14) 118-tl65 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 A~:~x C4nn Ladies and Gentlemen: Re= Tract 23209 Amended No. 3 This is a proposal to divide 80 acres in the Rancho California area. The site is located on both sides of La Serena Way west of Butterfield Stage Road. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural watercourses which traverse the property. The site is subject to storm flows from several watersheds. The developer proposes to intercept these offsite flows and convey them through the tract in a storm drain system. Onsite flows are proposed to be conveyed through the street system and into storm drain sys- tems. The diversions being created by the storm drain picking up flow between Lots 119 and 120, and Lots 163 and 164 is acceptable since Tract 23101 has accounted for these flows. Following are the District's recommendations: This tract~s located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley and 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 February 16, 1988: 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 shall be paid as a condition of the waiver prior to recording a certificate of compliance evidencing the waiver of the parcel map; or Riverside County Planning Department Rez Tract 23209 Amended No. 3 -2- September 27, 1989 At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting deformant of the payment of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Build- ing Director at the time of issuance of a grading permit or building permit for each approved parcel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided however, this option to defer the fees may not be exercised for any parcel where grading or structures have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3 year period, or permits for either activity have been issued on that parcel which remain active. Oneits 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"· Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property owners. The documents should be re- corded and a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be installed. The property's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area, outlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or di- verted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the recordation of the final map. -3- September 27, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department Rez Tract 23209 Amended No. 3 Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. If the tract is built in phases, each phase shall be pro- tected from the i in 100 year tributary storm flows. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda- tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to iszuance of grading permits· Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Zully Smith of this office at 714/787-2333. cz Alba Engineering Inc. ry, truly yo r , HN H. KASHUBA 'or Civil Engineer ZS:mcy PlanninS&~~e 46-209 Oasis 5~ree~. Suite 405 indio, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 RIVIE::P, SIDE COUN'T'Y ~ DI;PARTHE:HT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN 1-22-90 Plannin8 & F-nSlneerinS OBce 4080 Lemon 5~et, Suite 11L Rivmside, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 TO: ATTN: RE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ALEX GANN TRACT 23209 - AMENDED ~4 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2}") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the fiua/map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Subject: Tract 23209 Page 2 All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist ~lna cl]epaaEmeaE o6 ~u~clt.9 a.d Administrative Center, 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 June 2, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Dave Wahlgren County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Tract 23209, Amended Ladies and Gentlemen: //~ v/2 cp The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: 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 S' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum S' side yard setback. Very truly yours, Administration (714) 682-8840 a (714) 787-2020 BUILDXNG AND SAFETY DEPARTMENt GRADING SECTION TO: FROH: DATE: RE: APN PLANNING / RANDY WILSON TONY HARHON January 23, 1990 TRACT 23209 AHENDHENT ~4 914-310-016, 018, 032 The "Grading Section" has reviewed a conceptual grading plan for this site. The plan is acceptable. Consequently, the "Grading Section" recommends approval of this project if the following condition:; are included. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit an0 approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a gra~ing permit and a4~proval of the rough grade shall be obtained from the Building and~ Safety Department. Plant ana 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 ground cover. Slopes that exceed 15' in vertical height are to be prc'/~Oed with shrubs and/or trees per count Grd~nance 457, see form 284- 47. Lanescape plans are to be signed by a registereO landscape architect and bonOed per the reCuirements of Ordinance 457, see form 284-47. Grading in excess of 199 cubic yards will require performance security to be posted with the Buil0ing and Safety department. In instances where a grading plan i~volves import or export, prior to obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall have obtained approval for the import/export location from the Bui ldin9 and Safety Department - this may require a written clearance from the Planning Department. A notarized letter of permission, from the affected property owners, is required for any proposed offsite grading. A recorded drainage easement is required for the proposed lot to lot drainage. The proposed block wall appears to run parallel to and at the top of a slope. A Registered Civil Engineer shall mitigate the slopes effect on the wall's footing. The Wall will require a separate permit. NOTE: For the final grading plan, please provide the applicable information form Building and Safety Department gra~ing forms: 284-120, 284-21,284-86, and 284-45. Thank you. COUNTY OF RIVERBIDE PLANNING DEPARTNENT April 28, 1989 TO: Ktm Johnson - Team 1 FRON Steven A, Kupfemen - Engineering Geologist ~ lIE: ,remtatlee Tract FJ209 Slope Stability Report No. 115 The following report has been reviewed relattve to slope stability at the subject stte: "Preliminary Geotechntcal Znvesttgatton of Tentative Tract Nap 23209, Rancho California, RIverside County, CA," by Letghton and Associates, Inc., dated Iqarch 22, 1989. · Thts report determined that: Fill and cut slopes on the order of 25 feet and 20 feet htgh, respectively, at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) are proposed for the development. Proposed slopes should be stable agatnst both the deep-seated fatlure and the surftctal fatlure provtded no adverse geologtc conditions exist tn the cut slope, 3. Cut slope excavation could expose adverse beddtng (out-of-slope) whtch may have a potential for s11dtng, 4. The slopes my be subject to erostve rt111ng. This report recormended that: Cut slopes should be geotechntcally mapped by the project geologist durtng grading. Reeedtal measures such as flattening slopes or construction of earthen buttresses fill be provided tf adverse geologic .conditions are encountered clurt ng grad1 ng, Cut end ftll slopes shoeld be profide vhtch appropriate dratMge feearras and landscaped vtth drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing vegetation as soon is posstble after grading, 4. kres should be provtded at the top of all slopes, end lot dratnage dtrected such that surface runoff on the slope face ts minimized. Thts report satisfies the General Plan roqutr~men; for a slope stability report. The recommendations tn thts report shall be adhered to tn the destgn and construction of this project. $AK:al DATE: October 21, 1988 RiV R3iDE COUntY PLAnnin DEPARClTIEnC · TO: Assessor Butldtng and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dada Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Ftre Protection Flood Control DIstrict F.~sh & Game U.S. Postal Service- Ruth E. Davidson '* Coentsstoner ,lack aresson C. ~1. Crottnger Rancho CA Water Southern CA Edison Southern GA Gas General Telephone CAL TRANS 18 Temecula Elementary Temecula Union School Dist. E 1 s t no r~.LU.n t dn'..l!13.~ :S choo 1 ~.~ t IiadowV't~"Comun t3; 'AssoE':" U, C, R,-Archo, OCT 2, 6 1988 RiVERSiDE COLir;TY PLANNI;~,G DEPAR TRACT 23209 - (Tin-i) - E.A. 33254 - Alba Consulting - Iqax Harrfson - Skinner Lake Area - First Supervtsortal District - ily of Butterfield Stage & La Serene Way Rly of Rancho California Road - R-T Zone - 80 Acres into 304 lots - Nod 119 - A.P. 924-310-016,914-310-018,032 Please review the case described above, along wtth the attached case map, A Land Division Comtttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for November 17, 1988, If it clears, It wtll then go to public hearing, Your cornants and recomnend~tfons ape requeS'ted prtor to November 17, 1988 tn order that we may include them tn the staff report for thts particular case, Should you have any questions regarding this 1tam, please do not hesttate to contact Alex Germ at 787-1363, Vlanner COle4ENTS: The Elstnore Unton Htgh School Dtstrtct facilities are overcrowded and our educational programs seriously impacted by Increasing student population caused by new residential, ceamertcal and industrial construction. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Sectton S3080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, thts dtstrtct levtes a fee agatnst all new development projects rithtn tts boundaries. DATE: 10-25-88 SIGNATURE PLEASE print aims end tttle Dr. Larry Hew, Superintendent 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (61 IN 342-6277 limitas A. Gray Rkked D. 6teffey k. Vim P~mident Jams A. Darby Tom A- LMvers Jon A, Leedin T. C. Rowe December 17, 1987 Riverside County Division of Environmental Health Land Use Section Post Office Box 1370 Riverside, California 92502 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Tract 23209 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within ~he boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, Therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the proper~y owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns. water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Sites for additional water production facilities may be required within the proposed development depending upon The level of increased demand created by The proposal. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, PJ~NCHO C~tTFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P, Deher~y Engineering Services Representative F011/dpth244 RANCHO C.ALIFORNIA WATER DISTRIC~ DATE: October 21, 1988 RiV 4)iDE COUnC,u PLAnnin DEPARC~IEnC T0: Assessor Butidtng and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Ftre Protection Flood Control Dtstrtct Ftsh & Game -1J.S. Postal Sirrice - Iluth E. Davtdson C~.:,,,tsstoner ,Jack Bresson C. a. Crottnger OCT 1988 -""-.," Rancho CA Mater Southern CA Edtson Southern GA Gas Ganeral Telephone CAL TRANS ~8 Temecula Elementary Temecula Union School Dist. Elstnore IJn~on Itigh School Meadowview COnTnuntty Assoc. U. C. R.-Archo. TRACT 23209 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 33254 - Alba Consulting - Max Harrtson- Sktnner Lake Area -Ftrst Superfisortal District of Butterfield Stage & La Serena May Nly of Rancho California Road - R-T Zone o 80 Acres tnto 304 lots - Nod 119 - A.P. 914-310'016,914-310-018,032 Please review the case described above, along wtth the attached case map. A Land DIvision Cmentttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for November 17, 1988. If tt clears, tt wtll then go to public hearing. Your comments and recomendattons are requested prtor to November 17, 1988 tn order that ~e my Include the~ tn the Staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding thts Item, please do not hasttare to contact Alex Germ at 787-1363. Vlanner 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 187-6181 46-209 OASIS STr~EET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-6277 DATE: October 21, 1988 T0: Assessor Butldtng and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dude Road Department Nealth - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control Dtstrtct Ftsh& Game U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davtdson Cowntsstoner Jack Bresson C. ~1. Crottnger RiVErSiDE COUnCu, LAnnir DEPaRtmEnt II~IN ARU OCT 24 1988 EOEOVE"' NOV 02 1988 ,e,, RIVER~ilDi: COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Rancho CA Water Southern CA Edison Southern GA Gas General Telephone CAL TRAN5 #8 Temecula Elementary Temecula Union School Dist. Elsinore Union Itigh School Meadowview Co~nunity Assoc. U. C. R.-Archo. -- TRACT 23209 - (Te-1) - E.A. 33254 - Alba Consulting - Max Harrison - Skinner Lake Area - First Supervisortel District - Wly of Butterfield Stage & La Serene Way Nly of Rancho California Road - R-T Zone - 80 Acres into 304 lots - Mod 119 - A.P. 914-310'016,914-310-018,032 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Comittee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for November 17, 1988. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your coeeents and recommendations ere requested prtor to November 17, lg88 in order that ee my include them in the staff report for this particulmr use. Should you have any questions regarding this 1tam, please do not hesitate to contact Alex Germ at 787-1363. Vlanner COIIIENTS: ~9 . ,,;,.~ L, ue, foc,',,. ! ;s e.e c .,,--, ~ ,.'..' , , Id4f . DATE: 1e/9//t #e SIGNATURE PLEASE print nee aM title EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER A~chuoloOlcaf Research Unit UNversttfy of California Rlersklt CA 92521 4080 LEMON STREET, P FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STkEET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 DATE: October 21o 1988 TO: &ssessor Butldlng and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dada Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Ftre Protection Flood Control Dtstrtct Ftsh& Game U.S. Postal Service o Ruth E. Davidson Comnissioner ,lack Bresson C. J. Crottnger : :IEVr--DiDE county PLAnnine DEPARClTIEn; , E )EDVE NOV 01 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY · LANNING DEPARTMENT Rancho CA Water Southern CA Edison Southern GA Gas General Telephone CAL TRANS #8 Temecula Elementary Temecula Union School Dist. Elsinore Union liigh School Meadowvi ew Comnuni ty Assoc. U. C. R.-Archo. TRACT 23209 - (Tm-1) - E.A, 33254 - Alba Consulting - Max Harrison - Skinner Lake Area - First Supervtsorial District - Wly of Butterfield Stage & La Serena Way Nly of Rancho California Road - R-T Zone - 80 Acres into 304 lots - Mod 119 - A.P. 914-310-016,914-310-018,032 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. Otvtston Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for November 17, 1988. dears, it will then go to public hearing. A Land If It Your coements and recomendattons ape reque~tid prtor to November 17, 1988 in order that we may Include the in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Alex Gann at 787-1363. Vlanner CQIIm/NTS: ~ ,,,. ~.- ~:..~. lgl'ltStt DATE: $16XATUIE REASE prtnt mime end title 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 STATE OF CALIFQINLA--IUSW4ESS. TIAMSPOITATIQ~ AND NQUSI4G AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION $TEICT I, P.O. IOX 231 .,,N 'aJ,; V*RDII IO. CA r~40'2 October 26, 1988 GEORGE IXq,,)I~kLIIAN, (]emeo~ Development Review O8-Riv-79-8.23 Your Reference: TTM 23209 Flanning Department Attention Mr. Alex Gann County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Mr. Gann: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative Tract Nap 23209 located westerly of Butterfield Stage and northerly of Rancho California Road in Temecula Ranch. This proposal is somewhat removed from an existing or proposed state highway. We have no specific comment on this proposal. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J. Nevtlle at (714) 383-438.. Very truly yours, H. N, LEWANDOWSKI Distriot Permits Engineer Southern Californil Edison Company P. O. IOX 410 100 LONG lEACH IOULEVARD ~ONG lEACH, CALIFORNIA IO80 t Riverside County Road Department P. O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Attention: Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Subdivision Section Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 November 9, 1988 Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any easement(s) held by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said tentative tract map. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's rights. title and interest in and to said easement(s). nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of any costs for relocation of affected facilities. In the event that the development requires relocation of facil- ities, if any, on the subject property by right of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation. X~ additional information is required in connection with the above mentioned subject, please call Dennis C. Bazant at (213) 491-2644. REE.OCATXONAND DISTRIBUTION XX,"N/bJw 14609-3~WPC cc: Riverside County Planning Department AlIA ENGINEERING, INC. PLANNING · ENGINEERING · SURVEYING County of Riverside PlanninS Department ~080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 Attention: Randy Wilson Subject: Tract 23209 Dear Nr, Wilson: Transmitted herewith is amendment was requested chanSes in the drainage AuSust 11, 1989 1012-00 Amendment No. 3 of Tract 23209. This by Flood Control and consists of minor patterns. We hereby request variances lots: to Ordinance ~60 for the following Please Lots 76, 102, 103, 136, schedule L.D.C. as soon as have any questions, please If 7ou CC: LaYerda E'Hond Hike Lundin 137, 141 possible. call. Respectfully, President 2968 H,bert St.. Su,te 100 * San D,ego. CA 92131 , TieDhone (619) 549-3303 41890 Enlrprise C~rcle South, Sle. 230 · Rancho Cal,fornia, CA 92390 · Telephone (/14) 676-7282 ALIA ENGINEERING, INC. PLANNING · ENGINEERING · SURVEYING AuEust 14, 1989 1012-00 County of Riverside PlsnninS Department &080 Lemon Street, 9th Riverside, California Floor 92501 Attention: Randy Wilson Subject: Tract 23209 Dear Nr. Wilson: This p~oject proposes slopes in excess of 10 feet in heiSht. These slopes are necessary in order to maintain drainaSe patterns and to prevent drainaSe from flowinS across property lines. In addition, some slopes are necessary due to county desiSn requirements for major roads i.e. La Serena and Butterfield StaSe Road. Respectfully, Richard L. Cruzen President RLC/js ~968 HiDerr St., Suite 100 · SIn D~ego, CA 92131 · Te~eDhone (619) 549-3303 41890 Enterl:mse Circle South. Sle 230 · Rlncho ClJdorn~a, CA 92390 · TeeDhOne (714) 676-7282 PLlrlniR,: DiPlq'dtlirl; ' AINI&ICA lION FOR LIND UIE AND DIVELOPIIENT _'. CHANGE OF ZONE NO, r" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO ~ PARCEL MAP NO. ~ PLOT RAN NO. D leU~IC USE PERMrr NO. D TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL MOT eE ACCEPTED. OCT 19 19 A .% RIVERb;DE'~UNTY CC)N. u~*4:~J~LING DEPARTMENT NqqJCAIfr INFORMATION 1. Nl~iclnt'I Nlme: mNImg MOreu: TNelmcme No: 2. Owners Name: Meihng AOOress Telephone N o 3 Representative: Ml,l,l~ Ajaress Telephone N O.: t ) ¢8 &m - 5 Ixm.) NOTE :If more thin one perSOn ~l. tnvO4veO m the OwnerShiD Of the properly beil~ OeveloC, ecI I sepe rlle page muir I118checi to thai IpphClteOn wheCh hItI the Aimel InO lOcifilial Of ill Dlrlors$ heyfire in aterail en the ow~e's,~; t~e ptolemy PROJECT INFORMATION 1. PurpOse Of ReQuest (aescribe protect) (OrChrmnce 348 ref. no.) ~-'~' ~2.~(,JL~ L C NIORIRTT INFORMATION 4080 LEMON rrREEI'. 9'" FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 12501-3657 (714) ?87-6181 I~-l°l,llelfil4e 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 3O4 INDIO, CALIFORNIA g220m ~lg) 342-8277 AINNJCA'rlON$ FOFI: IMIqCEL MAPS TRACll ZONE CHAN~ES CONDITIONAL l PERMIT~ PUBLIC USE PERMITS BURFACE MINING PERMITS IMND ENERGY CONVERSION IYETEM PR~RI'Y OtlINIRI NOlIFICAtI~N INPONIA. I'IO · ' :,e .. e.4~ Nulteee/.Oomme,=,,l: VARIANCES 1EMPORARY I PERMITS 1. 11V0 .tentat ~ to lie illcried le lipSrite I~" X 1;~~mlNII ef~ .Thee4 env~ lhlll ecltate the use I. ~yD~et~g~ed~N~e~iftdiC~if~Nm~q~er~t~m~M~he~R~n~~h~rew~th~nI ~t ~1.) O, ~l~~r. PROPERTY OWNIRI CERTIFICATION I, __, Certify lhl! on the I~ChlC~l Ixopeety Oemers hI1 was ~re~area by ~l, lltgl' · tO IlX)lt,,,Ition I~Quirlf~lntl turNSheel I}y the RwefliOe County INBnme~g DelartmenL kic1181 il · mpil; .-,n of Oemer of the 144NeCl prOI)erly IM Ill I~her ~rOperty ~ lVlthifi 300 feet I~ tftl IN~pltty iflvolvM in the IDPhcl- t~On lf~' . I:lltcl ulxm the illel! IQ~lhzl~l lllmlnl r~lll,. edorn~ ~ may N grman¢ls for mject~ofi or enll ot ~ I¢¢icetion. 1TrI, EIMGI~qA'rION: · STAFF USE ONLY · EN'VlRONIfENTAL INFOIlifATION POllif ~ coreDlate Plrts I I~CI II Of this tOrm IfiCI DrOvldt IH Of the Idditiofill mltlrlis recigelte(I dally the revtw sr~ process Of your ~ ~yog Sre gt~34e tO ~ the in~OrmtiO~Or yOg neecf ess~teKe. Cadease eeel free to Co4~c~ the Pisnntr~ Deplrtmenf It (714) II~FrT I: O4t~efsl Information 1. What s the TNf Acreage inv~lve{i? I~ t") 2. Is there e Wev~us eluoli~tion filed for the mine site? YES D ff 'Yet' prOvi0e Clle Ngmeaer. Also DrOviOe the Eh/,~rdr~, Int~l Aleelement NunS}at, If turnere, Im:l EnvirOnmental Impact ReDoff NumlDer, If IDOtl~le. CA,S~ NO {Pefce~ Me~ Zene Change, etc.) F,.A. NO. If KN:lwn), aIR NO. (1111~) 3, ~/it~f~c~mmentsy~m~y~Ishtoe~Rt/mgerd~ngy~ur~r~At~c~ne~M~t~ne~teet~~) I~lrt II: eremantel 42ul-t~onPtlre ~. Is the protect ~ an ~11 ~,c,~ lOeciel I~uclies Zon4? YES ~ NC~ To eletermine If your lygNect is leglto~ in I ~q~eciel J Zone, ~,,-~ct the J Ir~r,,,, Itio~ kior~ of refer fo the Ipecist Stgay Zertes Mepe availelSe at the Put}lie Irdoflltltiofi C, ou~r Of the Imlrmifig DeDIftllllrt If the Droject is wfth,n a ZOne. re,of to Ofclinance 547.1, eq arecuss the situation wtth the County If a fagit tlzergl report is neeelllry. coreDlate the investigation prior to m,emllting your -~r ¢ I~c t~fi and provide 6 cop,as o~ the report wilh this fom~. If I diver Of the recluiremenl~ is FllnlecL kabmil a col:W Of the wlNer with mfl form 2, Is the PrOWCt Iocatecl Wilhin 8 hUarel maBeeemem zoee of liQudaCt~On area ea ahoem oe aIDS of the 'heroic Safety Eta- menl Tecl~mcll Report"'~ YES ~ NC~ To cleterm;ne if your proiect is Sul~ to ttse eeologic Illzlrgll f~le{I iI)ove you Illoulgl ~,~utt the "&eilmic hfety & Sate: Element Technga; Report" w~ch S avsile!=4e at the PUI~C Informlemon Counter Of the Plenmr~ Department. ff the anNr tO QutlfsOn 112 is 'Yet" contlct ~he IDI)rOpeita GeOgrlDheC PIInrdng TIle ~lCtion to {hsculs IDDrODrslte eellure to m;n:m,ze the rlzlra. Incorporate Iny mttigltion el~llaure· into ttse DrOjeCl demgn prior tO aVOm~t|nG the IDDhCi. tiOn Or irglr,,Ite in the IDIce pr~ below the relults of your Cblcglm With the Pinning Team. 3 tf your protect ~1 m the elelert arlt is it Within a ID~I~I illzargl lrta9 YES ~ NC~ The Pinning Offal in IfidtO end Rwerl~le wilt Drovsae you with informltion cofv,'-eming bloclind ri,tlrCl$ You ely lis~ ~nlh to COnit ~ U.S ~Oil Conlervltcn Setwee If your DrOtect 8 aul~lect to Dlowsl n¢l hlzlrgll, lubmif I MnCl cofitroI Olin wtt'h the mlscltion. (Also refer to Sect ;on 14 Of Or~hnlnce 460. if your prolace m a Dlrcel mp Of IUID~INIIIOn) 4. le wmer seNre avsileDle a~ the protect Nee'~ YEE~}I~ NO; If 'No.' how fir mule the wmer b~e(s} IM e~enae{~ to provtee servte~ Number Of feel of miles Further egplenltsOn: 6. Is ~ lefviel IvlillDle at the late? ff *NO.' Iqce far mg~t the eater lee(s) IDa i~eN:IS~ to pr~wiae service ~ Numl}er el feet m' miles t.'t : 1 ECONOMIC AND HOUSING LOANS Riverside County .J APPRDx/IU. TELY $3.5 ILTI,LIOM HA~ BEEN MAD[ AVA]LABL[ FOR ECOROi~I C DEVELOPle, EI~ MDUSZI~ LOARS IN 198.9. APPL/EAT/ONS CAN BE F/LED WITH THE R3VERSID[ COU~;TY DEPARTI~ENI* OF ECONOMIC AND CONI~NITY DEVELOPNENT LOCATED AT 3499 TENTH STREE'**. P.O. IOX 1180. RIVERSIDE. CAL/FORNIA. 92502. COW, IJNITY DEVELOPMENT ILOCIC GRAt,'TS {CDBG) FRO N THE U.S. DEPARTI'tENT OF ARE USED TO C,ZATE SA,'E aO.S MDDERAT.E ]I,JC!Qe, tE COUNTY RES/DENTS. THE LOAHS HAVE BEEN USED FOR COI, e4ERC/AL. ll6)U$1'R1/U.. le)USING AN/) IRFR, ASTRUCTURE !m~JECTS. C~9~ERCIAJ, AN) ]NDUSTRI~ PROJECTS WHICH SAVE OR CREATE JOBS FOR LO~; ItCDK: RESIDENTS, CAN RECEIVE LOW INTEREST, PARTIA~ F/NAN:ING. UP TO 33 THE TOTAL PROJECT CAN B[ F/NAN:CO. THE NA. XXI.I~ LOAN ]S $S~O,OOD AND THERE CAP OF $15,0DD LOANED PER JOB CREATED OR RETAINED. THE HOUSIN~ LOAT~ LOAN UP TD SD PERCENT Or THE COST FOR CONSTR~:=TID,% OR RENASZLITATIDh C= ~D,, ]N~ON~ HOUSINg, FUNDS 1'~,2ST BE FULLY SECURED BY REAl, PROPERTY ~J~D $UBSTA!;T;A, DEVELOPER EOU]TY IS REQU]RED, THE LOAN FURD I$ OFFERED JOINTLY BY THE COUNTY AND $EVENTEE~ OF ITS C;T;E5. FOR FURTHER INFORIU. TION. CONTACT YOUR COBG AREA REPRESENTATIVE OR $1'itDDTIECK AT (714) 788-9770. 2/E,~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT COUNTY ADHINISTRATIVE CENTER, NINTH FLOUR 4080 L!90N STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 Roger S. Streeter, Planntng Director A FUBtICEARIIIG has been scheduled before the FLAIllIE C(11~S$I011 to constder the application(s) described below. The Plsnntng Department has tentatively found that the proposed proJect(s) will have no significant environmental effect and has tentatively completed negative declaration(s). The Planntng Cemtsston trill consider whether or not to adopt the negattve declaration along wtth the proposed project at this heartrig. Place of Heartrig: Board txe, 14th Boor, 4080 Leeoe Street, Riverside, CA Date of Hearing: IEDRESDAY, DECEIVER 20, 1989 The time of hearing ts Indicated wtth each application 11sted below. Any person may submtt wrttten comments to the Planntng Department before the hearing or my appear and be heard tn support of or opposition to the adoption of the negative declaration and/or approval of this project at the ttme of heartng. Zf you challenge an~ of the projects tn court, you my be ]tmtted to ratstng only those tssues you or someone else raised at the pub]tc hearing described tn this notice, or tn written correspondence de]tvered to the P]anntng Comntsston at, or prtor to, the pub]tc heartrig. The envtronmenta] ftndtng along with the proposed project app]tcatton may be vtewed at the public Information counter Honday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. untt] 4:00 p.m. TRACT HAP NO. 23209, AHENDED NO. 3o EA 33254 is an application submitted by Alba Consulting' for property located tn the Skinner Lake Area and Ftrst Supervtsorlal Dtstrtct and generally described as being Mast of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena May; north of Rancho California Road and which proposes to divide 80~ acres Into 257 lots TIR~ OF HEARlIE: 9:30 i.e. W W. POOLE, ETAL ~ STATE IllDE DEVELOPERS 5122 KATEL'.A A';E. t202 LOS ALNqITOS, CA. 90720 914-310-005, 007, 009 KE]TH & SANDRA DAY 5283 OR/NDA AVE. LAS VEGAS, NV 89120 914-310-006 OWNER: CARLTON I BARBARA FRENCH 31131 ALItARA LANE LGUNA HILLS, CA. 92677 914-310-016, 018 OWNER: LAVERDA EDOND 1011 N. WOODS FULLERTON, CA. 92635 914-310-019 thru 032 ROBERT & LARRAINE OCANNA r -- BOX 615 t .IETA, CA. 92362 9~,-310-046 GEORGE T. STARCEVICH 39865 NICHOLAS RD. NURRIETA, CA. 92362 914-300-052 CARROLL ANDERSON JOHN MOORE P 0 BOX 324 MURRIETA, CA. 92362 914-300-055, 058 DUANE t RENEE FRIEL 31235 CANINO DEL ESTE TENECULA, CA. 92390 914-300-056 TRIPLE J INVESTNENTS P 0 BOX 806 FALLBROOK, CA. 92028 943-020-006 BURTON & MARGARET CLEVIDENCE NATT & FRANCIS ANDREWS 9621 CARNAT]ON AVE. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA. 92708 943-040-001,002, 003 PETER & GABRiELLA GIOVANNONI 1784 W. ALCONAR AVE. ANAHEIH,CA. 92804 914-310-047 CALLAWAY VINEYARD & WINERY 32720 RANCHO CALIFORNIA TENECULA, CA. 92390 943-070-001,002 1.. K. OONES 1540 W. 8th ST. #21 UPLAND, CA. 91786 914-310-049 RANCHOCALIF DEVELOPNENT CO P 0 BOX 755 TEIqECULA, CA. 92390 923-200-009, 010 & 923-210-001 923-210-008, 014 6EORGE T. STARCEVICH 39865 NICHOLAS liD. II!IRR1ETA, CA. 92362 300-051 RiVERSiDE county -PLAnnine DEPAR nlEn ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ENVIROM, fNTAL .mm~,ir$-ekENT (E.A.) NUMBER: 33254 PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBER~s): Tract No. 2320.~ ~ NAME: Alba Consultinq NAME OF PERSON(s) PRF3MRNG E~: Randy Wi 1 son L PROJECT INFORMATION A. DF,,qCRIPTION Onc:kglt ~I:QIICl filklkllgm lid ~ IftCl ~ U ~lk'q)lk:l~la): Subdi vi de 80 acres tnto 257 1 ors ITANDARD EVAL.UATION MODUt.E NUMBER(s): 119 I. TOTAL PRC)JEGT AREA: ACRES Rn ; (x SQUARE FEET C. ~EHC)R'S I~CEL NO.(s): 914-310-016, q14-310-018, 019.02n. n21. 025. N26. 027, N2R, ~2~, ~.tN, ~.tl, n22. n23. q24. D. EXISTING ZONING: RT L PROPOSED ZQNING: RT F. STREET REFERENCES: E ~ IPR~ ~ CO NFC)Rk~kNCE? IS THE !mR~ IN )C)RMNtCE? West of Butterfield Staqe Road, North of Rancho Cali~nrnia ~oad G. IECTION, TO)IP. RANGEDESCRIFTIONORATTACH A LEOALDESCRIPTION: Section 29. Township 7 South. Ranae 2 Hest Vacant land traversed bv drainaQes., Soectfic Plan ~199 to the west and ~outh Hi+h vineyards to the east, IL ¢ONPREHENSnm gENERAL PlAN OPEN It, ACe AND C¢)NSERVA'i'M}N DESmNA'r~ON k Im mplxol~ oDeon(m) bekv rand r~Dmmd mmonMgmy. D M or pmrt d lm pmimct Mira Im In '#d:~l m~! ~ Plmm~" "FIEMAP" mx "Rmnch~ Vimgem Communtly. ~Armmm". ~Beci~a, Nil e~C mmhtX Vmnd~ ,~M er lmd dltm lxoJmclMIm lm ln'keem Nm~~m OIxn Bl~'- Complete Secti~lll. IV (A, lend Dcmmty),VedVI- II~ Cgmmpl~m Becllm~l. NCak. l. mm~l lmly),V mm~l VL I I. INVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND IIEIOUFiCE$ AIIEIIMENT Cdlkad f-"e'dW,~ tIQ.,,,IP Illi~h Risk ~ndi~ew~y~(Y)~n~(N~wh~y~h~ar~d/~m~umei~ue~m~y~ic~dy~ct~bea~c~ed the Wopoeal. M filigrees figure ee 0onabwd in h Cc-,i, rattmno'vo General PIm'L FOr any iaue marked yes (Y) w~te ~rd~d~t~w~~r~d~nd~n~t~nd~ny~d~i~tj~m~ur~UnC~t~k~eV~ AllO, whlrl iniliCltld, drOl~l~N:]~lcd~gF'l llld lae klflObilityOtflOt~ltCll:~'klltylltinO(S). (8lltdtitt li~Olg~il plge). HAZARDS I, Isard Zones (Ire. Vi.1 ) NA PS U R (Ire. VI.3) Lka~facUocPotenUafZone(Fig. Vl.~) ~3. N NA S PS U R Fig. VIA) Gro~,ahaking Zorn (Fig VI. ~ ) ~ 4. _N._ NA 8 PS U R (Fii. vt,s) mopes(Riv. Co. eO0Sce~mopeMsps) ~S. H I. an{ts}~e Risk Zone (RN. C,o. 8430 Sca;e Seismic Msps or On*site mspect~oc) 16. N NA S PS U R Fsg. vL6) Rockfa, Hazard (On4He Impect~r~) ~?.N Expansive Soils (U.S.D.A. kit 18. N Conmn~Uon Service S~t Su~eys) i 0. rt ~ ktl ~rveys) 21. N Ortl. 4eO,84c. 14~,&O,n:L4e,4) 23. N Oem Ir'x,,n,x:lalion Area (F'e. ~.7) 24._ Ficg, ck,~,Nns IF;. VI.7) 25._ U R 7~N ! Y 9__N l_n N 11-N (Ire. VI,8) Aimoft Noise (Fig. IL18.5, 11.18.11 & V1.12 & 1864 NCUZ Report, M.A.F.B.) NA A B C D (Fig, %/I.11) Rattroed I~k:dle (Fig. %/I.13- V1.16) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Highway Noise (Fig. %/I.11 - VL29) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 ) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) Protect Generlt~l Noise Affecting Noile Senlitive Ules (Fig. V1.11) Air Oglity Impacts From Project ~ / tO Air Oullity Wew Quality Impects From Proje~ Proiect he~Uve to WaW Quality I, Wsrdoue Metedais end Wastes I,lezardo~ Fee Are (Fig. V!30 - VI.31 ) REtOURCE8 le,.L AmtnmumlFie. Vt,&4-Vt,qS) I1-N InorNwenAFkaJlUdlh._nr, e (l~v. Clk AgdculUul Land Co~,e._ t~n Conlmct Meps) ~ MCI~pli;.VLN-VIJT) le~ Wgetatkm~VL~oVl,40) 10,,B_ MIN~ReeOumnF1;VL41-VL42) kJrWolOgiOBI ReecNmes er;VL32 -Vt33&Wde-VL4e) m-,,e = r /o';~ t' meeoumes ~neeounmM~) Oeer Definitions for land Uoe lultmblllty and Noise Accoptablmy gaUngs NA - NotAplam~ · - OermalyiaUe PS - I~,~_xaaySu.ame l-Corxl.kxanyAooemb~ C-emardyUnanxeW~ D-landUN~ 1. 0PENBPAO EAltDC0NSERVATI~MAPDESlGNATION(m): Not desianated as Dnen sDace. ~ I~IJ~I~AREk Southwest Terrace & IUBAREAFANY: Rancho California/Temecula I C0MMt-M%m~YImI,AI~IFANY: -~nuthwP~t Ar~a Cnnnunit~y Plan & ~01/IdUN/IYI~I~NATION(IXIFANY: ?-4 dwelling mmn4t~ npr arr~ IU~YOF~AFFECllNGImROP0S~ P~ject is considered Cateanrv II which requires a full ranqe of oublic services. Adequate transitinn with surroundinn anrroved and existinn land uses is necessary. The Southwest Area Connunitv Plan designation for this site is 2 to 4 dwellinn units per acre. ForeIf Fotects, inlclcate with · yes (Y) or no (N) whether any public facilities and/of mervic~ immues my sii~fficsntty effect Or bl ~ by tt pn:)pomal. All ,~lerln~l Cl fi~urll Ire eOnllim'~ in Ihl C~)mpfmive C-menerll Plan. for Iny illue mmwg~ yes (Y~ wrUe~mtm mource~, mOencm conmu~e~, t~1~ oilact and mnmi~lbn mmmm~m unc~r~ V. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND 6ERVICES k V Existing, I=mlmrmm~ & rim q~le~d Rol~) IkmTm~ (IriS. N,12- N.13) Wemr (A~mn=yl, eUem) k~~) ~ ~ ~ N.18 · N.18) ~ ~ ~ N.~7 . N.~e) i ~ N.I? - N.1N / ~ ~ N. ff - WAS) / ~ ~ ~ NA e · W~) 11J_ 17 N 14N EQuitd~ Trais (F*t. N. 19- N241 Illiv. Co. e00 Scale Equestrin TrMI Maps) ~ Fi. N2S. N.26) I, bldls F~. N.11 - N.18) Hielib 81wi011 FiO. N.I? · N.18) ,NqxxIs (Fig. L18,2 · L18.4, flu ·Llt. IQ & N,27 · N.36) kR._rm .~ .lIB (ihmrt~ithin the new city of Te~c u 1 a 1. Ilmmmlsmlmw~kndummdm4indce~): and IMmkm oonlaimt with the Cc,,,(,,,,~,k mr, ml'a QemmJ Film? If nQl, lxplmln: IV. LAND USE Dr.: ,.~.ZrtdATION (oo~Ur. vmd) D. feliorpmrtofemm;mlectmbtmln'Amunot~mmOpmn~",ondimnotlnaOonvnw~.~te emka 1, 2, ,.q, 6 Ind ?. C,4mtplei QAIt:Orbl 4, 6. 6 Ind ? If It k let · ~ Ptmn. 1. Lfrmd m ~eel)~./(ils) neclmtemy to lappart the rw~C:sed Ira:reject Moo Indkmte Mnd m type OA f,: IAdIMilI, oc.,.,~lrct~l, etc.) Category ! ! Ommfm~ Imnd um miters) ix the mitre INmmocl m exjmjng ~dlU~ (1~ ,,_m~m~tml, oc,,,,.m.~'m~ etc.) Cateqorv II I I D.1 eJebrs ~ D.2, wi b dh';_:~.nr,.; M ,.imoh,&~ mt b ~ml:.,,mnt range? Ex~: 4. Commmlty Pin cloiignaijc~,m):2-4 dwellinq units oer acre Im t~e pr~Commd projoci oor~ w~h the ~ ~ ~~ d N ~~ ~n? I ~ mh:. No TheiSt is cnnd,ten~h t~ ~ns~'~*~-at~on o~ p.a OWn. however, the Pro}ect desiqn is not compatible with the vin~ards tn the tnot. oxplin: No. land uses to the east are vinpyard~ Rnd tn th~ ~n,,fheas~t.MppZoved Specific Plan ~19g has 1 dwelling unit oar acre. /. Iramad on tim In~ m~, Im ,mmm I~;emm' oonm~ wt~ the ¢on~m Oenmr~ Pin? I no~ ..~lm..ir=m by bcimmr~llmNu~h~m lu Vmnll~b~c~m'mi~r~lmm: No. I and use compatibility Review, Cate.qory II Land Use Conmatibilitv. -A orooosed land use may ~e rnmn, tihle .-.4th ~mmrm~nmmnt4(n(J ev4;t4pq, And ~pnrnv,d lmnd mm~e~ tf rnmn,t~h(l~+~ rmn be achievc~:hrou.qh project desiqn, The destqn of the orooosed nrotect does not Ioaress c at'~D'm m~t c n~rns ' I. had on eta Inllml mmlmxty, Im Imm puparotor areraiment elm me I mint. ,..~k .~m by ~ and Immure Number thorn Immmmm khnUffin9 IN-tO didme d*' · A. leORMATION IOURCII. FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MIAIURES ADDrT1ONAL ltcORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: 8BCT1ON/ eIFOeMAI~ON Imeq:mMAllON 1SUE NO. REOU~RED MEOUESTED III B 4 Slope Stability Report 3-23-8g III B B Slope Stability Report 3-23-89 III B2B Biology Report 3-23-89 III B2g Biology Report 3-23-89 DATE ADEQUACY IleORMATION I:IE'TttNNAI10N RECENED PIESNO~ATE) Yes Yes Yes Yes I. Ir"or IlCh ires, me rnlrked yes Ct') m'Kler Sections fiLE lad N J, k:lentffy the Section lad issue number and do the blowing, In the foRnat M shown below: I. Lilt 811 8tlditionlf relevant data sources, Including agmncims eona~tted. 2. 8late Ill fin(:lings of tact regarding eevirOnmentll concerns. 3. 81ate 8pecfr~ mitigation fleasums, ff identifiable without requiring an e~vtroemeetal impact report (E.I.R.) 4. If Idclitlor~l InfOrmation is requirl~ before the environmental Is/essment can be completed, refer to IJdJL'llr, tlon A. S. If i~lditionaJ sheets are needed to complete this section, Check Vie box at tl~ end of the sectk}n and attach the niceemery mhmetL 8ECq'mON/ ~SUENO. III B4 III B8 III B28 III B35 8OURCES, AGENCf$ CONSULTED, FINDINGSOFFACT, M~IGATION MEASURES: A Slope Stability Report was done on the project's oroposed grading. Mitigation measures for the proposed grading are outlined in the County Geologist's letter dated 4-28-89. A Slope Stability Report was done on the project's proposed qrading. Mitigation measures for erosion due to the oroposed grading are outlined in the County Geologist's letter dated 4-28-89. A. Biological Report was performed to survey the biological resources of the pro,lect site. STephens' Kangaroo Rats were found to OCCUPy part of the site. leittgatton measures to be taken are the participation of the developer tn the Habitat Conservation Plan and Ordinance 663 as outlined in the conditions of approval. A Rtoloatcal reDorS was oerfornw, d on the orotect site. No tmoacts to flora deemed sensitive or endangered weee located on the site. No mitigation measures are required. The potential for Paleontoloqtcal resources on the project site exists. The conditions of approval require a Paleonloqtcal study be performed prior to the site being graded. If Paleonlogtcal resources are tdendtified as likely V. IIFOIIIIATION IOUMClI~ ImWK)WlQI OF FACT AND ItlTIQJm, TI01 IIEAIIJMEI (oontinmmecl) IV B7 IV 8OURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, Fli:)INGS OF FACT, MTTIGATION MEASURES: in this report, a qualified Pal~ntologists shall be present durring grading. Zmpacts to the school system servinq the area the Dr~iect is located are to be mitigated per California Governn~nt nandated school fees. No impacts to the new City of Temecula are identified. The oro.iect is identified as being within the new City of Temecula. 'pl~'lbo Ima21mct mdl mmot himwe m mdgnltmmnt elktact ~m~ Is .mpsvlm(d'.,~mnt mcl · Megabe DocWutjcm my be lmmms. S. [:l TIe ladact osdd ave · d0nSkant elfact on IM .m~vk~r,,snt h~.;-m~mr,.'emm d mS Is · Wnmcsnt · erect In thim atom tmc, mm St· ,,atjisU~ n~ dsmctlsd In bceon V hews been ramSdad mo the I::} TIt· palact amy hews · .s~s~set sms~ on 1~ :m~k~,,.mnt and an Enbbd'n,~antst Impact Report II-ll) elmrow ll/In I ITEM NO. 21 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department August 28, 1990 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS; 1-15 OFF-RAMPS AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD; YNEZ ROAD TO FRONT STREET PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Douglas Stewart That the City Council consider the redesign of street improvements for 1-15 off-ramps and Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Front Street and direct Bedford Properties to proceed to construction. DISCUSSION: SUMMARY: DS: ks STAFFRPT\ENGR1 On May 15, 1990, the City Council heard a proposal from the Margarita Village Development Group, represented by the Bedford Development Corporation, regarding a conceptual striping plan for Rancho California Road over 1-15. Attached for your review is a copy of that staff report. At that meeting, the Council directed the developer to restudy the issue and return to the Council with an alternative solution that minimized the removal of the raised medians and trees on Rancho California Road. Also attached to this report is an information brief prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates describing the history of the project to date. Staff has reviewed the proposal and recommends, from a traffic engineering viewpoint, that the project as presented be approved. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the revised street improvement proposal presented by the Margarita Village Development Group for Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Front Street. CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF REPORT AS# TITLE: APPROVAL OF CONCEPT STRIPING PLAN FOR DEPT HD. MTG RANCH0 CALIFORNIA ROAD 0VER 1-15, FROM CITY ATTY DEPT~T~ ENGINEE~ FRONT STREET TO YNEZ ROAD CITY MGR~ RECOMMENDATION: TThat the City Council approve the Conceptual Striping Plan for Rancho California Road between Front Street and Ynez Road and give Bedford Properties the authorization to proceed with completion of the design based upon approval. DISCUSSION: This proposal is to remove the existing raised landscape medians on Rancho California Road between Front Street and Ynez Road and restripe the street to provide for two through lanes and longer left-turn pockets at Front Street and the freeway ramp. Right turn pockets will also be provided at Ynez Road, both freeway ramps and at Front Street. It is estimated by the developer's traffic representatives that an additional 1,000 vehicles an hour will be able to cross the bridge with the proposed striping. The proposed striping will enable vehicles to enter left turn lanes prior to entering the bridge and will prevent the storage in the left lanes from controlling the movement of the through traffic. The following chart compares the through traffic volumes for the existing conditions, the signal installation only, and the signal installation with median removal: COMPARISON OF THROUGH LANE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing Eastbound Westbound 820 cars per hour 825 cars per hour Signals only Eastbound Westbound 1,165 cars per hour 1,335 cars per hour Signals and Bridge Restripin~ Eastbound Westbound 1,700 cars per hour 1,940 cars per hour Bedford Properties, the developer, is conditioned to perform these improvements under Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village, Amendment No. 1. The Conditions of Approval are attached. -2- The restriping project is being coordinated with the intersection signals to be built at the off-ramp locations in conjunction with widening and restriping the off-ramps. The intersection signal at Front Street has been designed and is currently in plan check review at the County of Riverside, Traffic Engineering Department. The traffic signals at both off-ramps are currently under design by Herman Kimmel Associates for the County of Riverside and are being paid for with County Signal Mitigation Funds. The traffic signal light at Ynez Road will also be retrofitted by Bedford Properties to match the restriped lanes. No other improvements for the intersection at Front Street have been placed upon development. All of the above-mentioned improvements are anticipated to be installed as a single project. STAFF CONCERNS: Removal of the landscaped median, including the trees and antique street lights, may provide for the loss of an "entry statement" on Rancho California Road. It is possible that the lack of traffic congestion on Rancho California Road at the overcrossing may provide an alternative entry statement with a better effect. FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined. SUMMARY: The subject striping plan is part of a larger list of improvements necessary to alleviate traffic congestion on Rancho California Road. The developer, Bedford Properties, is conditioned under Specific Plan 199, Margarita Village, Amendment 1 to provide the improvements. The developer has put forth a plan which requires removal of the existing landscaped median on Rancho California Road in order to maximize the carrying capacity of the roadway. STRIPING DMSad 15:22 CO~N~' $VlVltOI RANCH0 CA DEU C0-400 / 714 ~76 8847 ~.02 3v~e 2, ] ~8 TOl Roger Stricter, Planning Director ATTN: Ron Goldman, Supervising PTanner'-Specific Plans RE: ~peclf~c Plan No. ~ Margarita ViLlage, ~mendment No. I lhe ROad Department has revtewe~ the a~ove rererence~ Qrop~sal, enO ~as ~ad several meetings with t~e applicant and his trafftG consultant, AS tndica:ed in Out prior letter ~ate~ April 1, 1~98 there ere ConCernS ~it~ regar~ to the Rancho California Raa~ interchange at J-15 as well as with future traffic o~erations on the freeway itself. However; it does appear that Nith the improvements indkca~e~ ~y the ~raffiC consultant that the interchange may aperate a level of service "D". In addition, we are working Hith the applicant to prepare a corridor Study as recommenaeO by Calftans in order to satisfy their concerns. We now believe that the exten~ of traffic impacts associated with the project have ~een reasonably identlfie~ and are aeequately a~resseO. Elsed ~pon our further review Of this proDosai~ Roaa CeDertmen~ recOmme~aS the following conditions of approval. APPROVAL All r~a~ improvements within the pro~ect DounOaries shall ~e constructe~ to) ultimate County 9taneares in accoreence Nlth OPOtnlnCe NO. ~60 an~ ~61 as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions for the Specific Plan, as approve~ by the Road Commissioner. The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic 51qnal Mitigation Program ~s approved Dy :he Boare of Supervisors. RRNCHO CR ~EU C0-400 ~ · ~e~ific Plan ~ Margarita Villager AmenOmen~ Np. t ATTNt ROR 8~ldman ~eQuire sODroyal Dy the Road Commissioner and assurance o~ continu~ng maintenance t~rough the eStaBlishmen: Of a landscape maintenance district or similar inStrume~ as approvecl ~ t~e ~oa~ CQmmissigr~er. ~ Dor~iOn of the specific plan is contained within t~e limi:s O( the ;anOn0 Villages ~ssessment Otsmric~ ~hic~ ~ an integral c:mponent of t~e planning fpr t~ls area· Pri~. to ~he reCcr~ati~n Of any tra~t maps within that por~:~ ~ t~e specific plan Or any other project located ~lth~n ~e assessment a~strlct, the ?trial actiOnS necessary far formatio~ cf ~e ~istrt~t must be cDmplete~. St~uld the district fa~l, the project proponent Shall, prior the recordsrich cf any tract maps within t~at portion of the specific plan PrOvide for regional road improvements in accardan=e with t~eir PrOPortionate snare as c~etermtned by traffic impacts. mrior to the reCOrOation of any subdivision for a~y portson of tffie specZ'ic plan9 the project prOpOnent Shall make ~rovisions for the following roa~ Improvemortise which shall De constructed prior tO the issuance of Oui'lding permits for any dwelling units in excess of imeOOi ~roviQe for the widening Of Rancno California Road the ~argarita ~oa~ to Ynez Road f~rniSning. as · minimum~ an 1riterim four-lane sectio~ as approve~ the Roao Commissioner. ~rov~de for t~e kiQentnG/restrlDlng/reconstr~c~ion Ranc~o California Redo to provide si~ aDDr0a~ tones 1-15 Hlt~ auxiliary l~nej .s may be deeme~ necessary from Yne~ RoaH tn ~r~n~ ~treet. carrying f~,,r lanes acrcs~ r-a~. all as approved By the ' Commissioner and CelttanS. Proviol for the widening of the on and off ramps at the t-15/RanCffio CalifOrnia Road interchange ~s apprOved ~.~ the Reap Commissioner and Calltans, - We generally :~ncur with tffie On-site master circulation Dlan as shokn on Figure 11-5 of the specific plan, The proposal t: delete South General Kearney Road is acceptable prOvideo that S collector toa~ oe ;rOvide~ qeneraiLy along the same alignment linking Kaiser Parkway ~it~ Butterfield Sta~e 676 8e47 ~.~4 Pete 3 reCommwnaea en~/or per Tnele ConQITtOns Gf ApprOval Shall be proce~se~ cOnCUrrently ~l%h the specific plain amendment. In reb~gn:e tQ the cgncernS vOlCeg ~y Cell:raf~s relative ~g cumulative impaCtS lnalCa:lng ~ne neea := lmglemen~ demena management strategies aria/or preYtae for the deve~apmen~ ~f aaaltlOnal highway carrtaor=. prujec~ propgne~: r~as agree~ to funa suc~ a s:uay ~o De cg~aucte~ g~Oer t~l glrectlOn of the ROSa DeOmrtment as prescrtoecl uy Cal~rans. T~e stu~y Is currently in progreSS, cos Caltre~m TOTAL P, 04 //ii n" Z 0 ALTERNATE TO: Prepared by: INFORMATION BRIEF ONLY Doug Stewart, City of Temecula Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1-15 OFF RAMPS AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD YNEZ ROAD TO FRONT STREET The primary purpose of this project is to expedite traffic movement in an ever increasing traffic congestion area and to maintain optimum traffic safety and flow efficient when exiting, entering or crossing over the freeway. In compliance with the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 of August, 1986, and subsequent amendment added in October, 1988, the Margarita Village development group, heretofore represented by Bedford Development Company, commissioned Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates in June, 1987 to prepare plans for 1-15 off ramp improvements and modifications to Rancho California Road between Ynez Road and Front Street. The plans submitted were acceptable to the Riverside County Road Department in satisfying conditions imposed by the Margarita Village Specific Plan and amendment. These plans had, also, been twice reviewed by Caltrans, but when submitted for final review processing, because of overall construction costs, Caltrans imposed approval of a Project Study Report. This report was ultimately altered to become a Supplemental Project Report to the previously approved Caltrans Traffic Signal Project Report prepared by Riverside County. Approval of the supplemental report was given in April, 1990. The plans originally submitted to Caltrans and Riverside County for approval included the widening of the 1-15 southbound off ramp from one to two lanes with three outlet lanes onto Rancho California Road, one left only, one multi-directional and one right only; the widening of the northbound off ramp from one to two lanes with a left and straight ahead, and right only outlets at Rancho California Road. Included with this ramp widening was the relandscaping and revamping of existing landscaping adjacent to and in the area of the off ramps construction. In addition, the plans provided for the modification of existing medians in Rancho California Road to lengthen existing and to add new left turn lanes, and the adding of right turn only lanes plus advanced left turn storage lanes before and across the 1-15 bridge. A complete restriping and remarking of Rancho California Road was also provided for. Revamping and relandscaping of affected medians and the adding of a sidewalk along Rancho California Road from the freeway to Ynez Road were also planned. Page 2, Continued .......... The plans were prepared to meet the projected 1995 traffic demands anticipated by the Margarita Village Traffic Impact Study, and the requirements of the various Caltrans project reports. Recently, an alternative concept to achieve maximum traffic flow under existing circumstances, which requires eliminating the existing medians, was discussed with Caltrans and Riverside County and informally agreed to. However, this proposal was not pursued because of objections from the City of Temecula. The signalization of the on ramp and off ramp intersections with Rancho California Road has always been under the auspices of Caltrans via Riverside County and never incumbent upon the Margarita Village group as a condition of approval. Although required, now, as a part of the ultimate ramp improvements by Caltrans, and concurrent construction with the ramp widening preferred, the City of Temecula, Riverside County and Caltrans need to reach agreement on the administering of this project construction. Caltrans may refuse to grant a construction permit for any portion of the required construction within the state right-of-way until provisions for the constructing of the traffic signals are on-line. Although the project is within the City of Temecula, it is worth noting that, except for the small portion of the project on Rancho California Road which extends about 400 feet westerly from the centerline of Ynez Road, the entire project (2,100 LF) is on state property within the 1-15 right-of-way. Caltrans procedures and requirements will have the final approval as to whether the project design is acceptable. The Margarita Development group have been working closely with the City staff and have developed an alternative plan which provides for the sensitivity of the landscaped medians. This plan concept is now being proposed for approval. It incorporates all the elements of the original plans submitted to Caltrans, as described in the beginning of this report and adds a significant aesthetic entry statement to the City, including a monument in the center of the medians on both sides of the freeway and additional trees and landscaping within the medians, plus, special landscaped areas on each side of the street. The off ramp widening, street modifications and landscaping will be funded by the Margarita Village Development group. The new Caltrans signals for the freeway ramp intersections with Rancho California Road are to be paid for from mitigated Federal and State funds acquired and administered by either the City of Temecula or Riverside County as agreed upon between them. Page 3, Continued .......... Having worked closely with the Margarita Village Development group, the City staff has reviewed and made recommendations to the development of the presently presented plan alternate and recommends that the Council adopt a resolution approving the plan in concept as presented. J.N. 24255 RODWAY IMPROVEMENT8 AT 1-15 OFF RAMPS AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD PROJECT HISTORY OUTLINE AUGUST 15, 1990 Project Origination Expanding Temecula area development caused Traffic Signal Warrant Studies to be made in 1984. Studies confirmed need to eventually signalize the ramp intersection. A Caltrans Project Initiation Proposal (P.I.P.) was subsequently made and approved. 3. Construction was proposed for Fiscal 1991/1992. In the interim, Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 came to be in August, 1986, with an amendment added in October, 1988. Two of the conditions of approval were: Modification of Rancho California Road, Ynez Road to Front Street necessary to meet projected 1995 traffic volumes. 2. Widening of 1-15 Ramps to meet some criteria. II. Plan Evolution Conceptual plans to comply with Ma~garita Village Specific Plan No. 199 submitted to County July 9, 1987. Changes to conceptual plans completed July 22, 1987 preparatory to joint meeting with Caltrans. Page 2, Continued ........ RBF, Bedford and County meet with Caltrans July 29, 1987 to discuss conceptual plans. 1. Caltrans agrees in theory to the plan. Caltrans indicates a 3 to 4 year signalization design backlog. Riverside County suggests that they can arrange for the signalization design and Caltrans can administer the project. Further meetings and discussions suggested the ramp widening would not require a special study to be conducted, that it could be handled directly through the encroachment permits section separately from the signalization project. Riverside County prepares a Project Report for the signalization which is subsequently approved by Caltrans in January, 1988. RBF begins preparation of specific ramp widening and related Rancho California Road modifications. Ramp widening plans submitted to County for review December, 1988. 1st ramp widening plans submittal to Caltrans March 1, 1989, after County review. Caltrans 1st review comments received April 21, 1989. 2nd submittal of ramp widening plans to Caltrans and County July, 1989. Caltrans 2nd review comments received August, 1989. 1. They request a detailed cost estimate. They intimate they may now require a Project Study Report (P.S.R.). Caltrans refuses to accept 3rd plan submittal for final review process, September 11, 1989 in a meeting with Bedford and RBF, stating that the overall project costs exceed the limits of a new state law which requires an approved Project Study Report to precede any plan approval. Page 3, Continued ........... County review comments are satisfied and pend Caltrans approval October, 1989. Project Study Report is initiated September, 1989. 1. P.S.R. draft submitted to County October 13, 1989. 2. Revised P.S.R. submitted to County October 20, 1989. County forwards P.S.R. to Caltrans for approval November 1, 1989. Temecula becomes a City and begins official inquiries and input to the project December 5, 1989. Caltrans alters their original position January 11, 1990, and rather than having a separate Project Report for the signalization and Project Study Report for the ramp widening, requires that they be combined into one by submitting the previously requested P.S.R. as a Supplemental Project Report to the already approved signalization project report. Federal agency requires K-Rat study to be conducted as a Condition of Approval. Study conducted March 27, 1990. No K-Rats habitation found. P.S.R. is revised to become a Supplemental Project Report (S.P.R.) and submitted to the County for review and submittal to Caltrans February 16, 1990. County forwards S.P.R. to Caltrans for review and approval March 3, 1990. Caltrans approves S.P.R. April 23, 1990 and returns copies to County and involved parties. County of Riverside gives notice to proceed with traffic signalization plan design March 19, 1990. Ramp widening plans may now be submitted to Caltrans for final review and approval processing as of April 26, 1990. Plans must adhere to and conform with the proposals and conditions of the approved Supplemental Project Report. Page 4, Continued ......... Ramp widening plans will be processed separately from signal plans through Caltrans Permits Section. County will process signalization plans separately through Caltrans. Although the plans will be processed separately, they must be coordinated to provide proper advance installations for the signal facilities to avoid any cuts of new pavement or a new lift of A.C. overlay will be required. Concurrent or consecutive construction of the ramp widening and signalization is preferred. Current plan designs were scheduled to be resubmitted before mid-May with approval coming in August and ramp widening construction completed before Christmas, but objections to the proposed plan design by the City of Temecula are presently delaying final preparation and resubmittal of the plans to Caltrans for approval to construct. ITEM N O. 2 2 sff/AGD18141 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY JO~J AUGUST 21, 1990 AUGUST 28, 1990 STEPHENS' KANGAROO RAT (#SKR#) CONSERVATION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Approve and authorize the Mayor to sign the following documents: Short-term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat; b. Implementation Agreement; c. Joint Powers Agreement; d. Agreement regarding allocation of Take; Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game. Certify that the SKR Program is excempt from CEQA. Appoint its representative to sit as a Member of the Board of the Joint Powers Authority, which administers the Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR. DISCUSSION: On August 2, 1990, the Riverside County Habitat Agency approved the various documents necessary to include the City in the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Conservation Program. Those documents were transmitted to the City by the attached letter, dated August 9, 1990 from the Agency's attorney. Also, attached are letters dated June 25, 1990 and August 16, 1990, from the City Attorney's Office, describing the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Program. In light of these documents, it is recommended that the City Council take the above described actions. -1- sff/NOT15022 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FOR CITY OF TEMECULA This is a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The Project subject to the exemption is the decision of the City of Temecula to join the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Conservation Program. The purpose of this Program is to allow development of portions of the habitat of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. As a condition of development of these lands, the developer will pay a mitigation fee which will allow the acquisition of other lands to be used for the habitat of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. This Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21136 and Sections 15162 and 15163 of the State Resources Agency Guidelines regarding CEQA. The basis for this finding of exemption is that the Environmental Impact Report for this Project was previously approved by the County of Riverside on . The County Environmental Impact Report included the habitat areas that are now within the incorporated area of the City of Temecula. The decision of the City of Temecula to join in the Program has no impact upon the scope of the Program. Rather, it simply shifts a portion of the habitat lands to be developed from the jurisdiction of the County to the jurisdiction of the City. &RTIN J. BURKE* GREGORY A. DOCiM0 AMES T. BRADSHAW, JR.m ELIZABETH L. HANNA MARK C. ALLEN, JR.m KATHRYN R PETERS° MARTIN L. BURKEe CARL K. NEWTONe J. ROBERT FLANDRICK* NORMAN E. GAARt EOWARD M. FOX* DENNIS R BURKE* LISA E. KRANITZ KIM E. MeNALLY DENNIS k FLOYD LINDA L. DAUBE M. L01S BOBAK ROBERT V. WADDEN FRANK H. WHITEHEAD, ~ZI SCOTT H. CAMPBELL MARYANN LINK G00DKIND TIMOTHY B. MCOSKER DIANA L. FIELD RITA J. TAYLOR STEVEN J. DAWSON JAMES E RIGALl JAMES R. FELTON TERRY R KAUFMANN STEPHEN R. 0NSTOT JAIME AREVAL0 F. DANIEL5 CRAWFORD, Z3Z MARIANNE WOO JOHN E. CAVANAUGH MARK D. HENSLEY LAW OFFICES BUI~KE, WILL~AI~IS & SOltENSEN ONE WILSHIRE BUILDING 624 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, liTM FLOOR LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 900i7 (2i3) 236-0600 TELEC0PiER: (213) 236-2700 HARRY C. WILLtAMS ROYAL M. SORENSEN August 21, 1990 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE 2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE SUITE I CAMARILL0; CALIFORNIA 93010 (BOS) 987-3468 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 3200 BRISTOL STREET SUITE 640 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNtA 92626 (7~41 54S-5559 LIGHTON PLAZA 7300 COLLEGE BOULEVARD SUITE 220 OVERLAND DARK, KANSAS 66210 {gt3) 339-6200 OF COUNSEL DWIGHT A. NEWELL WR ,'r~'}'~3:,,~i36ma:l-82 1 02351-- 0u. F,LE N0. Re: Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Program Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: The City Attorney has asked me to provide you with this report on the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat ("SKR"). As you will recall from a previous report, the SKR is an endangered species protected under federal and state law. It is a violation of both the federal and the state Endangered Species Acts ("ESA's") to "take" (kill) not only individual members of endangered species, but also to disturb their habitat. SKR habitat is found in portions of western Riverside County, including 51 acres within the City of Temecula. (An earlier report advised you that the SKR habitat within the City extended to 63 acres; that figure has now been determined to be incorrect. The correct figure is, and was, 51 acres. The lower figure was the result of recalculation of the County's figures. It does not represent any loss of habitat.) As previously outlined, the habitat protection requirement of the ESA has precluded development in Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Temecula August 21, 1990 Page 2 substantial portions of the County. Consequently, the Cities of Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Perris and Riverside and the County worked for nearly two years to reach a solution with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (#USFWS") and the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"). Agreement has been reached on the creation of a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") to be administered by a Joint Powers Authority ("JPA"). Under this program, the JPA would acquire suitable habitat to replace less desirable habitat lost to development. As a result, the USFWS has recently issued an "incidental take" permit under section 10(a) of the ESA. That permit will allow development to proceed in the areas covered. In order for the City of Temecula to participate in the HCPJPA, and the 10(a) permit, and to enable development to continue in SKR habitat areas within the City, I prepared first amendments to the five different agreements among the other parties. The City of Temecula's draft amendments ("Temecula Amendments") were adopted by the County Counsel and have been approved by the SKR HCPJPA and the Solicitor's office of the Department of Interior. The Temecula Amendments are now being circulated to the member agencies, and to the City of Temecula, for approval and execution. These agreements have previously been described in some detail, and are listed below for your reference. Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. 2. Implementation Agreement. Joint Powers Agreement. Should you approve this amendment, it will be necessary for you to designate a City of Temecula representative to sit as a member of the Board of the JPA. Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Temecula August 21, 1990 Page 3 Agreement Regarding Allocation of Take. This Agreement would establish the following percentages of maximum permitted incidental take during the two-year term of the permit: Jurisdiction Percentage of Take Acreage County of Riverside 48.83% City of Riverside 34% City of Lake Elsinore 08% City of Moreno Valley 04% City of Perris 02% City of Hemet 02% City of Temecula 01.17% 2,149 1,496 352 176 88 88 51 The agreement does not dictate how the City of Temecula would internally allocate permitted take among the various public and private projects approved by the City which require incidental take of SKR habitat. Because of the limited amount of SKR habitat within the City of Temecula, 51 acres, this may not pose a major dilemma for the City. To avoid conflict, the City Council may wish to direct staff to recommend an allocation system. Memorandum of Understanding. This MOU with the CDFG is intended to insure that incidental take of SKR will comply with the provisions of the California Endangered Species Act. In summary, the habitat conservation program for the Stephens' kangaroo rat is extremely complicated; the by-product of over 20 months of negotiations between the County and its consultants, the USFWS, the CDFG, the biological and environmental communities, the building and farming industries, as well as various cities and other governmental agencies. The short-term goal of this program is to allow each participant jurisdiction to permit some development which would otherwise destroy (i.e. "take") Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Temecula August 21, 1990 Page 4 Stephens' kangaroo rat habitat during the two-year period of the Section 10(a) permit. In the long term, it is the goal of the various Cities and the County, as well as the environmental and development communities, to expand the habitat conservation program for the Stephens' kangaroo rat into a multi-species or ecosystem habitat conservation program covering various species which are about to become, but are not yet classified as, endangered. Finally, in connection with joining the Program, it is not necessary that the City certify any environmental documents. The California Environmental Quality Act (#CEQA") was complied with when the County of Riverside certified the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the SKR Program. The fact that the City is now joining the Program does not require further environmental review because the City is not altering the Program, but only transferring 1.17% of the "take" from the County's share. Should you have any questions, I would be pleased to try to answer them. Very truly yours, Rufus C. Young, Jr., for BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN RCY/sff/LTR1814 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY This FIRST AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY ("First Amendment") is made by and between THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF HEMET, THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, THE CITY OF PERRIS and THE CITY OF TEMECULA. RECITALS WHEREAS, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF HEMET, THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, THE CITY OF PERRIS and THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, ("original member agencies") entered into that certain agreement entitled JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY ("Original Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the CITY OF TEMECULA has executed a Memorandum of Understanding specifying the obligations of the CITY OF TEMECULA for contributions toward Agency expenditures and assets, as provided in Section 3.5 "Additional Members" of the Original Agreement and · WHEREAS, the original member agencies and the CITY OF TEMECULA desire to amend the Original Agreement to add the CITY OF TEMECULA as a member agency; -1- THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Section 1, "PARTIES AND'DATE" of the Original Agreement is amended to read as follows: "1. PARTIES. This Agreement is made by and between THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF HEMET, THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, THE CITY OF PERRIS, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter collectively called the "Member Agencies" for the acquisition, administration, operation and maintenance of land and facilities for ecosystem conservation and habitat reserves for the Stephens' kangaroo rat and other listed or candidate threatened or endangered species. II. The terms and conditions of the Original Agreement not expressly amended by this First Amendment continue in full force and effect. III. This First Amendment shall become effective on the date that execution of this First Amendment is authorized by the last of the governing bodies of the Member Agencies. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date last set forth below and agree to abide by its terms from this date forward. Dated: ATTEST: Clerk of the Board CO~OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of Supervisors -2- Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST~ City Clerk KLW:bln 1991it pp.37-39 7/26/90 CITY OF HEMET By Mayor CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE By Mayor CITY OF MORENO VALLEY By Mayor CITY OF PERRIS By Mayor CITY OF RIVERSIDE By Mayor CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor -3- FIRST AI~NDNENT TO NENORANDUNOFUNDERSTAI~ING This FIRST AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("First Amendment") is entered into by and among the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (the "Department"), the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (the "County"), and the CITIES OF HEMET, LAKE ELSINORE, MORENO VALLEY, PERRIS, RIVERSIDE and TEMECULA ("Cities"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Department, the County and the CITIES OF HEMET, LAKE ELSINORE, MORENO VALLEY, PERRIS and RIVERSIDE have entered into that certain MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") dated for reference purposes May 2, 1990; WHEREAS, the Department, the County and the CITIES OF HEMET, LAKE ELSINORE, MORENO VALLEY, PERRIS, RIVERSIDE and TEMECULA desire to amend the MOU to include the CITY OF TEMECULA as a party; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants and undertakings provided herein, and other considerations, the parties agree as follows: 1. The MOU is hereby amended to add the CITY OF TEMECULA as a party. 2. This First Amendment shall become effective as of the date it is fully executed by all of the parties hereto. 3. The terms and conditions of the MOU not expressly amended by this First Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. -1- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to the MOU as of the date or dates set forth below: Dated: ATTEST: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME By Dated: ATTEST: Clerk of the Board COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CI1-/OF fIEMET By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF LAXE ELSINORE By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF MORENO VALLEY By Mayor -2- Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF PERIlIS By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RIVERSIDE By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor KLW:bln 1991it pp.40-42 7/26/90 -3- FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT REGARDING ALLOCATION OF TAKE This FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT REGARDING ALLOCATION OF TAKE ("First Amendment") is made and entered into by and among the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ("the County"), THE CITY OF HEMET, THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, THE CITY OF PERRIS, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE and THE CITY OF TEMECULA ("Cities") and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY (the "JPA"). RECITALS .A. The County, the JPA and the Cities of HEMET, LAKE ELSINORE, MORENO VALLEY, PERRIS and RIVERSIDE have previously entered into that certain agreement entitled "AGREEMENT REGARDING ALLOCATION OF TAKE" ( "Original Agreement" ). B. The County, the Cities and the JPA desire to amend the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT to include the CITY OF TEMECULA. THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Section 1. MAXIMUM ALLOCATION OF PERMITTED TAKE of the Original Agreement is amended to read as follows: "1. MAXIMUM ALLOCATION OF PERMITTED TAKE The parties acknowledge and agree that the HCP and Implementation Agreement authorize cumulative incidental · take of SKR during the two-year term of the short-term HCP in an amount not to exceed 4,400 acres, or 20%, of the total occupied habitat of the SKR within the HCP fee area, whichever is less (such authorized incidental take -1- shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Permitted Take"). Unless modified pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, each of the parties hereto shall be allocated a fixed percentage of the Permitted Take during the two-year term of the HCP as follows: County of Riverside City of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Perris City of Hemet City of Temecula 48.83% 34% 8% 4% 2% 2% 1.17% In order to calculate each party's total Permitted Take during the two-year term of the HCP, the party's fixed percentage referenced above is multiplied by the total number of acres subject to take. To illustrate, assuming a maximum total Permitted Take of 4,400 acres, each party's maximum share of the Permitted Take expressed in acres would be as follows: County of Riverside City of Riverside City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Perris City of Hemet City of Temecula 2,149 acres 1,496 acres 352 acres 176 acres 88 acres 88 acres 51 acres The actual amount of occupied habitat on which incidental take would be allowed could be less than described above if it is determined during the two-year term of the Section 10(a) Permit that less than 4,400 acres of occupied SKR habitat exist within the boundaries of the HCP fee area, as amended from time to time." -2- II. Section 2.A. Impact Fee Acquisitions. of the Original Agreement is amended to read as follows: "A. Impact Fee Acquisitions. For each acres of occupied replacement habitat acquired in accordance with the requirements of the HCP and Implementation Agreement using monies collected from the impact fee ordinances of the various parties, or occupied habitat acquired in lieu of payment of said impact fees, each party hereto will be allocated a percentage of the resulting Permitted Take as follows: (1) During the first semi-annual period following the issuance of the Section 10(a) Permit, each party will be allocated a fixed percentage of Permitted Take resulting from "impact fee acquisitions," as follows: County of Riverside City of Riverside City of Moreno Valley City of Lake Elsinore City of Perris City of Hemet City of Temecula 58.83% 25% 6% 5% 2% 2% 1.17% For illustration purposes only, if the JPA or another entity acting on behalf of the JPA acquires 500 acres of replacement habitat during the first semi-annual period after the issuance of the Section 10(a) Permit using monies collected from impact fees, the County of Riverside would be allocated fifty-eight and eighty-three one hundredths percent (58.83%) of such 500 acres, or 294 acres of Permitted Take; the City of Riverside twenty-five percent (25%) of such 500 acres, -3- or 125 acres of Permitted Take, etc. In order to provide additional flexibility for the Cities of Hemet, Perris, and Temecula, each of which only has a two percent (2%) or less share during the first semi-annual period, it is contemplated by all the parties hereto that Hemet, Perris and Temecula will be permitted to exceed their proportionate shares of the semi-annual Permitted Take pursuant to this Paragraph 2.A(1) so long as the total proportionate share of Permitted Take for each of the above jurisdictions for a semi-annual period would not exceed four percent (4%); provided, however, that any additional allocation of Permitted Take pursuant to this Paragraph 2.A(1) shall require the prior written approval of the JPA. It is further agreed that any increase in the proportionate share of the Cities of Hemet, Perris or Temecula pursuant to this Paragraph 2.A(1) shall, unless otherwise agreed by the parties hereto, result in a decrease, on a pro rata basis, of the shares of the other parties. (2) Commencing with the second semi-annual period following the issuance of the Section 10(a) Permit, the proportionate share of Permitted Take resulting from acquisitions of replacement habitat using impact fees during any semi-annual period will be based solely on the cumulative impact fees contributed to the JPA by the various parties. Cumulative contributions of impact fees shall be calculated in accordance with the terms of -4- Section 3.10.1 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement creating the JPA. Each party's share of Permitted Take under this Paragraph 2.A(2) shall be adjusted on a semi-annual basis unless otherwise agreed by the parties. For illustration purposes only, if at the end of the first semi-annual period the total cumulative impact fee contributions equal fifteen million dollars, with ten million dollars coming from the County of Riverside, three million dollars from the City of Riverside, one million dollars from the City of Moreno Valley, etc., the proportionate share of Permitted Take allocated to each of the parties during the second semi-annual period from impact fee acquisitions would be adjusted on a pro rata basis as follows: the County would be allocated 66.7% of available Permitted Take, the City of Riverside 20%, the City of Moreno Valley 6.6%, etc. (3) Prior to the commencement of any semi-annual period during the term of the HCP, the parties, in consultation with the JPA and its consultants, shall attempt to project the amount of replacement habitat expected to be acquired during the upcoming semi-annual period so that each party can determine in advance the number of acres of Permitted Take to be allocated to such party pursuant to this Paragraph 2.A during such semi-annual period. Monthly updates on acquisitions of replacement habitat will be provided to the parties by the JPA pursuant to the Implementation Agreement." III. Section 4. ANNEXATIONS of the Original Agreement is amended to read as follows: "4. ANNEXATIONS In the event that County lands within the HCP area are annexed by newly-incorporated cities or existing cities not currently a party to this Agreement (such as the City of Corona), or existing cities which are a party to this Agreement, it is contemplated that the County's share of Permitted Take under Paragraph 1 above will be partially reallocated to any such city based on the amount of the occupied habitat annexed to or .incorporated by such city that is subject to take under the Section 10(a) Permit. For example, assume that the City of Corona has an estimated fifty (50) acres of occupied habitat within its boundaries outside of study areas. If the City of Corona becomes a co-applicant under the Section 10(a) Permit, the County would allocate a pro rata percentage of its Permitted Take under Paragraphs 1 and 2.C to the City of Corona. Current information indicates that there are approximately 5,382 acres of occupied habitat outside of study areas that are subject to take. Corona's pro rata share of the total is approximately ninety-three hundredths percent (.93%) (50 e 5382 = .93%); thus, · subtracting Corona's ninety-three hundredths percent (.93%) share from the County's forty-eight and eighty-three hundredths percent (48.83%) share of the total Permitted Take would leave the County with a -6- forty-seven and nine tenths percent (47.9%) share of the total Permitted Take. Corona's proportionate share of Permitted Take resulting from impact fee acquisitions (Paragraph 2.A) would be based on the amount of fees collected and contributed to the program. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing to the contrary, any reapportionment of any share of the County's Permitted Take resulting from annexations or incorporations shall be subject to the review and written approval of the County." IV. This First Amendment shall take effect upon execution by all of the parties and shall continue in force for the duration of the Section 10(a) Permit. V. The terms and conditions of the original agreement not expressly amended by this First Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date or dates below written. Dated: ATTEST: Clerk of the Board CO~ OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of Supervisors -7- Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk Dated: ATTEST: # City Clerk CITY OF HEMET By Mayor CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE By Mayor CITY OF MORENO VALLEY By Mayor CITY OF PERRIS By Mayor CITY OF RIVERSIDE By Mayor CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY By Chairman of the Board KLW:bln 1991it pp.20-28 7/26/90 -9- I~R~UMO~UNDERST~d~'DIN~ REGAR~IN~ CON~IBU~IONS ~ RIVERSIDE COUN~ HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY ("MOU") is made by and among the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (the "County"), and the CITIES OF HEMET, LAKE ELSINORE, MORENO VALLEY, PERRIS, RIVERSIDE and TEMECULA (Cities"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the County and the CITES OF HEMET, LAKE ELSINORE, MORENO VALLEY, PERRIS and RIVERSIDE have entered into that certain agreement entitled "JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY" ( "JPA" ); WHEREAS, Section 3.5 of the JPA provides that in connection with the admission of an additional public agency, the prospective member and the existing members shall execute a memorandum of understanding specifying the obligations of the prospective member for contributions for past or present Agency expenditures and assets; WHEREAS, Section 3.10, "Contributions/Estimated Budget" of the JPA specifies the obligations of members for contributions; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE CITY OF TEMECULA shall be fully bound by the provisions of the JPA, specifically including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 3.10 Contributions/Estimated Budget on the same basis as the existing members. -1- 2. This M0U shall take effect upon execution by all of the parties and shall continue in force for the duration of the JPA. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this M0U as of the dates set forth below. Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF HEMET By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF MORENO VALLEY By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF PERRIS By Mayor Dated:, ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RIVERSIDE By Mayor -2- Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Clerk of the Board COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of Supervisors KLW:bln 1991it pp.34-36 7/26/90 -3- FIRST AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT This FIRST AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT ("First Amendment") is made and entered into this day of , 1990, by and among THE UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ("the FWS"), THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political subdivision of the State of California ("the County"), THE CITIES OF HEMET, LAKE ELSINORE, MORENO VALLEY, PERRIS, RIVERSIDE and TEMECULA, all municipal corporations of the State of California ("the Cities") and THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY, a public agency (the "JPA"). RECITALS 1. The FWS, the County, the CITIES OF HEMET, LAKE ELSINORE, MORENO VALLEY, PERRIS, and RIVERSIDE and the JPA have previously entered into that certain agreement entitled "IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT" ( "Original Agreement" ). 2. The CITY OF TEMECULA is a newly incorporated city which has (i) adopted an SKR mitigation fee ordinance, (ii) executed an agreement with the County regarding the CITY OF TEMECULA'S proportionate share of the County's allocation of incidental take and (iii) has executed a written consent to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, and has satisfied the requirements of Section VIII.A.(2) of the Original Agreement. 3. The FWS, the County, the Cities and the JPA desire to amend the Original Agreement to add the CITY OF TEMECULA as a party. -1- FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. The first paragraph of the Original Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: THIS IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1st day of August , 1990, by and among the UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ("the FWS"), THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political subdivision of the State of California ("the County"), THE CITIES OF PERRIS, LAKE ELSINORE, RIVERSIDE, MORENO VALLEY, HEMET, and TEMECULA, all municipal corporations of the State of California, ("the Cities"), and THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY, a public agency ("the JPA"). 2. SECTION VIII.B of the Original Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: B. Notices. Notices provided for shall be delivered to the persons set forth below or shall be deemed given twenty (20) days after deposit in the United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, return receipt requested and addressed as follows or at such other further address which any party hereto may from time to time give notice to the other parties. CITY OF HEMET Attention: City Manager · 450 East Latham Hemet, California CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Attention: City Manager 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, California -2- CITY OF MORENO VALLEY Attention: City Manager 23119 Cotton Wood, Bldg. C Moreno Valley, California CITY OF PERRIS Attention: City Manager 101 North "D" Street Perris, California CITY OF RIVERSIDE Attention: City Manager 3900 Main Street Riverside, California CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Dr. Temecula, California 92390 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Attention: Planning Director 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY Attention: Richard Lashbrook 4080 Lemon St., 12th Floor Riverside, California THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Attention: Marvin Plenert 500 NE Multnomah, Suite 1694 Portland, Oregon 97232 THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Attention: Peter Stine 2140 Eastman Ave., Suite 100 Ventura, California 93003 3. This First Amendment shall take effect upon execution by all of the parties and shall continue in force for the duration of the Original Agreement. 4. The terms and conditions of the Original Agreement not expressly amended by this First Amendment shall continue in full force and effect. -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date last set forth below and agree to abide by its terms from that date forward. Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF fIEMET By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF MORENO VALLEY By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF PERRIS By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RIVERSIDE By Mayor -4- Dated: ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Clerk of the Board COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of Supervisors Dated: ATTEST: RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY By Dated: ATTEST: THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE By KLW:bln 1991it pp.29-33 7/26/90 -5- FIRST AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY This FIRST AMENDMENT TO JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY ("First Amendment") is made by and between THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF HEMET, THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, THE CITY OF PERRIS and THE CITY OF TEMECULA. RECITALS WHEREAS, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF HEMET, THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, THE CITY OF PERRIS and THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, ("original member agencies") entered into that certain agreement entitled JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVATION AGENCY ( "Original Agreement" ); and WHEREAS, the CITY OF TEMECULA has executed a Memorandum of Understanding specifying the obligations of the CITY OF TEMECULA for contributions toward Agency expenditures and assets, as provided in Section 3.5 "Additional Members" of the Original Agreement and WHEREAS, the original member agencies and the CITY OF TEMECULA desire to amend the Original Agreement to add the CITY OF TEMECULA as a member agency; -1- THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. Section 1, "PARTIES AND DATE" of the Original Agreement is amended to read as follows: "1. PARTIES. This Agreement is made by and between THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF HEMET, THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, THE CITY OF PERRIS, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, and THE CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter collectively called the "Member Agencies" for the acquisition, administration, operation and maintenance of land and facilities for ecosystem conservation and habitat reserves for the Stephens' kangaroo rat and other listed or candidate threatened or endangered species. II. The terms and conditions of the Original Agreement not expressly amended by this First Amendment continue in full force and effect. III. This First Amendment shall become effective on the date that execution of this First Amendment is authorized by the last of the governing bodies of the Member Agencies. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date last set forth below and agree to abide by its terms from this date forward. Dated: ATTEST: Clerk of the Board COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of Supervisors -2- Dated: ATTEST: City Dated: ATTEST: City Dated: ATTEST: City Dated: ATTEST: City Dated: ATTEST: City Dated: ATTEST:, City KLW:bln 1991it pp.37-39 7/26/90 Clerk Clerk Clerk Clerk Clerk Clerk CITY OF HEMET By Mayor CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE By Mayor CITY OF MORENO VALLEY By Mayor CITY OF PERRIS By Mayor CITY OF RIVERSIDE By Mayor CITY OF TEMECULA By Mayor -3- RCV BY: ........ 8_--.24-90 ;IO:02AM ; 7147~55648-, CITY OF TEMECULA;# 2 FROM: Planning Department ~UBMI~ALDATE:June 11, I,)go ~'~.~' SUBJECT, Adoption of Re~oIut~on 90-330. app~oval of mod~cat~onm to ~,}~i' Sho~t-~erm Habitat ConservatXon P1Bn and Imp]ementat~eD ~Breement an~ a proval of the ~emor~ndum of Understanding with the Cal(fornia Department o~ Fish and ~ame. "m RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Board of Supervisors adopt Resultration No. 9D-330 certifying EIR/EI8 NO. 341 end the Addendure there[o; Approve the Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan, as amended; Approve time Imp]ementation Agreement, as amended; and Approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game. JUBTIFICAT1ON: Please see attached memorandum from Best, Best & Krieger. ~; .;h A. RiChards P ning DireCtor MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On motion 'of Supervisor Abraham, seconded by Supervisor Younglove and duly calfled by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above matters are approved as recommended. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Date s Younglove, Dunlap and Abraham None Cenlceros and Larson June 19, 1990 Planning, Land Use, I'rev. AIn. tel. Gerald A. Ma}bney · Applicant, Co?., Aud~C~r [)epl$, Conm merits DIsl, AGEN DA NO, 10.4 1 3 4 6 7 Board or Supervisors County of Riverside RESOLUTION NO. 90-330 APPROVING THE APPLI- CATION FOR A PERMIT TO ALLOW INCIDENTAL TAKE OF STEPHENS' KANGAROO RATS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, APPROVING EXECUTION OF SUPPORTING PERMIT DOCUMENTS, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PERMIT APPLICATION PROJECT AND APPROVING THE FINDINGS, FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. 8 9 lO 11 12 ~* 14 ® ~ 17 18 lg WHEREAS, the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat was listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on october 31, 1988 pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. SS 1531 et sag.); and WHEREAS, the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat inhabits portions of Riverside County= and WHEREAS, the Federal Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking of any endangered species within the United States without a permit issued pursuant to Section 10 of the Act; and 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, Section 10(a)(1)(S) of the Act (16 U.'S.C. J 1539(a)(1)(S)) provides that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may permit the taking of an endangered species if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity, and if the applicant sub- mits a conservation plan specifying the information required by Section 1539(a)(2)(A); and The Iweleinl Is eartiMed to a true eepr 14 l resolute. dely adopted by ,~a~b~ hard ot lapelk visors on the date thetel ,~j I~w~. RCV BY: ........ 8.-z24-90 ;IO:03AM_; .......... 71_47_55..5648-, CITY OF 'FEMECI:I.A:# 4 1 2 5 6 11 WHEREAS, the County of Riverside determined it was desirable to obtain a taking permit pursuant to Section 1O(a)[1)IB) in order to allow for needed development in areas the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat may inhabit~ and WHEREAS, Riverside County, along with the Cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, Bake Elsinore, Hemet and Perris have 7 8 submitted an application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a permit to incidentally take Stephens' Kangaroo Rat in 9 association with various proposed public and private projects in I0 the western portion of the County; and WHEREAS, Riverside County, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has developed a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat~ and WHEREAS, the following documents were prepared in sup- 18 port of the application for the incidental taking permit for the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stephens' Kangaroo Ratz Memorandum of Understanding by and among the California Department of Fish and Game, the County of Riverside and the participating citles~ Implementation Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the County of Riverside, the participating cities, and the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency; and -2- KCV 15Y: 8-24-90 ;IO:04AM_: .......... 71_4. 7_55. .5648~ CITY Of: TEMI-,.'CI/i,A:# 5 Agreement Regarding Allocation of Take by and among the County, the participating cities and the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency~ and W~EREAS, it was determined that the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") oE 1970 as amended and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") applied to the application for and proposed issuance of an incidental taking permit for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the U.B. Fish and Wildlife Service would act as federal lead agency pursuant to NEPA and the County of Riverside would act as local lead agency pursuant to CEQA for the permit application project~ and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside determined, on the basis og an initial study, that a joint Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report ("EIR/EIS"} was necessary to study and disclose the envi- ronmental impacts associated with the proposed permit applica- tion/ and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside authorized the preparation of a joint EIS/EXR for the purpose of assisting Board members in evaluating the environ- mental effects of the application for and issuance of a permit to allow incidental take oE Stephens' Kangaroo Rats in Riverside County; and -3- RCV BY: ........ 8_-_24-90 :IO:04AM_: ......... 71_47_5~5_648-+ CITY OF TEMECt,I._A.:# 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 " 14 F: WHEREAS, a Draft EIS/EIR was prepared pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, the NEPA Guidelines, CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA; and WHEREAS, the County of Riverside, as the local lead agency for this project, made the Draft EIS/EIR available to the public and to interested agencies Eor review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside considered and responded to these comments and incor- porated these comments and responses into the Final EIS/EXR; and WHEREAS, the Final EIS/EIR lists the parties who con- tributed comments to the preparation of the Draft EIS/EIR; and WHEREAS, a Final EIS/EIR dated March 1990 and an Addendum to the ZIR dated May 25, 1990 have been prepared assessing the potential environmental impacts associated with 18 19 applying for and Issuing a permit to allow the incidental take 20 of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats in Riverside County in accordance 21 with all procedures set forth in NEPA, the NEPA Guidelines, 22 CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Riverside County Rules 23 24 25 26 27 28 to Implement CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Addendum to the EIR addresses minor, tech- nical changes made to the EIS/EIR, the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat ShOrt-Term Habitat Conservation Plan and its Implementation Agreement; and -4- K(jV t~¥: 8-24-90 ;,t,.~ ....... 7147555648-, CITY OF TEMECULA;# 7 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of RiverSide has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the Final EXS/EIR, the Addendum to the fIR and all other relevant informa- tion in the record, NOW, THEREFOEE, BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of RIverside, State of California ("Board"), in regular session assembled on June 19, 1990, that the Final EIS/EIR and the Addendum to the fIR (hereafter collectively referred to as the "Final EZS/EIR"), contains a complete, objective and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the application for and issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats in Riverside County. The Board hereby certifies that the Final EIS/EIR has been completed in compllance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA. The Board further certifies that as the decisionmaking body for the County of Riverside, it reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIS/EIR prior to approvtng the permit application project and certifies that the Final EIS/EZR is incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the following environmental impacts are significant and that despite incorpor- ation of specific mitigation measures bo lessen such impacts, are not mltigable to a level of lnsignificancez RC¥ BY: 8-24-90 ;tu.v ..... ~ 714.7555648~ CITY OF TEMECULA:# 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (1) Biology - The project will allow a 4,400 acre Or a 20% reduction in occupied habitat, whichever is less, of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat pursuant to the issuance of a Section 10(a) permit. Although this impact will be mitigated through the imposition of a mitigation fee and the acquisition and management of permanent Stephens' Kangaroo Rat reserves, the impact of the habitat reduction cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (2) Public Improvements - The project will allow the construction of public improvement facilities which will result in incidental take of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat habitat. Although w · the 20% or 4,400 acres habitat reduction figure cannot be '~ habitat will occur on a one for one basis, this effect cannot be 16 mttl~atea to a level of Insl~niflcance. · ~ 17 18 ( 3 ) Cumulative ~mpacts - The ~evelopment of future 19 projects could potentially generate the need for various new 20 regional public works projects. Together with the current pro- ~] ject, these projects contribute to the general level of ur~ani- 22 zation in western Riverside County. Thus, it is anticipated 23 that the project as proposed, together wt~h other past, present 24 and plannt~ ~rojects in the re, ion could have a cumulative 25 lm~ct on the continue~ existence of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. 26 27 BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED by the Boa rd that i t has 28 balanced the benefits of the project a~ainst the unavoidable -6- RCV BY: ........ 8_'224-90 ;lO:ut>.~x~u_~ .......... 71_4..7_55__5648--, CITY OF TEMECItI.A:# 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 environmental impacts associated therewith in deciding to approve the project pursuant to the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto aS Exhibit "A". The Board has determined that the benefits 6pacified in Exhibit "A" outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects, thereby rendering those effects acceptable. 7 8 9 10 11 12 I ~" 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that it hereby adopts the Findings and Facts in Support of FIndingS attached hereto as Exhibit "A" which conclude that all other environ- mental impacts of the project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance pursuant to mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIS/EIR. All mitigation measures as described in the { 14 Final SIS/SIR and the attached Findings and Facts in Support of Findings are hereby adopted and shall be incorporated within the 2O project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the following 18 19 reporting and monitoring program is hersby adopted to ensure that all project mitigation measures are properly implemented: 21 22 The Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for 23 the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, the Implementation Agreement and the 24 Hemorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fish and Game 25 {collectively the "implementing documents") contain detailed and 26 comprehensive mitigation measures for lessening impacts to the 27 habitat of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, including; (i) requiring 28 daily monitoring by each City and the County o~ the collection -7- RCV BY: ........ 8_-24-90 :IO:06AM_: .......... 71_47_55.,5648-, CITY OF TEMECULA:#10 or mitigation fees and of the amount and location of all habktat authorized to be taken; (ii) requiring the acquisition of one acre of suitable replacement habitat for each acre o[ habitat authorized to be taken) (iii) limiting the development of non- occupied habitat within reserve study areas; and (iv) establish- ing special accounts funded by impact mitigation fees and admin- istered by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (the "Conservation Agency") for the purpose of managing and operating lands acquired for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat reserves. The Conservation Agency will be principally responsible for insuring that all mitigation measures set forth in the implementing docu- ments are followed and implemented in a timely manner. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game are agencies with jurisdiction by law over the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat and each shall have significant involve- ment in insuring that all mitigation measures are implemented in a timely manner. The Conservation Agency shall submit detailed reports on a monthly and quarterly basis to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game to insure that the mitigation measures set [orth in the implement- ing documents and in the Final EIS/EIR are implemented in a timely manner, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that various alter- natives to the project were evaluated in the Final EIS/EIR and rejected as infeasible for reasons specified in the Final -8- RCV BY: ........ 8_-24--90 ;IO:07AM_: .......... 71_4-.7_55_5.64-8--~ CITY OF TEMECLIItA_:#11 EIS/EIR and in the attached Findings and Facts in Support of 1 2 Findings (Exhibit "A"). The Board hereby adopts the findings 3 attached as Exhibit "A" with regard to these alternatives. BE IT FURTHER RESOZ~VED by the Board that the project of applying foc a permit to allow incidental take of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats in Riverside County is hereby approved and that the EIS/EXR prepared for this project is hereby certified as final. 10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Memorandum 11 of Understanding, the Implementation Agreement, and the 12 13 Agreement Regarding Allocation of Take are hereby authorized to 14 be executed and delivered. In addition, the Soard hereby approves the Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, and the Addendum and Modification thereto. 18 19 20 21 BI IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that a NOtiCe of DeterminatiOn will be filed within five working days Of project approval, 22 Roll Call resulted as follows.' Ayes: Abraham, Dunlap and Younglove 23 Noes x None Absent: Centceros and Larson 25 26 28 JLW0013A s! q~Tq,/ suo!lualqSuo-,J lhqppx~AO 30 tu~:;l~S I Jo ilqtut~2 UI aotl~S ~3/~1~ :~of paid eql ul ~gu~l la~peunllv Oql fozl~mnl ]1 uoP~S -;RnD V~ ~les 0; o (")l~l ~II~S pal (y~) l~y ~llen~ !nu~u~4u I!ujojlie.~ ~q ~n~ l~ . . ulpuU a~ jo ~om ~ ;uo i~ ])ui ~1~1~ I~o/ ~ql Lt~ P;~puOpt Sl0;~a ieli~amu~A.; O~ t0iVIs~ S~u~mlt ;Saql io [ uoll~ lllal~inba ~ Jo uogil~e ~t~' ~q ~lslpim ~ [lit l~lt[eq ~8 JO flog "~m.o:~ 0PtS4~A~ ~alial u! ~ ~l ~H a~ ulull!~ }~!qmI XS jo '~s~[ ~t 3aAaq~lq~ 'lu~ad O[ o} dn zo s~ou ~F'P jo' lU~n~O[~A ) O~ *iluuod (e)Ol noP~S aql Jo s~ ~ ~pun 'p[no,~ I~tud roLL .ka~ opoiqq sit ustlls~ SO!~ a~ ~J sau~ iao~ Jo q.io~l;u I oSuulm pus q~q~ia o{ p~,~ap ~11 uu.a~-fu~q s ~o 3o~idolO40p ~ ql!& Uop~fm~; UI ~ IIS~' JD ~;~-UOilS snD Is~ pie~pil~ ss I! '~mlo3' oPlm~ uI '.ua-u,,qs e sI '8~S o~ mJ (.dOll mJoJ.-imqS,,) tl o^[luts,r'~W d;:)il nua. l.'lmq~ BI}LL dO HII VJL 1VJ.l~Ql3hf[ A60' rlV QL V dO {L3NVfiSbl Cl"'dSOdO~d HILL DNlQiiVl)ali SNOI..LVIIIIc'tI~NCX3 DNICI!II"dAO ~0 IN'H~RLV.[.$ C! NrV 'SDHIQNI~I ,JO ,tlC)d,ifll NI ~13V~! '~Lr)NIQNL:I i~'[#:v'l~13HhH,l, :t0 h.L13 ~FH~JSSISL~IZ. : hV/O:OI: 06-'F~;-B :X~I A3~! RCV BY: 8-24-90 : 10: 08AM ; 71475556a-8-* CII'Y .......... _ ,.~.~: .............. ]DENTIFICAI....$ OF SIGNIFICANT AND IN.¶!(Jlq!HCANT EH,'ECrS, F1NI)INflS R[KIARDINCi slc~Nir/l~, ANTJ I'AC11 !~ SUtIzORT OP ilND~0S OF !'EMEC! '1 ,.~; # 13 Seedon 15091 of the L~ A Ouk[clh,ea n: ubes a public aF, ency appro~infl or ca~rl'y~n__g out a pro/cot for ~C~ich a comple~ I~IR |,M identified one or mot~ Ilgvdllcaut eftcell tO mRke one or more writs findings supported by solutah- evidence in the record. for encb sjg, lflcam effect, ;t~.omptnled by s brief J. Chnnges or nilerations have been required In. or Incorporated ins., the pr?JeCl which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmen- ts effects Idcndficd b tl~c Fmnl BIR. .2. Such changes or Mtetations are wiLifin ~e responsibility or juri.~llc- tion of another public s eney and not the agency making the ~,,dtng. Such changes have bee. a~pted by tueh olhcr agency or can u,d should be adopal by such other agency. 3, $pecJ~c eeononde, IoclPJ, other conslderalitms mcL~urel or ; . maie Ln/e&~ibZc !nndL~.Rmtion P ~ ~a~ves Iden~ h ~e F~ 11dl secdo, sels f~h ~J mll~t and ihSI~C~I eff~ of the oJ~t idcnd~ In ~e Fbml Jnlnt D~R. ~ wimh ~s t m e~ch ~nt effect n~cs one or ~e of dee h~np act f~th m~e, $~tes facts in mu ~n of such ~d~gn. ~d. u ip the, nfen ~ ~e 8u~meut of Over- till ~i~nl, w~ch u ~on ~q blow. II ~!u&d ~e mtate~nt of facu In sup~ of c~b fln~, ~o ~scusscs whom a~propHaM, ~e ~a~onl why ~e $hon-T~ ll~ ~mma~ve R we deln;fined to m euv~omnldly delbahle u ~mp~ 1o the ~et ~temadves with n$ t to e~h pmtic~ si~mt eff~ ~1 ofl~er flitmadras t,n When 'mitigation ~uurem have ~n Iden6fl~ which w~ a~ld nr sub- II~fiaHy lotion I slJnffictnl env~n~ efteeL tlaole ~Uimdon m ~b inc~md hto ~e ~'t ud ibe~ ~mn~Hou. Including. tl~nl ~ n eney ~l~lbUity, $h~ ~ ml~ by ~e ~ 6on of 0 ndd- ladon mni~ng pm~m u ~ui~d by $~don 21081.6 of ~ h connection a ova or me mJ t. ~dladon ~ mtdt~i M~ ~hd~ ~ ~e A. ~qalRTla I:nI~ND 'IX) np,.Nt'yr ~I.OHnTIC&I~Iz Certain envitonmenta.t effeet~ were lnltlatl dolormined not he si nUicsmt in the Dn~ Joint EI~/'EIR and U~ty no I/lbJgm~ou. Thet° J~d~t BIB/EIR confirms tills finding. These effects ~uen~neified u; i:b~ml 2 ! " I I __ I]_l I I III Illl Ill_ I II II . I .11 .... IJ___L_I I I II RCV BY: 8-24-90 ;IO:09AM: 71475f5~564-8--, CITY 0|: TEMECULA;#14- a. th fai s s. ELn. d.Lt~. As .chcd on ptgc 139 on thc Final Joint glR/EIS, b. Pacts I/L~:Up/2~Tt~~Jl. Normal a~ of rcctzationd Ities could contlnise ~der the S!inrt*Term liCP. Inside .ql{.R reserve study t~e tnldng of SKR through expansion tr creation of fe, ctMdonnl facilities would pmtdblted. 2. Jlnuttbl gnnr. nt is ncr~Ssary (see paso 140 of me Final Joint ~!S~IK). project. No mitigation b, FsrJs. Jrl_~:pl;~,l_of._Eltltilng. Most bru,~!: management plans in d~c SC~!~ty have teeearly been modifie~ ~ te nse to the e~;e~ Imtu~ n( d~e · ~nty insetors have hen pmvld~~ ~a ~dtca~l the I~nti;, of · e m s~ 8KR slddy ~eas. A ~~ ~ bu ~n gnt to i~to~tty. o~ ~/~g them of ~e pos.qlble ~H~ ~ SK~ l~e~ ud other changes ~ ~e brush mansic~nt po~cies or ~e a~ve-wt~nd~ed Ju~ctlnns m ~sign~ ~o ~mly~ tt ~a to the S~. ~c~ m~fi~ ~Ucies wUl con~ue to ~ ~le~n~ ~ter ~:u~ of ~ ~ ~ t [~J/llli~. A.,t stated bn page 135 of the Find Jolt EIR/F.I.~. the rap emanation of d~e Short-Term IiCP is not expectal to ~sult in stgnificgnt use Impacts, No mhJaafion Is necessary. b. F. acls ip__Sapport_ of Find,tO. It is important to note that and use consUaJnts aff~ctin8 SKit hattie/do not stem from the Shon- talned $n Section 9 of the E~A. Ths Implementation of the Short-Term !ICP and would ternova a th~ issuance of a Seedon 10(a) permit ~ubsumLtal land use con- litSial presently trfeCflng much of wasturn Klveal~ County. This constraint wo~d b~ conrmed to the study gu only. a. F. in~g. A mhlgadon fee Is imposed on development which may ultimately be pused on to consumers. However, the Board finds this trapact to be InslgnUlcmst, and no midgedon b raceass, P/. The Fmje, ct will sdso add an lyerage of $400 Io Ihe cost of I new house in a siandard single-fmtfily sub- division. ].ar er lot home prices me be lact. eued by ILl much ts $1,{XK) (see ps · 141 ot the Find Joint EIR/B~). It ts not anticipated that me lntplcmen- tll~;tl of the projeer woulct losnit Ill · it ~clnt Impact ors the ohs/housin$ balance problems in the Count. ll~e disOWn of costs f~ fu;~g is not expcctcd to I~snll in sl~Uicsmt adverse envL,~.nental conscquences. since the rundinl sppfoacb s~ to corn ~ne tnlL[ladon (ces with other sources or b 3 RCV BY: 714755564-8-, 8-2{-90 : 10: 09AM : ..... fulidJnl, This means thai ]e hutdeft of colts would be. fen ably shuett among those bcne~tin$ from i.,Juan~ of ~e PenniL Anuther nillnl~can[ effect ot the project would be the removal of s $ul>$tsndal development con.~tralnt In RivetSale County. The tincertainty $urrtmndlng she $KR ~pulstion dlsuibudtm, coupled with the ptohtbitit>n tin take, has made she p~nnlng Of development extremely difficult, The project wliJ terneve the constraint and uncertainty pnsendy sfl'ectlnll developn~e.t tn Rivetdale Coun[y. Deveh~pment $n .,mdy meu would he effectively prohihhed in exchange for ~e removal of dd$ constaint throughou[ the t~malmter of the t!CP ires. The o e c[ will thereby accelerate ecanomlc growth tn RIverside County (see page 14~tolthe Final Joint EIIVEI$). b, htlligadon. Measu, res,_aad Fnce,~ In Sueport. of Findings. '!l~e socioecon,mic erf~t~ of Ihe project may be In m,~y ns eu satire, The accelerated development Knd economic mwth could lead to ~tionrcxn ,loyment and housing up unltlc~ for Ki~,efsl~ County. The accclen~i Irow~z could lend to expnnde~tax avenues and In genenl a heallhy economic envtnmment. The Indirect effects of the project mcndtmccl above ate more fully discussed under the (3mwth bduclng tqd Cumtdative Effects ,SecOon of lids docume.t ud she Find Joint E!S~IR. , e. ,EKts..[n Sappen ot Finding. The Inc,eases Indicated by the fee are not seen as Significant as ~e constitute about 1.5 percent of the current estimated annual a pnelafion of $2~000 per year {bk, ted upon I median price of $150,000). which ~l a minor coal when compared to the overall economic condl- dons of hasins costs In this tnL $. flnnah-lqdlSdDI !!ffn~ a. Nhld~g. Growdvlnductng effects ue not tnlictpat~ Io occur h era }ICP (see page 145 of the FInal Joti~l EIS/EIR). No as s remit or t e Shoti-T mitigation Is necessary. b. Facts. [n__51tp. _.of Ejndl~2. Fenration of the study areas could shill a small anmunt' of pPn~mmlly 're~lt~n/lal daysic meat to other porthas o[ the HCP fee ann. However, the amotml of such sl~ll'P~d development expected to occur durln the iwo Fees would In small. and tn any sv~t would have to conform to ~ relevant plans of involved JuHsdJcdou. B. ]~"J,~ FOIJNI~ 1T1 RB ,~[ClN11~F'ANT . L SJlttJfir~nt Ut:fCcY.,t. Tbe loss of 4,4430 acres, or up to 20percent of habitat occupied by ~e SKR, w ch will be allowed pttrsuant to removal of the Incidental lake prohlbidnn on the Issuance of a Section permJt Is a lllnl~ctnt tapact on the $KR. The told occupied habhat within the HC.P fee ann will decrease from a proximate y 20,000 to 16.000 ac~es. The tm act upgn the ,qKR utafion wiJj, ~exefofe, be siFdficant (lee pal~es 129 to 13~oftlm FInal Joint l!IS/~).hi I b. EjlIs3~P. With respect to the si._l~fi.:cant and biological effect,t listed Ikbo e, th~ Board hereby 5ndl and cet~Lllet that the significant v C I TY 0[: TEMECI.~LA: # 115 4 RCV BY: 8-24-90 :10: lOAM ; 7147555648~ CITY OF TEMIZCUIA;#I6 impact.q mentioned above will be substanttsll !essc.c4 by chnnlef, lltetal~01ts, ur mitigation mClnun~l &scribed below w~c~ have been tncorp~_ratcd into the finJeer but will IDot be I.educLNJ to It level or ~signt6cnnce. To t~e degree thll lay gilni~ccmt h~ acts caused by the .1~eferred project me no{ mitiKated to i level of lnsig~r,2ce, Ipccl~c economic, soclnl, ~ other conSltletationS make Lqfcuible the mhiladon meuutes ot project alternatives Idcntjfied in the Fm.l Joint Etg/lllR. rind I t PJE tiou of allowed utke In outlined on page 24 of the ! o mittSate for the Ions of 4,400 ares or H(-~ ~ ~e.~ m,t exluld of d~e occupied habitat of the $KR widfi~ ~e to 20 ~cent~ whichever occupied hablL~t slmll he acquired by the County, the Cities, the Rivetslde County !;Jblmt C~ltscn, adon Agency or d:elr authorized agents ~nd m~aged Iong-~nn SKR leftyes. FOT each 'ncTe Of occupie. d habitat lost, one Rue of occupied habitat of equal or better quality h~imt slmll ~ acqalred. The balnnce Ix:tween area of take ~td luea of acqtttsldon wtH be monitored monthly and cumulatively on a Ic~-annual basin by the PJverslde County llablmt Cotuser- vatton Agency In pn:'t or a pedr, xljc review pmc~s,. Atetq pr~oe/~d for acqui- ttalon must be m:c~ptable to tlt~ USI."tVS and d:e Jurisdiction In which the acquisition Is n~ptT. scd. In addition, andtt atlon fee of $1,950 per acre has been Imposed F; ~vclopment within the 11~.~ fee met The use of d~in fee lludled to curly ncquisldon, planning, and m~magement of nullable hnhlmt whhtn the reserve study are. u; the cost of the cousullnnts ntnlne..d to ptcpm the Lea-'feat HCP; lad the cost of additional studies tequb~J"to complctc reinrye p[nnninl IL 8ilnt~CiOt]LITect~, There will ~ f~w 'co~ie~ widl an !anned ublie ~lngve~nt pleads. Sov~z~ ~bU~ Imp~v=menl pmjecls (1) die Intersate 21J d-21J~m~o B~ev~d ~tctch~ e, 2)Me~UIAn Wt~r ~i~t b~pmnmnu broiling ~e eflar ement of ~c ~ DIego ea,tl ~{1 ~e ~e ~thews b~ua, (3) sou~ ~U~n ga~ I~e ~vemen~ toni Line No. 5~). ~d (4) ~tove~n~ m Oavilu ~oad adjacent to H~md PuL q~e reject w~ ~t ~e ~nst~n of ~e~ fncHi~e$ b. ~ I. Wi~ to '~e glpl~cut ~ects liited above. · e B~ he~by fi~s and ce~t~t ~c econo~e, s~lnl, nnd ot!~er ~nflt~nn~s m~ infesslble ~e ~l~on ~uu,es or pm~ct al~ma6vel c, ldl attc. L,Meauuccs and F,~'m ~_ $u pgrl_Jl_f Findinns. While ~ow~ aftff ~dc ~nt envlm~en~ tcHeW ~ ~$e ptO~ti and Conctm'enCe of ~e USES. 1~ ~HI thai each of ~e~ ~ w~ h ttqu~d to full ~ly ~ ~QA and etphnc fll Mtemidves m gv,id ~ ~~ I~e. ~ Imp~U would ~ full ~gat~ ~le p~JKu m u~s~ ubBc ~fra- ~ project. II ~ tm~nt to n~ ~at u~ ~s~n~n is ~f- fermi f~m rarer fore of ~nd deveh~nL As s~d on pale 136 on the Finn Jo~t E~IS, wM!e u~ly ~s~on ~ ~volvo ji of S~ habitat. S J_ _ I _ I II __ II II 1, RCV BY: 8-24-90: 10: llAM_: .......... 71_477_5.5.564'8~ ~?m:ili rle~ ~uld be r~occul~ied by SF, R. ~' J by cons~'ucdon and el:ion of rob} Y of 2: F:lmd Joiu! F--IS/FAR). sr,.R Ka western Riverside avoid em~nn~,~r~e9 fc,:r tb the re n ell In the need e benefit of ~ species. I'MI ~ rovl responsible alencle.,, ,.,e es for the SKR tad other sensitive spec|esp' .!~ee tatore m the dellIn of future resen, e], I."ovl$1onl of f/re lq~ ~das thc~, may the Section Jl)l:a) pennlt conditmn,~ of C [ TY OF TEMECI.LA; # 17 6 [ ,_ I ..... _ ' II]3 L ":_,_ II I _ IIIIIIII II , _ I .... , TI III I RCV BY: 8-2+-90 ;IO:llAM_: .......... 71~Z5~64'8~ spf--IIoN n. C 1TY OF TEMECLL. A_: # 18 CEQA requb~.¢ mt EIR to discuss reasor~ble pro eel alternafvcs thai could re~tibl obtain the pro ect's basic object. ~e ~n~ finds ~d ccrtiRes · ll tie Find p~s ~ a~uate compar~on of d~eg ~ma~vcs. In die following dlscUsshm, the .tgnlflcanl effcctl or these tffiernativcs axe compiled to the eftcelt of th0 project to ilhsuate that the roject i, the mat envLronmentally suptHor Fujcct axnottg the t'al~otll fcaslb~ ahetnMives which aho meet the proJeers objectives, The I;Inal Joint I~.IS/F,1R did not explore an titcattle site because locating die proJe~bt at a ~dLfremel site will not fulrdl the iroject obJectjv;s n.~ set forth In dte i:Lnal Joint EIS/EIR, AI get forth in the project descttption, the roect o ecdvc rcqukes m/n~gement Of the gKR lhmu h Im lamenat on of an implemented outside ~iverslde Cotrely, the biter-county HCP aliamad ve is discussed in the I in. I Joint F. tS/EIR. A descrl Lion of this tJtemadve an well u dl other altemaltve.e Idealifted in eke ~'rt;d Jolrtt J]|S/'I]LR |1 provtdcd I>ciow. The FinM Joint filS/BIR extolits two seU of abemadras Including alter- nMtvel e!lmLqatcd from further cohsklcne:ion and a.ltemativcs cxaminc. d in dateill io¢:iuding the ~sed acdon, A. AI :1T-,0 NAll.Ylt$ ~JgAM.INAI'ph FIU)MJq!R'lllI~.JJ3J, I$1nRRATI()N 1..:li, t,, .;TcTr The fh.~t diemaUve eliminated fn~m furdzcr contlderatlon wa.~ a long-Term IICP w~thout a Short. Tetra }ICP. The Long-Tenu HCP ahernatlve as.~.med thai a conservation lq. ogram end Section llXa) pcnnll e pHeitdon would he preparr, l and gubtrdtled wtthout Ihe Inchtalon of a Shofi-PrPeum:e~ menme. This idlernative would protect cccu led hablt.'~t and require enforcement of the taking prohibition until the completion o~Pthe I ICP and approval Of pit lrhll al~rnntivc was peJected as Infeaslble for a yaHely of Fen- ions. Full. the approach did not protect potentln] reserve areas from encroachment due to development of tton-bitbltat Item tittrio t~e plamfi,g pro- cell. Areas of presetstly occupied habitat could, theref¢~'e, fat ctrcumscribe~.l as tMI development OCcurTed. mulling In fraFnentatlon of the occupied habitat. It wal al,o Indclpated that the existing Itsblast wonIll change over time and that the enforcement of the Section 9 ptoldbltJoo against take during ~e plan- nan ~rjod wou]d ;of insure the Ipeclel woedd be able to move ~to suitable hl~tat its thai habitat changed- The Lon-Term HCP also did not provide incen. dvet to loct, J agencies to itdopt ~m~lto measures to fund the tdentjficntinn lad lcquifition of SKR reserves. Fina~Jy,' the Ihematlve did no( sddres-~ the express need for removeJ of d~e regtdRtm'y eOnlLrlint tinposed on planned devel- opment in RIverside County. Therefore, this themelive failed to mcct p~Jeet objectives ot provldli~g for immecLiale-funds for the Ident~ficatlon and 1 8-24-90: 10: 12.A.M_: .......... 71_47_5.5_5648"" CITY OF TEMECI!IA. :#19 RCV BY: 8¢qldsidon of $KR reserves. and due need to move Itsend in a timely fubiol: with I pub ic and private projects In itiverslde County which were stalled due to the prohibition of incidental take. For Ill of the above reasons, die Bead finds iMt diemsalve to be btfcuible, !he {ntLivldutkl ItCP ahemalive coates late. that multl-conscrvalitm prniraml and SeCtion !O(a) permit applications woul;r bc prepared b Incnl agen- cies and/cx' project propoBcfll.~. Continued protectlog tff occupied ~ebital would ~ provided b the IAke pxohibltion of the .SKit. 'lhh ahemalive h infcasible for the folJowrn teRson.q. Th(~ dl,~Mbutton of occupied SlLR habitat in certain municlpJIlJtjel Jinc~ Ihe localloB of prevJoully Ap roved develo rncnt ro. Jcct,~ and extsdng laud 4:mtq 'make the crcl~ion oF miLltipS; individul| ~lePl rnr II|verside. County bnx)$sible. Even U' muldple reserve Ireas c.uld be establisl,ed via IndhAduai tlCPt the itternativc dn¢l not assu~ that the ~ite¢ wotttd functlon as II network Or would pixytact key sub puladcy~ of the species nece.m7 for the specic$ turvivIt. Therefore. tJ:e Indi~jal llc.~ co~d not Survival of the $KR and was rejected a.q infealible. . progrim guara,ltcc 3. western RJvenide County end northern San Die8o County ul~ e repare i conscrvatio,~ program and tubsit a Seedon lot,,) permit a pileslion. Fretaction of occu led habitat would occur aS described under the Long-'~erm IIC.,P alternative throulh L~e establishment of reserve study areas. This approach xufrer, from the lame dlsadvemtalcs as the l. xn,g. Tcrtn li(.TP, hi l, thlilkm, this plan wo.ld not ~llrdaeant]y inc,-cnse the benefits the project, but would co~npl}cate, th~ coordination or' funding, planni~, and Implementation of the Itllernallve. This would further delay the p~am'dng proceil and dela pletnned development [rt PJvcrslde Couetty wMch could not be ac. co_nq.~l|shcd wll~oul pitied incidental take, Unoceu ,led $KR hablutt could be developed durln thl~ time period whleb would furlliner fillmeat d~e occupied Mbilnt In 0ddl~on to there probleml, local tgcncicl in S~tt~ Die o County have $f~Ce expre,t, eed no desire In Initiate an inter-county ].ICP effort,very Hltle occupied SKR habitat exists ~n private lands In San Die o County, Most of the 0ccu led SKR hesbilm bs ~an Diego County !s on Federal ~ms~d, any development ele whict would be litbled tO COnSUltlit[OIl under Ule fe/jcr~ F, SA, or iS on other ublie lxhd that Jl not threatened by utbart~arton in the foreseeable future. P~etefore, the B,tud rinds Ihe Inter-county |ICI> eilternaHve to be inreasible. The Short-Term HCP altosaliva provides I:rcitct environmental baneilL thm~ Inlet-cotmty HC~, 4.. Camtin nn-asint t'rom 'Ild! alternative lUgpalS die estabUshmeat of a SKR captive breed- Mg public lands witida western Rlverslde County. Tbds ahen, advc is coi~nsd~ered°~u infetslble for severtl faunas. In and of hscU', such proFaro does not enstue the recovery of the s_l~.es. Thes~ I~ Other bk~logicd constrlbltl, Inch fdl I~!ToducLng new 4ndh~kluIts to exJsd. nJ !x~puhdons resulting In neledve impacts to ' exlsttAZ flung, Al.e, Oe there !s nol cnou occupied hablLat whhLq public ownerlhjp in the ~cn. As ~lculled under RCV BY: 8-24-90: 10: 13hM_; ......... 71-4:7-5-5-5648" CII'Y OF TEMECtlI,_h_:#2O FlncUnl.e for the Lo,g-'*k .n }ICP. Ihl! approach does ,~ u.~et the objectives of the In_oJcct. A ca live b~dng propro does not In.vide Immediate I'und~ for acqulsilion tff $~ rc.~crves and dm need In remove the replNory collstxatnt on planned developmen| in Riverfide County, This ap r~sch would establish a con.qervsdon gram for the sl~c-cics entirely on the pts~l~e lends within Riverside County. AsJ~°s dJsc,ssed under die Captive Bt~dbag Program, fl~ere is not ettou !and tn public ownenhip i. the Imserva~on of the eeleL also idcntLqed fcr Ibe Captive .gb ann to en.~ute As Breeding JPmgram, this liternative s~=s not remove the existtel tegulaton/ constraint, &~ n0dened In the Inkjoel objectives. FOr these reasons, Board Cmd.s thll alternative to be btfcasible, 6. ~.ltddon_gfJ:lJd~4tat 'llglalglL~w.,q Whi~ Iht~ aliensdye would proride for pre~adon or SKIt hsbi- ~1. p~sewad~} o~ Imbi{at on /mall i~1~ ~cch of bad would have U~tM value a~ ionq-~c~ habitat. In n~d~n, no c~nsted managin~ au~ would ~ pmvu~ as wouhl ~ poH~ In d~e Shoo-Tetra ]lOP alter- naive, and, thus, Ilnle envimmuenlal ~t would ~ pmvld~ Moreover, the pto~cl's obJ~tive of rem0vh~l plnnn~ &velnpment In ~venl~ Co~ty would not ~ ~ ~e Bond finds ~8 ~temadve to ~ ~euible fm ~e ~ve ~on8. A tJS~8 ~ovc~ pin .f~ the S~ would Inclu~ ~velopment of a pro ~flgncd to effec~vely eon~rve ~e S~ ~'ouihout lu rugs, a~ wcH consez~ati~ SS ~y[nl ~ ~plemen~ng e fun~n8 ,mpm to eccompUsh ~e hi goats. Wle tHs firemaUve wo~d pro~de f~ en~nm~nl~ ~nc~s simil~ to ~e o~fH project. ~e Sho~..Tenn ]ICP. It would for ~c~nla[ take end ~us llve no ~Uef to plann~ ~vclop~nt in ~un~. ~cl objecdvel would ~ b ~ially f~. A g~cies x~uve~ pi~ w~ ~ develo~d hy ~e U~8, w~ch will b~d upon ~c conser- vation pmpm es~blisl~H ~lh ~e H~. ~s titcreative ~ i~mibie by ~ Oou~ K A~~vn-~ liver .UA~u} m n~An. ZN ~ U] I~N~.~ JO.a~r.$~$~ ~ll Retina Inclu~g 0 discuHl~ ~ ~c ~o-mj~l S~-T~ II~ ~lemadves ~cus~ ~ ~e ~ J~t ~S~F~. I. T~- No-ProJect AL~ra. Nty. D The no-pen,feet tirenative aesun~s that no effort would be nmde to prepare an HCP and diet a Section 10(a) permit would not be parried. Under thh scenario, protection of exJstL. l occu led SK~ habitat would occur through the Im Icmentadon of a teenysty plan ~; the USF'IVS, throglh enforcement of the ~l Irohlbi6on by the fedcad agencies, and tlsmuglu sme ttumdated cnvilron- mental review, Enforcement of the udt~g prohibition would occur through field b%veltilntlon, lelld Kdons, lad conlulladtm triggered by the bvotvement of 9 RCV BY: ....... ~:24-90 ;IO:I+AM_: ......... 7~{75~648~ CITY OF TEMECtiLA:#21 federal agencies such ns ~e U..~, Army Corps of Engio~erl o. the Dep~tttn~cnt of I lotn~ng Intl Urban Development. Z fi~ Ht7 AlJm~d_.~mJ ' The ShutS-Term IICP ARerestive ALI a short-term togram (two-year durltlon) that would provide for the plgtudni, acquisiHon, InS manegct~x'.t of ~ SKR ~v!lhin wearer. Riverside County. It Is tntelKted to be lmplemcmed in tonjunction with Ihe development of a LOng-Term HC'P, d~aiined to establish and manage a ne~etk of pcmment reserves f~ the s~ecles within the HCP inca, Under the Icings of the She-Term I|CP, this alternative would allow the devel- ol~zuent of up Io 20 ~tcet~t or 4,400 acre.% whichever Is less, of c~cupied habitat in we.qexn Riverst~ Comity, outside of pwposed study areas. Ttt.~ Joss of 5KR habitat would be tnjliJ~nted by the acqujsath~n of an equivalent or Fester aJt}ottnt of occupied I~abit,tt w~dmin the testrye study PJcas prol~_ed. Fundin~J for thil acquisition would 5e prov'ided largely through the coUecdon of a $1,950 per acre fee on new development whhln ihe llC~ fee ~'et, as Identified in the Count7 m~d pk..lcipadn g rJidea fee assessmeal ordinances, The eo.ceF of n Short-Term Sectton i0(~) permit was intttx. luced ha:led upon concem.~ o~ impacts Io SK]t. habitat that coujd occur during the Friod t ub~d to plan the uhtm0le te.qervel. 'lle Sbort-Tcmt HCP will protect porch. ~i~ ~serve sites identified, by not rmhtbtg pmjcct~ withh~ the potenttag reserves that would ~salt in take of thee SKR. It would also rtrdtlab~ and pro- mote the lelecdon mKl acquisition of reservel In n reasonable dine frame. The Long-Term IICP wi. tl focus ~J~ 0st frether acqubitlon of and estabUshme.t and onl0lng opendon of the enti~ SKR testrye netwodr- ' :$. ih~l-Term IIC'P ~l~-.fi ve II 11~e Short.l'cms IICP Altern~ve B (the proposed I~.ject and the USF'W5 preferred d~madvc) Incaales ~ of the compnca~ of ~c Shon-Tem~ I ICP ~temadve A, ~t n~fies ~ of ~e study ~a ~m~es to ~fi~t m~ ncentl I~n~ed I~d use ~nfilc~ ~ to ~c~te oew ~ of SKR habi- ~L ~ese ~und~ m~l~adons have ~n ~y~ ~ a site f~c balls. 10 I III IIIIIIII ' I II U I RCV BY: ........ 8_L24-90 :IO:14AM_; .......... 71_4:.7_55_5_6~8-~ CITY OF TEMECUI,A:#22 5~:~c~H S'FAm~..MENT Oi, OVtm,mU~tNO (DDNSIDERATIONI CE A requiem · public aaency to balance the be:~cliU of a p~opolled project aRmlust ~ts unavoidable environmental tmp~ut hi dclennbtlnl whether to al,prove the project (Cat. Pub. Resource,~ Code Sex:. 21102). 11~' hoard reposes to _approve the r~Jcct tie. its certain unP. votdnblc adveTSC effects I~;ntLqcd in the EIS/EIR. 'F~ercfore, ~C; Z~omd, havinl leviswed and considered the infernalI- dea contained In the EIS/EIR and In Ib~ ~ makes the followins Statement of OverridesI Confidetat{cam. A. $1tiN Il qcA!fTJIIqAt01DAitI_.II Iq,FF-_C'I~ f}F l'Ul~ PR.O.m-rr In general, the mitigation measures identlfiud Lu the Final Joint RIRYEIS, and incorl~jrated u rendideal of lppTOvtl f(.n' the project, will mill- flintthe IIi nil'least environmental effects of the project. l-lowcver,the Final EtP,/F.f~ certain effects thai not trial- identified significant could bc sued ot mitigated to a level of {nmlgnHlcance titrough feulblc midallies menutel. 'I l~ese unavo dabie IIFtificmtt adveTse effectJ m~ am foUows: :. Blnlo. 11~e pro'eel MAll allow 4,400 acres or up to I 20 percent reduction in habitat of the ~KR ursuant to the lssuauce o[ the interim Section 10Is) rail. Although thai ~n act wLtJ be subltanllmlly toldacted titre,tab the ~polifirm of I midRation ~c; lad the acquisition m~d mRsmeat of permanent 8]fJt feltrYes, the |rapact of the habitat reduction cannot be fully mitigate, ca. The reject wilt allow time cousu'ucd,n of pubUc im rovemeat facUides which w~ll result in incidental lake of SKI habitat, The 4.~'~j~ actell or up to 20 .l~l'cenl biblast reduction figure cannot be exceeded tad acquisition anti funding of 5KR habitat will occur on a one for one basis. AI~ public improvement projects would he re ulted to fully comply with CE A and explore all alternatives to avoid lad tnJ;~A tlke, and Idl ht~ mctl wo~d be f,,!ly mid- Baled. Notwlthstandi~ these midgatiou mealms, ~e loss of SKR habimt c~nnot I~ fully mldp~to I level of in~{lalikm~ce. 3. Cill~,l':lVe tmactl The tier&topmast of Sum pro_J~t$ cotrid poter~6dly Sencrate the need for various new regional ubUc works projects, e.l. loadway.~. public utilities, wither facUId., etc. ~o ethel wi~ the current project. the~e roleell contribute to (he general ~vel or urbanizadon in western Riverside ~unty. Thus, it Is anticipated that the project as sad. together with other past, prelent, imd p!enned pro'acts in the telion ~pt~D have a conrelative impact on the continued existence of the ,~1~. With reslw~._t to gay alter, salves which might mitigate these {mpacu to It level of InfiinLl'lcance, they are either not envboumentally superlair to tim project or fttl to meet the County'a objecdvea for the project. il RCV BY: CITY OF TEMECI3LA:#28 8-24-90 : 10: 15AM : 7147~648-. 1-= DualU r Jdend~ I~vc and ~cusscd tn the Pind ~dnt ElSie. end ~e ~,,e~s and en~t~nl~ impels Ma!~d in the Final Joliet pro~ ~low. the s~ld. eco.oe~c. tad en~n~n~ bene~t~ of ~e i. ojcct outweigh ~e ~md~ul sdvtne c~dve ~d .lineal en~om~nt~ The rcJecte, d project alternatives let Forth l~ereln and an:r othcr miti- ladde me,tsutel nd:er than those Includ~ la the Final ELR would zmposc litaitn- tions lutd resu'tcdon$ wMch the Board finds wottkl prevent obtaining The ~Fclflc locll.], economic, and other betlefiLq of U3c proJecL TheSe hcncfil.~ outweigh die unmhi ated Impact.% and jugdry approval of this project. 'lh:re- fore, The Board ma~es this Statcment of .Owerridb3l C. onsidcat;ons and I,ereby Fmda the benefits of d~e project to be as · the pr~ject witJ remove the cxJsfLn8 constraint Io !armed develgp- merit In much of ~.eftern Riverside County, proving for neexlcd housing and other types or develol>ment, whUe at the sarnc ttmc pxt r, ervini SK.R babll~t e,endt| to tbo 1t~'vivd of the specics; · the ptojr. cl will ~l~ce in protective statuS, apl}mxlmately 16.0:52 seref el SKR occupied Itabitat, to be used ks the b&tll [or Iong-tcrm rumre 8KR teeerred; · I~e project will establish and bn lament Im ohiogag lana ac, tei.~ilitm progrin throui}t lhe RIverside ~tmty Habitat Conservation Xgcncy, study areas. tee project will t for other species wtddn the uhixate reserve sreu. 12 ITEM N O. 2 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager August 28, 1990 Lease of City Hall Office Space at 43172 Business Park Drive PREPARED BY: DISCUSSION: The Staff Report regarding the transmitted under separate cover. Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek lease for the office space at City Hall will be ITEM NO. 24 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY and ROBERT RIGHE'I'I'I, CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 28, 1990 SUBJECT.' AMENDMENT TO JOINT FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Amendment To Joint Financing, Construction And Acquisition Agreement for Community Facilities District No. 88-3. DISCUSSION: The City Council previously approved a Joint Financing, Construction and Acquisition Agreement for the acquisition from a Mello-Roos CFD established by the Rancho California Water District of various street improvements constructed by TAYCO, a residential developer in Margarita Village. TAYCO recently discovered that the Acquisition Agreement incorrectly describes one of the street improvements as being Butterfield Stage Road full-width street improvements (other than the inner two travel lanes) from Rancho Vista Road south to Pauba Road. The correct street improvement is Butterfield Stage Road partial-width street improvements (beginning 20 feet west of centerline moving westerly to and including the sidewalk) from Rancho Vista Road south to Pauba Road. Engineering has confirmed that the latter is the correct improvement. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Agreement amending the original Agreement to correct this error. A TTA CHMENTS "AMENDMENT TO JOINT FINANCING, CONSTRUC- TION AND ACQUISITION AGREEMENT AMONG COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-3 OF THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TAYCO, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP." sff/AGR12200 AMENDMENT TO JOINT FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION AGREEMENT AMONG COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-3 OF THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TAYCO, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the JOINT FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), dated as of March 1, 1990, by and among COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-3 OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT, a legally constituted governmental entity organized and existing pursuant to Division 2, Part 1, Chapter 2.5 of the California Government Code (hereinafter "CFD NO. 88-3"), THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter "County") the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter "City") and TAYCO, a California partnership (hereinafter "Property Owner"), contained an error as to the Street Improvements to be constructed; WHEREAS, Exhibit B to the Agreement incorrectly described one of the improvements as "Butterfield Stage Road full-width street improvements (other than the inner two travel lanes which are being financed by County Assessment District No. 159) from Rancho Vista Road south to Pauba Road." NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Exhibit B to the Agreement is amended to read as follows: sff/AGR12200 "Butterfield Stage Road partial width street improvements (beginning 20' west of center line moving westerly to and including the sidewalk) from Rancho Vista Road south to Pauba Road." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-3 OF THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ATTEST: By: By: President of the Board of Directors, Ex Officio the Legislative Body of Community Facilities District No. 88-4 of the Rancho California Water District Secretary of the Board of Directors, Ex Officio the Clerk of Community Facilities District No. 88-3 of the Rancho California Water District COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By: Chairman of the Board of Supervisors sff/AGR12200 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Counsel: By: Deputy ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TAYCO, a California partnership By: COSTAIN HOMES, INC., a Delaware corporation By: Signature Printed Name Its: TAYLOR WOODROW INC., a California corporation By: Signature Printed Name Its: sff/AGR12200 ATTEST: By: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA By: Mayor ITEM NO. 25 AB#: HTG: DEPT: 811q/90 PLNC TITLE: t.~11 · UP I I:,MP-,CULA AGENDA REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21067 DEPT ~ CZTY T CXTY HGR Recommendation: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: ENG! NEER: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: STAFF R PT\TT21067 Approval of Tentative Tract No. 21067 with an additional condition that the applicant shall provide a focused traffic study prior to occupancy. Kingsway Construction Musser Engineering Consultants The applicant requests a third extension of time to record the final map for Tract No. 21067, a 10q lot single family subdivision with 17.7 acres of open space along the northern side of the site for Temecula Creek. The northerly side of Pala Road south of State Route 79 and approximately 112 mile southeast of the intersection of Pala Road and State Route 79. R-1 Single Family Residential North: South: East: West: R-R Rural Residential R-1 Single Family Residential R-R Rural Residential C-1/CP General Commercial Not requested Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant Single Family Residential Subdivision Horse Ranch Mini-storage Facility Number of Acres: Number of Lots: Open Space: Proposed Density of Developed Portion of Site: ~6 10~ 17.7 acres 3.7 dwelling units/acre BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Tentative Tract No. 21067 was submitted to the County in conjunction with Change of Zone No. 18525, a request to change the zone of the subject property from R-R, Rural Residential, which has a minimum lot size of 112 acre, to R-l, Single Family Residential. which has a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet (0.17 acre). Tentative Tract No. 21067 and Change of Zone No. ~525 were approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 8, 1986. The first request for a one year extension of time for the tentative tract was approved by the County Planning Commission on May 11, 1988, and by the Board of Supervisors on June 7, 1988. The second request for an extension of time was submitted on March 20, 1989, and was approved by the County Planning Commission on August 8, 1989. The third request for an extension of time was submitted to the County on February 21, 1990. The reason for the request is to allow time for review of the flood control and drainage plan by the Federal Emergency Management Agency before the deadline for recordation of the final map. On March 29, 1990, the County Planning Commission tentatively approved the third extension of time and recommended that the City receive and file the notice of decision by the County Planning Commission. The proposal is to subdivide a ~6 acre site into 10L~ single family lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. 17.7 acres along the northerly side of the site will be maintained a open space for Tomecula Creek. The site is located in Flood Zone A. The applicant proposes to import 160,000 cubic yards of fill soil to elevate the building pads above the flood plain. The secondary access to the site will be provided by dedicating "Temecula Lane" and providing improvements for "Temecula Lane" and Loma Linda Road. A traffic study was not prepared for this project at the time of its original approval in 1986. The Conditions of Approval from the County Road Department require the provision of an improved secondary access, payment of $150.00 per lot prior to final map recordation as mitigation for traffic signal impacts, and concrete curb and gutter improvements on Pala GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMI NAT I ON: FINDINGS: Road at a distance of 43 feet from the street centerline and 55 feet dedicated as half-width right-d-way. County Roads Department Condition of Approval No. 25 requires successful completion of proceedings for an assessment district for the construction of a four lane bridge on Pala Road at Tomecula Creek. Assessment District 159 as established does not include funding for improvements on Pala Road, the realignment of Pala Road, or the four lane bridge across Temecula Creek. The County Roads Department reports that 8296 of the cost of the Pala Road and bridge improvements is available through federal bridge rehabilitation funding. The City will have to make provisions for the remainder of the cost of improvements. Tract No. 21067 will contribute a relatively small portion of the cumulative traffic impacts on Pala Road and State Route 79. The applicant is willing to contribute a fair share of the cost of street and bridge improvements. A traffic study will quantify the contribution of Tract No. 21067 to the traffic impacts on Pala Road and State Route 79 and indicate what the project's fair share should be. The proposed density of 3.7 units per acre is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-5 units per acre. All lots conform to the minimum lot width, depth, and area standards in the R-l, Single Family Residential. On May 8, 1986, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 20201 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 4525 and Tentative Tract No. 21067. Tentative Tract No. 21067 is consistent with the R-l, Single Family Zone in that all lots meet the requirements for minimum lot area, width, and depth. Tentative Tract No. 21067 is consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 2-5 dwelling units per acre in that the proposed density is 3.7 dwelling units per acre. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment in that Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees are required and archaeological resources are not likely to be found at the site. The project will not be detrimental to human health or safety in that drainage and flood control measures must be approved by FEMA prior to map recordation, and the potential for liquefaction, differential subsidence, and surface fissuring at the site are very low. A soils report must be submitted to the Building and Safety Department addressing soil stability and geological conditions. Two means of ingress and egress will be fully constructed prior to occupancy. Street and intersection peak hour levels of service will be acceptable when the required street improvements are constructed. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of development proposed in that drainage and flooding problems will be mitigated, the potential for differential subsidence and surface fissuring is low, and the tentative map is in conformance with all applicable requirements regarding lot area and dimensions, density, and street and subdivision design standards. The project will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties in that all lots will drain toward streets within the subject property or into drainage facilities as approved by the City Engineer. Tentative Tract No. 21067 is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act regarding passive use of solar energy in that the proposed lots have significant southern exposure which allows for passive heating opportunities. STAFF RECOMMENDAT ION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Approve a Third Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 21067 based on the analysis and findings contained in this report and subject to the original Conditions of Approval with the following exception: The County Roads Department's Condition of Approval No. 25 shall be replaced with the following Condition: The applicant shall submit a Focused Traffic Study addressing the project~s impacts on the existing alignment of Pala Road and the existing intersection of Pala Road and State Route 79. The study shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineers prior to occupancy of the first unit. The study will determine a reasonable "fair share" cost to be paid by the developer toward a new bridge. If a fair and equitable share of the developer~s cost of transportation improvements has not been determined at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is needed, the developer shall be required to deposit $10,000 into a City established Road Benefit Fund. The developer is also required to sign an agreement with the City to either pay an amount or receive a refund equal to the difference between his estimated fair share and the amount of deposit with the City. SW: ks Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 - Tract Map County Staff Report Conditions of Approval 5 /~ ;Mewel) :,~ ~... ,7../ 4~) ,OIl '.LAY 'QM Y"IVd u~|OlfrdJJ3 ~ , GI 'ed 9~s'xe ~.M. eerf 'm~'a"se '.L EI'ooS '-; ~ I'IsN3'dn9 '11F::} 'Olt ooJV dvN ~VNO~.V:Mn * ~1~103 NOIJ.~)rlUIS O I F' I 06It* -, · * ~, Ol-I-V e ,0 t $upervtsortal District: First E.A. Number: 20210 Regional Team No.: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21067, Amd. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4525 Planning Comtsston: 2-5-86 Agenda Item Nos.: 27 & 27a No: 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: 9. Comprehensive General Plan Elements: 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Recommendations: 12. Letters: 13. School District: 14. a. Impacted? b. School Agreement received? Sphere of Influence: *Kingsway Construction Corporation McCutchan Company, Inc. Zone change from R-R to R-l; to divide 46 acres into 118 lots Easterly of ,ledediah Smith Road and Southerly of State Highway 79 R-R R-R, R-1, C-1/C-P Flat open pasture, subject to flooding Rural area transittoning to urban LAND USE: Category II DENSITY: 2-8 du/acre OPEN SPACE/CONS: Not designated as Open Space TOTAL ACREAGE: 46 Acres TOTAL LOTS: 118 DU PER ACRE: 3.9 PROPOSED MIN. LOT SIZE: 7200 square feet ROAD: See letter dated 11-27-85 HEALTH: See letter dated 11-25-85 FLOOD: See letter dated 12-24-85 FIRE: See letter dated 12-2-85 MATER: See letter dated 9-23-85 Opposing/Supporting: None as of this writing Elstnore Union High School District and Temecula Union School District Yes Yes y/No None ANALYSIS: Project Description: Change of Zone Case No. 4525 and Tentative Tract No. 21067, Amended No. 3 is an application to change the zoning of the project site from R-R to R-I and to divide 46 acres into 118 lots. The subject property is located on the north -side of Pala Road and east of Jededtah Smith Road. At present, the subject Foperty contains a stable and mobile home. Surrounding land uses are a TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21067,-Amd. It). 3 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 4525 Staff Report Page 2 storage facility, horse ranch, vacant lot, and a single faintly subdivision, under construction. The stte ts currently zoned R-R, and surrounding zoning R-R, R-2, and C-Z/C-P. Enfironmental *Analysts: Environmental Assessment No. 202]0 (ndtcates that the subject stte ts tmpacted by Ltqutfactton hazard, 100 year floodplain, dam Inundation area, and Agricultural end Wildlife Resources. A ltqutfactton report has been submitted, and reviewed by the County Geologist. He has prepared a letter of Conditional approval dated December.12, 1985. Flooding concerns have been mitigated through tract design and the Flood Control District letter dated December 24, 1985. The agricultural and wildlife potential for the site are non-existent due to comnerdal and residential development ~n the surrounding area. Project Consistency and Compatibility: The subject property lies wtthtn the Rancho Caltfornta/Temecula subarea of the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area. The Comprehensive General Plan's Open Space and Conservation Element shows this site tn Areas Not Designated as Open Space. Review of the policies of the Land Use Element tn the Comprehensive General Plan indicate that the subject site and proposed project fit the requirements of Category ZZ at this time. A full range of public services and facilities are available to the site. The developer ts proposing a density of 3.9 dwellings per acre. The proposed 118 lot subdivision (s a logical extension of the existing urban pattern. Staff recon~ends approval of Change of Zone Case No. 4525 and Tentative Tract No. 21067, Amended No. 3, in that the proposal ts consistent with the General Plan, compatible wtth area development, and conforms to the requirements of Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460. Findings: The applicant proposes to change the zoning of 46 acres from R-R to R-l, and to subdivide the site ~nto 118 single famtly residential lots. The subject property contains a mobile home and a stable. Surrounding land uses are: a residential .subdivision, vacant lots, horse ranch, and a storage facility. 3. Surrounding zoning is R-R, R-l, C-2/C-P. 4. The General Plan policies call for Category II land use. 5. L1qutfactton and flooding impact the project stte. llENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21067, Amd. No. 3 £NANGE OF ZONE I10. 4525 Staff Report Page 3 Conclusions: 1. The proposed pro3ect ts consistent with the General Plan 2. The proposed project is compatible with area development~ 3. The proposed project conforms to all applicable County Ordinances. 4, Liquifaction and flooding concerns can be effectively mitigated, Recomnendattons: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for E.A. No. 20201, based on the conclusion that the proposed project .will not have a significant effect on the environment; APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No. 4525 from R-R to R-l; and APPROVAL of Tentative Tract No. 21067, Amended No. 3, subject to the conditions of approval, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Staff report. DN:dw · 2 ( tqIOPOSED ZONIIG.| CZ 4525 8 ,~~067 -~ "' ' ".. ~.~ . .~ !' I ill il_..l ~ / / I, ' '1' I · II .' .R-R t~ : · _-.t;~' " :'~ , ...,-.----":. R-3 -'- R-R ~:: ,mmm~ · ~ A-I -I0 - °.. -. R-2 &. APIL lINGSWAY CONSTRUCTIONCORP. Use It-RTOR-I .,. ,.,. ,:.,.. .,..,,., ,he.19 T. BS..R.2W. aneseor's Bk.926 Pg. IS .~~... L-$ Ctreadotion PALA ltD. ART. I10' Elemmt ed. k. PI. SGA Date 849-85 Drown By moi , !I~:' ~,~,,P,,> COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION ~ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21067 -AMENDED NO. 3 STANDARD CONDITIONS DATE iliJ:~IL -8./ 1.g88 The tentative subdivision shall comply wtth the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of RIverside County Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. 9 This conditionally approved tentative 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 licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and Riverside County Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to conmnencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. If grading is proposed on slopes of 10% or greater, an environmental assessment approval will be required from the Planning Department prior to an acceptance of the plans by the Building Department. One mylar copy of the approved grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for transmittal to the Road Department. 7. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordatton of the final map. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated November 27, 1985, a copy of which is attached. 9. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2~067 Conditions of Approval Page 2 All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the pu~ltc and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers· All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Coemissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Conmnissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc,, shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and con- veyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. 12. Mater and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Oepartment's letter dated November 25, 1985, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control reconmnendations outltned by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated December 24, 1986, a copy of whtch is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460,.appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Conmnisstoner. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Marshall's letter dated December 2, 1985, a copy of which is attached. 16. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed connon open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. 16. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet net. b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C or Ordinance 460. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. d. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-1 zone. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21067 Conditions of Approval Page 3 17, Prior to RF..COKDATION of the final map, the follo,dtng conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordatton of the final map, the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside Country Road and Survey Depart~nent that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the folioring agencies have been met. County Fire Department County Flood Control CounCy Health DeparCment County Planning Deparment be Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone A525 shall .be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance vith the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. c. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance vith the standards of Ordinance 461. d. All existing structures on the subject property shall be removed prior to recordatton of the final map. The final map shall reflect the combination of lots 61 and A. The final design of this combination shall be as approved by the Planning Director prior to the recordation of .the fins1 map. f. Street trees shall be planted throughout the Subdivision in accordance vith the standards of Ordinance 460. If street lighting is proposed to be installed in this subdivision, it shall be installed in accordance vlth the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: 1) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street light layout first from the Road Deparr~ent's traffic engineer and then from the appropriate .utility purveyor. Folioring approval of the street lighting layout by the Road Department's traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an application with LAFCO for the formtion of a street lighting district, or annmtion to an existing lighting district, unless the site is vlthtn an existing lighting district. 3) Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall secure conditional approval of the street lighting application frem LAFCO, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. *Amended per Planning Comntsston, Feb. 5, 1986. TENTATIVETRACT NO. 21067 Conditions of Approval ~age 4 he Prior to recordation of the final sap, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction vlth the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed~Tith the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the PlauninS Department for reviev and Ipproval. The approved ECS shall be forvardedvith copies of the recorded final map to the PlanninS Department.and the Department of 2uildin~ and Safety. The fO~lowtnS note sh~ll be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "County CeoloSic ReportNo. 326 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County PlanninE Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: Liquifaction.' The fol~lo~ing note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Hount Palomar'Observatory. All proposed outdoor liKhtinZ syst~e shall comply with the California Institute of TechnoloKy, Palomar Observatory recommendations dated September 24, 1985, · copy of which is on file with the PlanninS Department and the Department of Building and Safety." l~ior to the issuance of GRADING PEPSfiTS, the follo~ng conditions shall be satisfied: If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of Kradin~ permits, an overall conceptual Srading plan shall be submitted to the PlanninK Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a ~uideline for subsequent detailed KradinK plans for individual phases of development and shall include the foliorinK: 1) -Techniques which viII be utilized to prevent erosion and · edtmentation durinK and after the gradinK process. 2) Approx~wmte time frames for SradinS and identification of areas which my be Krsded durinK the hiSher probability rain months of January throuKhBarch. 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. Arm of temporary gradinS outside of · lmrticular phase. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of BuildinK and Safety r~at any adjacent off-sitesanufmctured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope mintenance responsibilities have been assiKned as approved by the Director of BuildinS and Safety. '~.~TIVE TRACT leO. 21067 ~'- f~nditlons of ipproval 9e Yrio~ to the issuance of BUILDING PERNITS, the follm~ing conditions shall be satisfied: In accordance vith the vrttten request of the developer io the County of Riverside, a copy of vhich is .on file, and in furtherance ~f the agreesent bet~ween the developer and the Zlsinore Union High School District and the Temecula Union School District, no building permits shall be issued by the County of Riverside .for any parcels viabin the subject tract until the developer, or the developer's successors-in-interest provides evidence of compliance rlth the terms of said agreement bet~ween the developer and the School District. ioof-mountednechanical equipment shall not be permittedvithin the · subdivision, heyever, solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Deparment approval. · 20. 'If any off-site gradtnZ'ts proposed, the developer shall obtain the. proper easement from the appropriate ovners, prior to the recordatton of the of ~he final map. ** 21. · "he-pvepeeed-d~'H:~Be-d4-,~ehT-ae--.~hev~-,e,z,t-ehe-een~e~:tve. apT-she,d--be eeeabt-ieked-as-eseeseree-ea-~e'~s-6i--lgT-snel-malaeaineel-by'eke-evaeve e~-sa~d-~etsr--~a½ees-e~kewiee-a~veved-by-eke-P~am~a~-B~ee~. Changed per Planning Commission, Feb. 5, 1986 **Deleted per Planning Cg~-~ssion, Feb. 5, 1986 DN:dv;et IIECO!kg4ENDED MOTION: -. The Planning Co~dss~on and Staff recon.nend: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 20210 based on the findings incorporated (n the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the proposed pro~ect wtll not have a significant effect on the environment; and APPROVAL of Change of Zone No. 4525 from R-R to R-1 in accordance with Exhibit No. 2, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planntng Commission minutes dated February 5, 1986; and, APPROVAL of Tentative Tract No. 21067, kendad No. 3 subject to the attached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions /' -tUBIkgTTAL ~ THE BOARD OF SUFE]WISORS , , :{X)UNTY OF IUVERSIDL STATE OF ~ORNIA ~ . tl E 5 Ktngsway Construction - F~rst Supervtsortal Dtstr(ct - Ilancho California r Area - 46 Aces - 118 Lots - Schedule "A" - REQUEST: R-R to R-1 Zontng Incorporated tn the Planntng Commission etnutes dated February 5, 1986. Ro l:n~n~g~'~rector !}N:csa AGENDANO. I~REEL 888 --$:ZDE 2 - 353-685) 4:HANGE OF ZONE CASE 4525 - EA 20210 - t~ngsmy Construction Corporation - 4bncho California Area - First Supervisorial District - 46~ acres, easterly of Jedediah Smith Itl and southerly of St tky 79 - tt-R to R-l, etc, TRACT 21067 RNENDED NO. 3 - EA 20210- Kingsmy Construction Corporation - tancho California Are - Pirst $upervisorial !:H strict - easterly of aedediah ~ith N and southerly of St Iky 79 - 127 1ors - 46~ acres - R-R Zone. Schedule A Subdivision The brings ere opened at 3:43 p.m. and closed at 4:00 p.m. STAFF RECOIWqENDATION: kloption of the negative declaration for EA 20210, approval of Change of Zone Case 4525 from R-R to R-] in accordance ~th -Exhibit 2, and approval of Tract 21067 Amended No. 3 subject to amended condi- tions. The subject property contained a mobilehome and a stable; surrounding land uses ~ cluded a residential subdivision, vaunt lots, a horse ranch and a n storage facility. Staff thought the proposal tmuld be compatible rith earrounding land uses. Gerald Tutt, the engineer for the project, accepted the conditions as amended. Vil liam Hart~n, 45080 Temecula Lane, Temecula, advised there were six horse ranches tn the ~mmediate area on parcels ranging in size from S to 22 acres. fir. Hartin raised horses and cattle on adjacent property and asked whether the new ordinance relating to agricultural uses being considered by the Board of Supervisors would affect his r~ghts. fir. $alter asked whether he had lived there at last three years; vhen fir. Hartin advised he had lived there nine years fir. $alter ~ndicated he thought his use ~ould be protected by State law. fir. Hartin kes concerned about Temecula Lane, ~hich ms fully maintained by himself and one other ~eighbor and asked whether this road would he used to Irovide access to Pala Road. fir. Tutt advised the Road Department conditions required them to provide 32 feet of pavenent from the end of the tract (which ms the beginning of Temecula Lane) to the nearest paved County Road (Pala). The right of my for Temcula Lane had been offered for dedication on a pre- viously recorded parcel map and currently existed; they would be required to f improve within that right o key. Therefore, there eould be improved access from the tract down Temecula Lane to Pals. fir. Hartin had no further concerns. Lorise Rouhe, 45100 Pala Road, omed a horse ranch tn the immediate area and kes concerned about fioodinq and drainage lroblems. fir. rashuba advised the Flood Control Distr~ct reahzed there kes an existing flooding problem and briefly described drainage patterns tn this area. The project had been conditioned to construct a concrete channel to carry the flows. fir. Tuft advised they had held any eetings with Flood Control staff, and he felt the rioodin problems had been resolved. In addition, the pro rty kes to meet Federal requirements. ~11though within a flood p~aln and weuld have there weuld he additional traffic on the access road, he thought most of the traffic would move along Pala Road to the northNest where there were schools and shopping adl~ties. 35 There ms no further testimDny, and the hearing ms closed at 4:00 p.m. FZND:ZNGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicant proposed a change of zone on 46 acres from II-R to R-i, and the subdivision of the site into 1:18 single family residential lots; the subject property contains a mobilehone and a. stable; surrounding land uses ~ncludes a residential subdivision, vacant lots, a horse ranch, and a storage fadlity; surrounding zoning is R-R, I1-1 and C-Z/C-P; lleneral Plan polldes call for Category Zi land use; liquefaction and flooding ~mpact the site, The proposed pro3ect ~s consistent with the Comprehensive leneral Plan; compatible with area develo nt; conform to all applicable County ordinances; and liquefaction and ~l/~o;ing concerns can be effectively sHtigated. The proposed pro~ect will ,or have a significant effect on the environment. NOTION: Upon mot.ion by ComnHssioner Bresson, seconded by Conmdssioner MacGreqor and unanimously carried, the Commission recomended to the Board of $uperwsors adoption of the negative declaration for EA 202:10, approval of I:henge of Zone Case 4525 from R-R to It-:1 ~n accordance with Exhibit 2, and approval of Tentative Tract 2:1067 ~mended No. 3 sub~ct to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. 17(g) - Delete the ~irst two l~nes and replace with the following: If street lighting is proposed to be installed ~n this subdivision, shall be installed as: 20. - if any off-site grading ~s proposed, the developer shall obtain the proper easements from the appropriate meets, prior to recordation of the f~nal map. 2:1. - Delete entirely. ROLL CALL VOTE RESULTED AS FOLLOUS: AYES: CO.m~ssioners Bresson, MacGregor, Donahoe, Purviance and Beadling NOES: None ABSENT: None 36 ..,<' I1' VAC · ~ CZ GOLF - VAC ~ I(NI,GSIAY Uee tt-R TO R-I keel:).' CAL he. IS T. tS.,R.2W. Ck, euletiee PALA RD. CZ 4ato · CONSTRUCTION CORP. Jlmaow*s 8k.926 PS. I5 ART. riO' Bit. PO. SGA Dote 8-19-85 Drown By moi VAC msl~i~'. .-OFFICE OF ROAD,:O~IM!S$ HER 6 C(~UiVTY SURVEYOR .,, · ., ,, -. ' ~vS r ZY, Z985-. · bRoy D. Smut Iher e hunt~ PI~Tng ~ssTon . 4080 L~on Street Ifve~tde, ~ 9~01 · Ladies and Gentlemen: e Tract Nap 21067 -Amend #3 ,Schedule A - Team 2 ee The landdivider shall protect downstrean~ pro. perties from damages ca'used by alteration of the drainage phiterns, i.e., concentration of diversion of. flme. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage fact 1 t ties including enlarging existing facilities or'by securing a drainage easement or by both. All drainage easements shall be shovm on the final map and noted as follows: · Drainage Easement - ,o bul.ldings, obstructions, or · encroachments by land ftlls are 'allowed". The protection S.ha11 be as approved by the bad Depa.rt~ent. The landdivider shall ecc~pt.'and properly dispose of effsite drainage flowing onto 'or through the' site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for draJna · purposes, the provisions of Article Xl of Ordinance lie. 46~ Vtll apply. Should the quantities exceed the street tapactty er the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the sub~livider shall provide adequate drainage f. actltttes as approved by the ROad .Department. ~ l(tth respect to the cOnditions of approval for the referenced tentattv~ land division map, the Road Department recommends that' the landdivider provide the following street ~mprovements and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County I~oad Improvement .Standards (Ordinance 461). It ts understood that the Tentative Hap · correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage COurSes with appropriate O's, and that their omission may require the map to b~ resubmitted for further. consideration. These Ordinances' and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occuring :.tn ONE is as binding as though occurring in a11. They are intended to ~e 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 Comm~ssioner's Office. clap 2%057- k~end 27, "lie5 - 4lage 2' 3. I~a.lor dratnage ts tnvolved on thts landdhtston ·rid tts resolution shall be ·s .approved by the Road Department. 4. Pall Road shall be taproved with concrete curb and gutter TOcated 43 feet from centerline an.d match up-asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction or resurfadn~ of existing paV~ng as detem~ned by the Road Co.~n~ss~.oner within a 55 foot half width dedicated right · f w~ tn accordance w~th County Standard No. 100. mA" Street, ,aCre Street, "r;" Street and "F" Street (northerly of lot 55) shall be taproved w~thtn the dedicated r~ght of way tn accordance with County Standard No. 104, .Section A. (40'/60'). 6. "B" Street shall be improved wtth(n the ded(cated right of way *' fn accordance with County Standard Ho. 105, Section R. (3G'/ 60'). - 7. "F" Street (from lot 55 southeasterly) shall be improved wtth *28 feet of asphalt concrete pavement wtthtn a 40 foot part width dedicated r~ght of way in accordance wtth County Standard No. 110, Section A. (20'/.30'~. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landd~v~ston tn accordance wtth County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). 9. A secondary access road to the nearest paved road'maintained by the County shall be constructed within the public r.ight of way in accordance w(th County Standard No. 106, Section B, (32'/60') · t a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Countsstoner. This fs necessary for circulation purposes. 10. Prior to the recorClatton of th~ ftna~ map, the developer shall deposit trfth the .Riverside County Road Department, a cash Sum of $!50;00 pe~ lot as mitigation for traffic signal .~mpacts. Should the **developer choose to d~fer the time of payment, he my enter into ·wrftten agreement wtth the County deferring' sald payment to the - time of*. issuance of · building.permit. No traffic S*ignal mitigation for open space lot i118 wt|1 be required at this time. 11, Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerlfn~ profile extending ·mfn$mum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment aS approved by the Riverside County Road Coanfsstoner. Gompletion of road Improvements does not (mply acceptance for maintenance b~ CounV. :12. Electric·] and ~onnunicat~ons trenches sha]l'be'provtded tn accordance trJth 0rdtnance 461, Standard 817. 13. Aspbaltic emulsion (fog seal} shall ~-ePplted not less'tha~ fourteen days following placement of.~he.esphalt surfacing and sha]] be applied., at · rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard.- Asphalt e~ulston shall conform to Sections 37, 39 end 94 of ~h~ State 'Standard Specifications. i4. Standard cul-de-sacs end knuckles shall'be constructed throughout. the ]·ndd~vtson.- ~5. '~orner cutbacks tn conformante with County StandQrd No. 805 shal3 be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. 16- Lot access shal~ be restHcted on Pa~a Road and Jeded~ah Smith Road '. end so noted on the final map with the exception of ~7. ~anddtvtstons creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion .control,' sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road DeparUnent. * 8e 98 The landdtvtde~ Shall provtde utility clearance from Rancho California Water District prior to the recordation o~ the final map. ~3. All centerline Intersections shall be at 90° or' radial or as Ipproved by the Road Department: .. 14. The street destgn and Improvement concept of this project shall ie coordinated wtth Tract 13060-5 (le 135/87-90) and Tract 13060-. i (MB 135/83-86). The minimum'lot frontages along th~ cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet, ' Street trees shall be planted tn conform·rice with the provisions of Article 13a of Ordinance 460,53 and their location(s) shall ke.shown on street improvement p3ans,.+ · All driveways sha~ conform to the appltcab~e*Rtverslde County. Standards ·rid sha~l be shown on the street improvement plan~, 'The etnimumcenterltne radii ~hall be 300"or'a% ~pproved by the bad Department: !.:-lra~ flap 21067 --keend #3 -- '~Schedule A- Team 2 · '-~lo~-eber 27, 1965 -.~ton~lt. tons. . -'Page 4 Prior to recordatfon of any phase of Tract 21067, proceedings for an assessment district for the construction of a four lane bridge eq Pa]a Road at the Temecu.la Creek shall be successfully completed. SH:lh ller~ truly yours ,~ -. . .. -' :~., ,-~ -- o. Road DivisiOn Eng'tn~er "RIVERSIDE COUNTY Iq,,.C)OD CONTROL AND -:-:qNATER CONSERVATION D!~'i"R!C'T 'December 24, 1985 Rtversfde County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attentionx aegional Team No. 2 Ladies and Gentlemen~ ,1~. O. 8OX loss "'l~-~l (till tit-lots DEC v 1985 RIVERS/DE COUNTy P, U4,NNING COMA,] ISSION Re= Tract 21067 (Amended Map No. 3) Tentative Tract 21067 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 46 acres in the Rancho California area. The property is located northerly of Pala Road and southerly of State Highway 79. The property is subject to flooding from two distinct sources. Most of the property lies within the 100 year flood plain of Temecula Creek. The most northerly portion of the property has been designated "floodway" on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map of the area published in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program. The tentative map recognizes this fact and delineates the floodway area as open space. Considerable quantities of Temecula Creek overbank flow may approach the property along the easterly boundary. The property is also subject to flooding from approximately one square mile of local watershed located to the southeast. These flows approach the property along the north side of Pala Road. Under current Federal Emergency Management Agency Regulations the proposed lots must be floodproofed by elevation above expected flooding levels. This wtll require placing substantial fill material on the property. To avoid blocking overbank flood flows from the east, the tentative map proposes an open flow through area in the vicinity of the intersection of mE" and 'F" Streets along with a collection'.ditch adjacent to Lots G2-79 and a eatback adjacent to Lots 47, 48 and G0. This concept ~s appropriate ~f properly designed. Following are the Dtstrict's recommendations'x That portion of the property which has been designated "floodway" in conjunction with the Flood Insurance Program should be delineated and labeled as 'floodway" on the environmental constraint sheet. A note should be placed on the environmental con=traint sheet stating, mFloodway must be kept free of all buildings and obstructions including landfills.' · i Tra c · it dd 3) '(Amen e Map 'December 24; 1985 The engineer should submit a hydraulic analysis of Temecula Creek, The study should analyze both existing and proposed geometry and be based on dynamic flow condi- tions, A 100 year flow rate of 36,000 cfs should be uti- lized for design purposes, Building pads for all lots in this tract should be elevated a minimum of one foot above the 'floodway" water surface, 3.. Fill banks which will be exposed to flowing water should be hardened with riprap or concrete to protect against erosion. Velocities greater than 5 feet par second should be considered erosive. The slope protection should extend from the top of embankment to a depth below adjacent ground based on velocity of flow. , An area should remain open adjacent to the intersection of 'E' and eF' Streets to allow for the conveyance of overbank flood flows. The exact width of this area is to be determined at the time of final design end based on the quantity of overbank flow. Slope protection should be provided where erosive velocities are expected. 5- A concrete lined drainage facility should be installed adjacent to Lots 61-79 to convey overbank flows which are not contained in the existing ditch along Pala Road. If located offsite, this facility should be installed within a recorded drainage easment. Alternatively, this facili- ty should be installed within the limits of this tract. , The existing concrete lined channel adjacent to Pala Road should be extended upstream to the tract boundary. The channel should be extended downstream to a point past Lot 23. Appropriate energy dissipation facilities should be installed. , A grading and building setback of 20 feet along the east- erly side of Lots 47, 48 and 60 should be maintained. This area should be delineated and labeled on the en- vironmental constraint sheet. A note should be placed on the environmental constraint sheet stating, eThe setback area must be kept free of all buildings and obstructions, including landfAlls.' 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 build- ings and obstructions.' Eiverside County Rex 'Tract 21067 (Amended Nap No. 3) --3- December 24; 1985 9. All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria 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. 2. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District for review prior to recordation of the final map. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. F~WARDS '~ieFf ~EnJU~ cot Road Dept. Dept. of Building & Safety McCutchan Company, Inc. MCzbjp Review of Liquefaction Evaluation for Tentative Trac~ No. 21067 We have -reviewed the report entitled.. Preliminary Soil lnvesttgatton/~Lquefaction stray, Tentative Tract Bo. 21067 (46 Acres), Xancho California, itiverstde County, California, dated July 19, 1985~ prepazed b~. Leighton and Associates, Inc. Project ~o. 6850953-01, Response to October 29, 1985, County review jf Report Ttt/ed "Prelim- inary Soil Investigation///quefactton Study, Tentat/ve Tract No. 21067 (46"'! Acres) Rancho California, Californta,'dated July 19, 1985, Pro- Ject No. 6850953-01", Prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., Pro-- Ject No. 6850953-02, Meeting with CountyBuilding and Safety Representatives pertaining to Liquefaction Study, Tentative Tract No. 21067, Rancho California (Leighton and Associates Report dated July 19, 1985, Project No. 6850953- -01), dated December 10, 1985; prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., Project No. 6850943-02. The reports have recognized a potentially lt~uefiable 'local layer" at the depth of 38 feet. The report states: 'In our opinion, no mitiga- t/on measures are warranteddue to the great depth of the soil layer, weight of the overburden soils, and the depth of the ground water table (26 feat).' I would reccnnend that a compacted fill mat and foundation steel reinforcetent be considered for th~s local area. It appears that the reports and their addend~ns satisfy the addit/onal information requested by the Planning Team under the California Envi- ronmental ~uality Act review. 2~1-143 t/80 -" ' .'~SEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ~lanning Department - Team 2 R iversi SEP u3'L '5 H. Ralph Luchs, R.S. Administrative Supervisor Environmental Health Services Division (EHSD) -SAN53 Requirements - Tract No. 21067 The Environmental Health Services Division has reviewed the tentative map for this project and cannot make any recommen- dations until a sanitation letter is filed. The requ/rements for a SAN 53 letter are as follows: 1. A satisfactory soils percolation test to prove the project feasible. 2. A clearance letter from the appropriate California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 3. Two copies of the tentative map. 4. A =will serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water. Should the project be served sanitary sewer service, this Department would need only: 1. A =will serve= letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water. 2. One copy of the tentative map. If the project is to be served water by existing wells, pumps and water tanks, a water supply permit will be required. (Contact the EHSD, Engineering Section at 787-6543}. The requirements for a water supply permit are as follows: Satisfactory laboratory tests (bacteriological, organic, inorganic, general physical, and general mineral) to prove the water potable. e A c~mplete set of plans showing all details of the pro- posed and existing water systems: sizes and types of pipe and calculations showing that adequate quantity and pressure can be maintained (California Waterworks Standards - California Health and Safety Code and California Administrative Code, Title 22). These plans must be signedbya registered civil engineer. IDc(-; ilqev. 11;ll) GATE: September 16, 1985 ~tldtng and Safety Surveyor . 3 O )e6~ · ' -Road Department Health ~ COUNTy Ft re Protection -4"I, N4NING COMMIiiKi Flood Control Dtstrtct RECEIVED SEP 2& 1985 eN~IMAR OB$[RVATORY Southern Calt f. Gas Southern Cali f. Edison General Telephone Eastern Muni. Water Rancho Calif. Water Comnissioner Bresson let..Palomar TRACT NO, 21067 - (Tin 2) - E,A. 20210 - Kingsmy Construction - McCutchan Co- Rancho r41tfornia - 1st Supervisortal Dtst - Ely mlededtah Smith Road, Sly Hwy 79 - R-R .- REOUEST: Schedule A Subdivision of 46. acres into 127 lots with No Waiver - (Related Case: CZ 4525) - Hod #119 A.P, #926-150-021 & 031 ~lease review the case described above, along wtth the attached case map. A Land. Otvtston Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for September 26, 1985. If it clears, it will then go to publtc hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to September 24, lqB5 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case, $hould[~v~ave any questions regarding this item, Nare~t 787- 2331 Planner please do not hesitate to contact CCletENTS: SEE: ATTACr~ DATE: 9/24/85 SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title 4060 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 CALIFORNIA INSTITIJTE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PALOIdAB OBSERVATORY lel-14 Th~s cue is w~th~n 30 miles of the Palsmar Observatory end ie therefore within the Bone requiring the use of lov-pressure sodi~ vapor Zemps for street liBbRing, as stipulated by the u4verside County Board of Supervisors. ge request ~hat the design for other tTpes of outdoor liKhting that may be employed on this property be mde c~sisCenE ~Ch the spiriC o~ ~he decision o~ She ~ard o~ S~sors ~i~ is inE~ded Co ~EiKaEe ~he adverse e~eccs su~ facilities have ~ the ucr~cfi nsear~ aE P~r. bne~icial s~eps ~o ~t ~d ~clude: 1. Use the minimum smotmt of light needed. 2. Orient mnd shield l~ght to prevent direct upvard illumination. 3. Turn off liBhis v hen they are not needed. Use la~-pressure sodlum lmnps to the greatest extent possible. For further information, call (818) 356-&035. Robert J. Brucato issistent Director PASADENA. CALIFORNIA ells'l TELEPHONE IS!l) ISo*40)) TELEX el'14lJ CALTECH PSI:) IN COOPERATION WITH THE ~': -:.CAUFO RNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOIIESTRY -ID[[ Ci.n~'~: 110 ~ SAN ]AC[NID AVENUE 12-02-85 F~,Rm, CAU.FO~L~ '11Z,I~HON~ (114) 657-]. Attn: Team IT · R 21067 - A--na-ant #3 eithrespect tot he conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Departsent recoemends the followinS fire protection seasures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or reco2nised fire protection standards: Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x~'~2~") located one at each street intersection end spaced no sore than 500 feet ·part in any direction, with no portion of any lot front·See ore than 250 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shell be 500 GPN for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. · pplicant/developer shell furnish one (1) copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shell conform to fire hydrant types, location end spacin2, and, the system shell met the fire flow require·ants. Plans shell be si2ned/approved by · rm2istered civil an2ineer and the local water company with the followinS certification: 'I certify that the desi$n of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Eiverside County Fire Depart·ant." NITIGATIONFEES Prior to the recordation of the final sap, the developer shell deposit with the liverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $300.00 per lot/unit as miti2ation for fire protection i~pacts. Should the drveloper choose to defer the time of poym~nt, be my enter into a written aSreement with the County defertinS said peyment to the time of issuance of · buildin2 permit. All questions reSardin2 the ssanin~ of the conditions shell be referred to the FiraDeparment Planning and Engineering staff. Plannin$Officer ~ ~~ Iepa~t - Team 2 a~l~'~, Nwember 25, 1985 ~OM t H. Ralph Luchs, R.S., Senior Sanitarian - rmvirmmental Health Services Division Tract No. 21067 - Amended Map No. 3 The Envirormental Health Services Division has reviewed the i~ended Map No. S dated November 19, 1985. Our current caments will rmmmin as stated in our previous letter dated October 4, 198S. ii~L:cg 6EN. FORM 4, 1,/85 NOV 2 6 )985 RIVERSIDE COUNTy PLANNING COMMISSfON HEALTH II October 4, 1985 OCT ' ? 1885 eVEWBID( COUNTY Riverside County Planning Department - Team 2 ~slA~NING COMM~2K~ 4080 Lemon St. (10/1/86 Riverside, CA 92501 Amended Hap No.___~l) RB: TRACT N0. 21067; Parcel 2 of PH 6427 as shown on map filed in PH 17/72 and Parcel 4 of PH 8856 as shown on map filed in PH 41/72-73. (125 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Hap No. 21067 and recommends that: A water system 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 ~oint specifications, and the size of the main at the 3unction of the new system to the existin~ system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California,.when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design'of the water system in Tract No. 21067 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service, storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such tract. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose." This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. The plans must be submitted to the County Surve}or's. Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request or _t'~e recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. Planning Department -2- October 4, 1985 ~KACT NO. 21067 This Department has a statement from 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 ~he plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with.the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. " The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles~ pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the sewers at the junction o£ the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract No. 21067 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern. Municipal Water District and that-the waste disposal system.is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract." The plans must be submitted to the .County Surveyor's Office to review at least. two weeks prior to the.request for the recordation of the final map. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to'be ~ade prior to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely, H. Ralph Luchs, R.S. Administrative Supervisor HRL :cg September 23, 1985 ltan Riv'ersi~e County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Re** Parcel Map 6427 Gentlemen: Water service is directly available to the above-referenced propercy from a waterline located within Pala Road. Xancho California Water District feels it is lmparatXve that present water availability or non-availability be indicated on all final saps, and recommends.approval of final saps be contingent upon same, Proparty would be subject to Rancbo California Water District Stand- By charges and Ad Valorem Tax. Wells are not permitted on properties where water service could be made available. If we can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, ikNCBO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Laurie Willisms Customer Service Representative File: P.M. 6427-Zngineering lma J~ Laindin Do~ Kulberf Datlu Gray Tom A, Lmmvmrw ~oa,rd President T.C. Romm isffrsy L. lankIra. Irarows A. Dsrby Strum Mills itutsm sad Tucker Oenersl Msns2er LegaJ Counsel RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 2S061 DIAZ ROAD * POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 9~-390 · 714 676-4101 GEN, 1fORM 4. 1/85 DE C - 3 1S85 RIVEI~SIDE COUNTY PLANNING GOMMISSION · ATE: September ]6, 1985 .. . ~ TO: Assessor '~.,~! d ~' - ~utl dtng an Safety ' ~ -Surveyor ~ --toad Oepart~e~t tleal th Ftre Protection Rood Control Otstfict Southern Ca1 t f. Gas Southern Ca1 i f. Edison General Telephone Eastern ~nt. Mater eancho Caltf. Mater Co~ntsstoner Bresson let. Palomar TRACT N0, 21067 - (Tin 2) - E,A, 20210 - Kingsway Construction - NcCutchan Co- Itancho California - 1st Supervisortel Nst - Ely aerieallah Smith Road, Sly Hwy 79 - R-R - REOUEST: Schedule A Subdivision of 46. acres tnto 127 lots vlth No liatver - (Related Case: CZ 4525) - Nod #119 A.P. #926-150-021 a 031 'lease review the case described above, along with the attached case rap. A Land Otvtston Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for September 26, 1985. If tt clears, tt wt11 then go to public hearing. Your comments and recemmendattons are requested prior to September 24, 1-~85 In order that ee say include them tn the staff report for this particular case, Should u have any questions regarding this 1tern, please do lot besttare to contact I~a~td Haresat 787- 233] 'P1 anner " I:CI~ENTS: IRTE: ~-f"' SIGNATtIRE / PLEASE print eame end t~tle/ .' 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 17'141787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 30z; INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 September 23, 1985 Wa r Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Gentlemen: Water service is directly available to the above-referenced property from a waterline located within Pala Road. Rancho California Water District feels it is imperative that present water availability or non-availability be indicated on all final maps, and recommends approval of final maps be contingent upon same. Property would be subject to Rancho California Water District Stand- By charges and Ad Valorem Tax. Wells are not permitted on properties where water service could be made available. If we can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCBO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Laurie WillJams Customer Service Representative Flle.- Bosrd of Directors: Jon A, Lundin Board President Oeneral Manager P,M, 6427-Engineering DouZ Kulberg T.C. Rowe Dlllu Orty Jeffrey I~ Mlnkler Tom A. Leevers James A. Dsrby Rutan and Tucker Legal Counsel RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 174 , TEMECULA, CA 92390 · 714 676-4101 DATE: "b~mber .' 16, 1985 · ..... TO: Assessor -.-:-.~ .. . - -° - --SuwUor Road Oepartment .,. Heal th Fire Protection Rood Control District ;nvtws Southern Caltf. Gas Southern Calif. Edison General Telephone Eastern Hunt. Mater lancho Caltf. Mater Coantsstoner Dresson fit. Palomar TRACT N0. 21067 - (Tin 2) - E.A. 20210 - Kingsmy Construction - McCutchan Co- Rancho California - 1st .~upervtsortaq Otst - Ely Jadedtab Smith Road, Sly Hwy 79 - R-R - REOUEST: Schedule A Subdivision of 46 acres Into 127 lots vith No Matvet - (Related Case: CZ 4525) - Hod t119 A.P, #926-150-021 & 031 Please review the case described above, along v4th the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Septe, ber 26, 1985. If It clears, 4t will then go to public hearing. Vour comments and recommendations are requested prior to September 24, 1Q85 tn order that edna my $nclude than In the staff report for this particular case. Should u have any questions regarding this tim, please I~av~ld Haresat 787- 2333 Flanner do not hesitate to contact PLZAS[ print name 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLCX:)R RIVERSIDE. CALIFC)RNIA 92501-3657 {1'14) 7,B7-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 3,~;>.D277 I!ll. ltlll &. ~2~' ~EG - 3 IS85 RIVEhSID,r COUNTY PLANNING SlIMMISSION ITEM NO. 26 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 28, 1990 FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23211 PREPARED BY: R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: Oliver Mujica Approval of a First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211 subject to the Amended Conditions of Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Marstan Development Gary Martin 128 unit condominium subdivision of 7.31 acres. First Extension of Time. South side of Margarita Road, between Moraga Road and Avenida Cima Del Sol. R-3-2500 (General Residential, one unit per 2,500 square feet) North: R-1 South: R-3 East: R-3-3000 West: R -3-3000 ( Single Family Residential ) ( General Residential ) (General Residential, one unit per 3,000 sq.ft. ) (General Residential, one unit per 3,000 sq.ft. ) Large lot with single family residence North: South: Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential STAFFRP'!~V'I'F2~11 PROJECT STATISTICS: East: West: Vacant Multi-Family Residential No. of Units: No. of Acres: Proposed Density: SWAP Density: 128 7.31 17.5 units per acre 8-16 units per acre BACKGROUND: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211 was originally approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1988. At that time a Negative Declaration was adopted and the project was found to be consistent with applicable policies in the County's Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning requirements. The application for a First Extension of Time was acted upon by the Riverside County Planning Commission on March 21, 1990, in which an extension of time, to May 31, 1991, was approved and forwarded, with a recommendation of Receive and File, to the City of Temecula, on April 20, 1990. In approving the Extension of Time, the County of Riverside Amended the original Conditions of Approval to include the following conditions, in order to address the Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Measures and Park and Recreation Fees and Dedications issues: "23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map." 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: Location This project is located on the south side of Mar9arita Road, approximately 1,500 feet east of Moraga Road. Status The application for a First Extension of Time was filed with the City of Temecula subsequent to a new application being filed on the project site I Tentative Tract No. 25~L~3). Tentative Tract No. 25~3, which proposes to subdivide the same 7.31 acres into 105 condominium units, was filed on November 30, 1989. The density on the new proposed project ITT 25443) is 1LI.5 units per acre as compared to the 17.5 units per acre of the current proposal. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211 proposes to subdivide the subject 7.31 acre site into a 128 unit condominium development, with an overall density of 17.5 units per acre. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-3-2500 zone. The project consists of nine 19) two-story buildings 12-8 plex and 7-16 plex) and utilizes four (~) different unit floor plans ranging from 750 sq.ft. to 1,050 sq.ft. Staff has noted four essential issues for the City Council to consider, regarding this matter, as fol lows: Density During their review and approval of this project (TT 23211 ), the County of Riverside concluded that the "Future Land Uses within this area should generally be Category I and Category I I Land Uses". These land uses include residential developments with densities ranging from 8 to 20 units per acre. It was also determined by the County that the proposed development fully complies with the development standards of the subject R-3-2500 (General Residential) zone; and that the proposed density of 17.5 units per acre is consistent with these land use categories ~ Category I and II ). This determination was based on the property's zoning (R-3-2500) which allows 17.5 units per acre {43,560 sq.ft. divided by 2,500 sq. ft. ). However, the proposed density of 17.5 units per acre is inconsistent with the 8-16 units per acre density of the Southwest Area Community Plan. The County of Riverside did note this 3 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: inconsistency during both their initial review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23211 and this current request { First Extension of Time ); however, it was determined in both instances that Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23211 is not subject to the provisions of the Southwest Area Community Plan since the City of Temecula has not adopted a General Plan. City Staff shares some of the same concerns relative to the density of the proposed project; however, because there is no existing policy relating to this matter, Staff is not in a position to make a recommendation one way or the other. Staff believes that this is a Council policy matter. Gradinq The proposed project, at this density, requires substantial grading which calls for the alteration of an existing, fairly prominent, natural ridgeline; and involves approximately 30,300 cubic yards of excavation and approximately L~7, ~60 cubic yards of fill, in which 17,160 cubic yards of soil will be imported. Although the City does not currently have policies with respect to grading, Staff would suggest that the City Council consider the proposed land form alteration and future, potential grading of the subject area. Traffic Impacts A Traffic Study was recently prepared and submitted, in March of 1990, with the previously mentioned new proposal I TT 25LIJ43). The report is now under review by the Engineering Staff. The actual project impact is not expected to be significant. However, the cumulative impact of concentrated high density development in this area may be significant. New Proposal As mentioned above, the applicant has filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25L1~3 which proposes 105 dwelling units at a density of 1L~.5 units per acre. This proposal has been scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on September 10, 1990. The proposed density of 17.5 units per acre is inconsistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan designation of 8-16 units per acre. However, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: the proposed density is consistent with the density of the R-3-2500 zone which is 17.5 units per acre. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted· On May 31, 1988, during their initial review and approval of the project, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted a Negative Declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23211. On March 21, 1990, during their review and approval of this First Extension of Time request, the Riverside County Planning Commission determined that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23211 will not have a significant effect upon the environment. FINDINGS: There is a reasonable probability that Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State Law. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the circulation patterns, access, and density· The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage is likely to create a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property, because it does not 5 e 10o 11. represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area· The project as designed and contilt(.ned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Study for this project. That said findings are supported by minutes. maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application are herein incorporated by reference. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment in that Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees are required and archaeological resources are not likely to be found at the site· The project will not be detrimental to human health or safety in that drainage and flood control measures must be approved by FEMA prior to map recordation, and the potential for liquefaction, differential subsidence. and surface fissuring at the site are very low. A soils report must be submitted to the Building and Safety Department addressing soil stability and geological conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: APPROVE a First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23211, to May 31, 1991, based on the analysis and findings contained in this report and subject to the attached Amended Conditions of Approval· Attachments: Amended Conditions of Appoval City Council Staff Report (dated August 1~, 1990) County of Riverside Notice of Decision Idated April 2, 1990) County of Riverside Planning Commission Staff Report (dated March 21, 1990) Large Scale Plan Notice of Pubic Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 93290 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211, First Extension Marstan Development South side of Margarita Road, between Moraga Road and Avenida Cima del Sol 128 unit condo subdivision of 7.23 acres Previous Environment Determination made Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pubic hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the pubic hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Samuel 1. Reed, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula Tuesday. August 28. 1990 7:00 PM ITSTIE TE)fTATIVE TIACT IO. ZI2Zl Md. ;2 Conditions of Apiwoval Page 2 7. A grading pormtt shall be obtained from the Depa~ment of Building and Safety prior to cannenccqnent of any grading outside of county mintmined f road rtght o 8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be Hid prior to recordatton of the final map. The subdivider shall comply with the street improveant recons~endations outltned tn the Riverside County Road Departaent's letter dated 3-9-88, a copy of whtch is attached. :tO. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provtded from the tract map bounder7 to a County matntalned road. All romd easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the overntng body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances ms mpproved by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Co,~nisstoner. Easements, when requtred for roadway slopes, dratnage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the ftnal mp tf they are located withtn the land dtviston boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. Mater and sewerage dfsposal facilities shall be Installed in accordance with the provisions set forth tn the Riverside County Health Oepartment's h letter dated 3-Z6-88, a copy of which Is attaced. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outllned by the RIverside County Flood Control DtstrSct's letter dated 3-7-88, a copy of whtch ts attached. If the land dtviston 11as withln an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section ~0.25 of Ordinance 460 appro rtate fees for the construction of arm dratnage facilities shetl be collected by the had Comtsstoner. ~5. The subdivider shall comply vtth the fire Improvement recommendations outltned tn the County fire' Ibrshal's letter dated 3-Z0-88, a copy of whtch ts attached. The subdivider shall comply vlth the recoemendattons eMilteed tn the htteT dated 3-11-88 frm the liverstale County Department of lutldtng and Safety. Subdlvtston phastng, Including any proposed co. mn open apace area Improvement phistag, tf applicable, shill be subject to planntng I:)epertaent approval. Any proposed phastng shall provtde for adequate RZVERSiDE COUNTY PLANNING I)[PARTNENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23211 DATE: AIRENDED NO. 2 EXPIRES: STANDARD CONDITI~S 1. The subdivider shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless the County of RIverside, tts agents, officers, end employees from any clatm, Ictton, or proceeding agatnst the County of RIverside or tts agents, officers, or emplo ees to attack, set as4de, vo4d, or Innul In approval of the County of ~fverstde, tts advtsory agencies, appeal boards or legqslat4ve body concerning YTR 23211, 4~d. 12 whtch actto~ (s brought Ibout ~tthtn the t4~e per4od provtded for tn California Government Code hotton 66499.37. The County of R(verstde wtll promptly not(f the subdivider of any such clatm, action, or proceed4ng against ~.{e County of RIverside and w~11 cooperate fully tn the defense. If the County fatls to promptly not4fy the subdivider of any such claqm, action, or proceeding or fatls to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdlvtder shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Rtvers t de. 2. The tentatqve subd4vSston shall cmply wtth the State of California SubdlvtsSon Nap Act and to Ill the requirements of 0rdtnance ~60, Schedule A, unless mod(f4ed by the conditions ltsted below. 3. Th4s condlttonaqly a proved tentative mp wtll exptre t~o ars after the County of R4verstde ~ard of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as prov4ded by Ordinance 460. 4. The final map shall be prepared by a 11cansad land surveyor subject to the requirements of the State of Caltfornta Subdivision Nap Act and Ordinance 460. S. The subdhMer shall sulmtt one copy of a sotls report to the Ittverstde County Sarveyor's Offtce and tNo coptes to the Department of lutldtng and Safety. The report shall address the soils stabtilt7 and geological conditions of the stte. 6. If any Fading ts proposed, the subdivider shall subett oee prtnt of c_mprehenstve gradtrig plan to the Department of Butldtng and Safety. The plan shall comply Vtth the Untfora Buildtrig Code, Chapter 70 es mended by 0rdtnance 457 and as Imbibe add¶ttoea113r prevtded to; In these conditions of approval. 15111; TEIfTATIVE TIACT IO. 23211 kmd. ~2 renditions of AlWrovsl Pale 3 vehicular access to all lots In each phase, end shall substantially confore to the teaant end purpose of the subdivision approval. Lots created by thts subdivision shell comply with the following: a. Lots created by thts subdivision shall be tn conformance with the devil oF. ant standards of the R-3-2500 zone. b. Graded but undeveloped land shall be mtntatned tn a ned-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or c. Trash btns, loading areas and incidental storage ereis shall be located avay and vtsually screened fr~ surrounding areas with the use of block .ells and landscaping. d. Bike racks in btke lockers tn sufficient quanatty shall be provtded tn convenient locations to facilitate btke access to the project area· Prtor to RECORD~T~ON of the ftnal mp the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordeaton of the final map the applicant shall submtt written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined In the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County Flood Control County Health Department County Planning Oepartmnt Prior to recorderton of the final map, the subthtder shall submit the following documents to the Planning OlHrtment for review. whtch documents shell be subject to the mpprevml of that departmet and the Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; mnd VESllnG 191TATZVE TItACT lD. I32XI 4rod. #2 Coedltlons of Page4 2) A sample documents conve trig tttle to the purchaser of in tn tvtdual lot or untt~hlc~ provides that the declaration of ~ conditions and restrictions ts Incorporated theretn by co enants, refereft ce. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for raYlay shall (a profide for a mtntmum term of 60 years, (b) profide for the estalllshment of a property ovners' association comprised of the owners of each Individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ovne~shtp of the canaan area by lither the property owners' association or the aveera of each Individual lots or untt is tenants tn con~on and (d) contain the following provisions verbatim: Notwlthstandtn any provision tn thts Oeclaretton contrary, the ~olloutng provisions shall apply: to the The property ovners' association established heretn shall nanage and continuously nalntatn the 'camnon area*, more particularly (as amended by described on Exhibit ,A , attached hereto, and shall not sell or P.C. 4-20-88) transfer the 'common aTTW', or any part thereof, absent the prior wTttten consent of the f Planntng Director 0 the County of RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest. The property owners' association shall have the rtght to assess the owners of each Individual lot or unlt for the reasonable cost of natntatntng the 'common area' and shall hive the rtght to 1ten the property of any such owner ~ho defaults tn the payment of a natntenance assessment. As assessment 1ten, once establlshed, shall not be subordinated to any encumbrance other thin a ftrst trust deed or ftrst mortgage, made tn ~eodn.fatth and for value and of record prtor to the assessment Thts I)eclaratton shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or propert deannexed therefrom absent the prtor vrttten consent of the P~annlng Dtrector of the County of Rherstde or the County's successor-In-Interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'canaan area', n eve of any conflict betwen thts I)eclaretten end the and Regulations , tf any ,thts Declaration shall control. (As amended b P.C. 4-20-88) Once epproved, the declaration of co enants, =~l~ttoes and v restrictions shill be recorded It the same tim that the ftnal mp Is recorded, VI~TI~G TENTAtiVE 1tACT ID. ~3211 Md. f2 Codlttms of AWWrlwal Page S d. The developer shell conply vtth the folioring parkway landscaping condtttons: 1) PTfOr tO record·lion of the ftnsl mp the developer shell ftle an application wtth the County for the fomatto. of or annexation to, a parkray mint·hence dtstrtct or County Servtce Area for )brgs~tta Road tn accordance vlth the Landscaping end Ltghttng Act of ~972, unless the Pro3ect ts vtthtn In extsttng larkway mint·hence district. 2) 'Prtor to the tssuance of bolldlng pemtts, the developer shall secure spp~ovsl of proposed lsndsuptng end Irrigation plans fro~ the County Road end Planntng Department. &11 landscaping end Irrigation plans end s ctftcsttons shall be prepared tn a reproducible forest suttaCTe n t vtth the County for parse ant ftl ng Road Department. 3) The developer shall post a landscapo performance bond vhtch shall be released concurTently vtth the release of subdivision t f 1 landscaping performance bonds, guarsnteetng the v ability o m 1 vhtch will be Installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responslbtltty by the district. 4) The developer, the developer's successors-In-Interest or ass1 hess, shall be responsible for ill parkray landscaping mln~ensnce unttl such ttme is mtntenance ts taken over by the district. e. The developer shall be responsible for mtntenance end u keep of sll slopes, landscaped Ireas end Irrigation systems unttF such ttme is those operations ire the responsibilities of other parttes Is spprovod by the Planntn9 DIrector, Prtor to recordatton of the ftnal mp, In Envlromental Constraints Sheet (EC$) shall be prepared tn conjunction vtth the ftnal mp to delineate 1denttried · vtronmental concerns and shell be permanently n ftled vtth the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be t anmttted to the Pla ntng Depart·eel for revtev led approval. r n The ipproved EC$ shall be fondarded vtth copies of the recorded ftnsl mp to the Plenntng Departme t and the Depart·eat of lutldtng and n Safety. g. The folioring Mte shell be plmced on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "Thts proper ts located .tthtn thtrty (30) atlas of lMunt Palmar Observatory. ~1 proposed outdoor 11ghttng systens shall iTSTIE TEITATIVE TIACT gO. ~321.1 bd. #2 Conditions ef Apprwal Page6 comply vtth the California Institute of Technology, Palo~ar Observator~ recamendattons dated 1-12-88, a copy of ~tch ts on ftle f tn the RIverside County kparment of Buildtrig and Sa ely and the Rherstde County Planntng Department." Prtor to the tssusnce of GRAD]NG PERHZTS the folioring conditions shall be sat1 sfted: a. Prtor to the lssuance of gradtrig permtts detatled conmen open space ere landscapJng and Irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planntng Department approval for the phase of develolnent tn process. The rFlins shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provtde or the fol 1 wtng. 1. Permanent automatic Irrigation systems shall be Installed on all landscaped areas requiring trTtgatton. 2. Landscape screening vhere requtred shall be destgned to be opaque up to a mtntmum hetght of stx (6) feet at mturtty. 3. M1 uttltty servtce areas and enclosures shall be screened from vtw wtth landscaping and decorative barrters or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planntng DIrector. Utilities shall be placed underground. 4. Parkways end landscaped buildtrig setbacks shall be landscaped to provtde vtsual screening or a transition tnto the prtmary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall tnclude earth bemtng, ground cover, shrubs and spectmen trees tn con;Junction wtth meandering stdMlks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where approprfate as approved by the Planntng Department. 5. Landscaping plans shall tncorperate the use of spectmen accent trees at keY vtsual focal potnts vtthtn the pro;Ject. 6. Vhere street trees cannot be planted vtthtn right-of-way of tritertot streets and reject rk~ays due to Insufficient road p~nted outside rtght-of-~ay, they shuT1 be of the road rt ght-o f-easY. 7. Landscaping plans shall tncorporete nathe end drought tolerant plants uhere appropriate. 8. All extsttng specteen tms and significant rock outcrop 1rigs on sub act property shall be shone on the proJect's grading plans the sha~l note those to be removed, relocated end/or retained. end lfES111E TE)ITATIVE 1tACT I0. 22211 hal. #2 Cemdttlons of AFFnwI1 Pale7 9. All trees shall be etateam double staked. lieaker end/or slow groutrig trees shall be steel staked. b. Any oak trees rmoved vtth four (4) Inch or larger trunk diameters 1 replaced on a ten (tO) to one (1) bests Is lpproved by the she1 be n Planntng DIrector. Replacement trees shall be noted o lpproved landscaping plans. c. Tf the pro3ect Is to be phased, prtor to the approval of grading ~11mtts, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the lanntng D(rector for approval. ;he ~lan shall be used as a guideline ridin Individual phases of arts for for subsequent detatled 5e the loTloving: developnent end shall tnclu 1. Techniques vh¶ch v111 be uttltzed to prevent eroston and sedtmentatton durtn9 and after the gradtng process. January through Hatch 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations 4) Areas of temporary gradtrig outstde of a particular phase d. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungrmded natural terrain and exceeding ten 10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating ~he folioring gradtrig techniques: 1) The mle of the rmded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the eagle of~ the natural tarTeta. 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terratn. 3) The toes end tops of slopes shall be rounded vlth curves vtth red11 destg~ed tn proportion to the total hetght of the slopes vhere dretnage end stablilt7 penltt such rounding. 4) Vhere cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shill be curved tne continuous, unduletteg lashton. e. Prtor to the tssuance of redtrig pemtts, the developer shall provide evtdence to the Director eF lutldtng end $afe~ that ell ed3acent off-stte mnvfectured slopes have recorded slope easements and that VESTlIE TEllTAriff TItACT I0. 13211 REd. Ceedttloes of Aeprevil Page 8 slope mlntenance responsibilities have been isstgned as Ipproved by the Director of Butldtng end Safety. Prfor to the tssuance of gradtng permtts, I qualified laleontologtst Shill be ritetried by the developer for consultation end cement on the proposed gradtrig with respect to potential paleontologtcal tapacts. Should the paleontologist ftnd the potential Is htgh for tapact tapact to significant resources, e pre-grade leertrig between the paleontologist and the excavation and radtng contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily dhert, redtract or halt grading Icttvlty to allow recovery of fosstls. Prtor to the issuance of BUILDING PERKITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: I. No butldtng pemtts shall be tssued by the County of RIverside for any residential lot/untt withtn the project boundary until the developer's successor's-in-Interest provides evtdence of compliance with publlc faclllty ftnanct measures, A clsh Swn of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/untt sha~l be deposited with the RIverside County Deparbnent of Building and Safety as mitigation for public 1 tbrary development. Building and c study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation censures that shall be ap lied to Individual dwelling untts withtn the subdivision to reduce apart n r e t tnte tor noise levels to 45 Ldn. c. All buildtng plans for ill new structures shall Incorporate, all required elements from the subdhiston's Ipproved fire protection plan is ipproved by the County Ftr~ Hershal. d. Bulldtng elevations shall be tn substanttll conromance vtth that shown on Exhibit B. e. Ihtertils used tn the construction of ell Imlldtngs shall be in substantial conformrice vtth that show1 on Exhtbtt I (Color Elevations) and Exhtbtt C (Paterills hard). These Ire as follws: Mmtertll Color Roof As phil t 5h t ngl es llllls Hesontte Shiplip Siding Charcoal (1) Old Quaker f405 or Old Quaker VESTING TEIITATIVE TRACT I. 13211 4sd. #2 Conditions of ApW'oval Trtm Mood Old Quaker f. All dwellings to be constructed wtthln thts subdivision shall be designed and constructed ~lth ftre retardant (Class A) roofs as 8pproved by the County Ftre Hatshal. g- Roof-counted mchantcal equtFeent shall not be permitted wtthtn the b. ktldt separation between ell buildings Including fireplaces shall not ben~ess than ten (10) feet. I. A11 street stde yard setbacks shall be a etntmu~ of ten (10) feet. Prtor ~o the tssuance of OCCUP~CY PERH]TS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. All landscaping and Irrigation shall be Installed appr~ved plans prlor to the lssuance of occupancy pe~Its. If seasonal conditions do not pe~tt planting, tntertm landscaplng and eroston control measures shall be u~tltzed as app~oved by the Planntng Director and ~he Otrector of Building and Safety. b. A monument v~gn shall be constructed, and shall be conformante [xhtbtt E. IN:be 4/7/88 VEST]NG TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 2321], Amd. #2 Conditions of Approval Page ]0 23. 24. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with CSA 143 which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section )0.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the final map. RJM:aea 3-07-g0 AB#: KrG: DEPT: 8/14/9o PLNC CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TITLE: FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23211 o~. ~ ~. cITY T CITY MGR Prepared by: Recommendation: Samuel Reed, Senior Planner Set for Public Hearing August 28, 1990. on APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: P R OPOSA L: LOCAT ION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: PROJECT STATISTICS: Marstan Development Gary Martin 128 unit condominium subdivision of 7.23 acres. First Extension of Time. South side of Margarita Road, between Moraga Road and Avenida Cima Del Sol. R-3-2500 (General Residential, one unit per 2,500 square feet) North: South: East: West: R-1 (Single Family Residential ) R-3 ( General Residential ) R-3-3000 (General Residential, one unit per 3,000 sq.ft. ) R-3-3000 (General Residential, one unit per 3,000 sq.ft. ) Large lot with single family residence No. of Units: No. of Acres: Proposed Density: SWAP Density: 128 7.23 17.5 units per acre 8-16 units per acre STAFFR PT\VTT23211 BACKGROUND: PURPOSE FOR HEARING: This project was originally approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1988. At that time a Negative Declaration was adopted and the project was found to be consistent with applicable policies in the Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning requirements. An application for a First Extension of Time for this vesting tentative map was filed with the City of Temecula on April 20, 1990. Location This project is located on the south side of Margarita Road, east of Moraga Road. It is located immediately north of Tract No. 2330~1, the Club Valencia condominium project. It is located east of an approved but not yet constructed 220 unit apartment project on Margarita Road. Status The Extension of Time application was filed subsequent to a new application being filed on the project site, Tentative Tract No. 25~L13, which proposes to subdivide the same 7.23 acres into 105 condominium units. The density on the new project as proposed is 1LI.5 units per acre. Staff perceives three essential issues as the reason for the Council to consider this matter fully: 1. 2. Proposed density {17.5 units per acre) Clustering of multi-family projects in this area 120 properties zoned for multi-family and in varying stages of development in this area between Rancho California Road and Margarita Road) Grading and the loss of a natural ridgeline to accommodate multi-family density. A less dense project is currently proposed for site (1~.5 units per acre) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: GT:ks That the City Council SET THE EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23211 FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 28, 1990. SUBMII'I'AL TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TEMECULA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: Apri I 2, 1990 SUBJECT: Notice of Decision of Extension of Time requests acted on by the Planning Comnission on ~.~rch 21, 1990. RECOMMENDED MOTION: RECEIVE AND FILE the Notice of Decision of case acted on by the Planning Cut,~dssion on March 21, 1990. The applicant of the following map has requested an extension of time to allow for recordation of a final map. The Planning Cum~ssion APPROVED the Extension of Time for: VESTING TRACT NO. 23211 - D2 Enterprises - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - 128 Units - 7.3 Acres - South of Margarita Road and easterly of Moraga Road - Schedule A - R-3 Zoning - Extension of Time to May 31, 1991 - First Extension. annzng Director PROJECT LOCATION: South of Margarita Road and Easterly of Moraga Road. BACKGROUND: The subject Vesting Tentative Tract was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 31, 1988. The applicant has requested a 1 year extension of time to record the subject tentative map. The extension of time request was approved by the Planning Cum~ssion on March 21, 1990. REVIEWED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DATE, .,:///~n/~'d ~ _ PLANNING COIIqISSION: 3-21-90 Agenda Item: 3-I RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CORqlSSION REETING Board Room - 14th Floor - 4080 Lemon Street - Riverside PLANNING COIIqlSSION CONSENT CALENDAR STAFF REPORT NOTE: The following will be presented to the Planning Commission as a consent calendar item. Unless specifically requested by the applicant at the time of consideration, this item may not be discussed and is subject to approval by the Commission under a single motion. CEQA: The following map has conformed to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. It has been determined that the individual map will not have a significant effect upon the environment. GENERAL PLAN: The following map has been determined to be inconsistent with the general plan and its elements, due to its density being in excess of that set forth in the Southwest Area Plan (B-16 DU/AC). However, the following map is within the City of Temecula which has not adopted a general plan. Therefore the following map is not subject to the provisions of the Southwest Area Plan. ORDINANCE NO. 659: It has been determined that in order to insure public health, safety and welfare, the map listed below will be subject to Ordinance 659, Development mitigation fee for residential development. ORDINANCE NO. 663: The conditions of approval for the following map will be amended to reflect the implementation of Ordinance 663 (Stephens Kangaroo Rat Mitigation). The conditions will be amended as follows: Add Condition No. 23 ORDINANCE NO. 460: The conditions of approval for the following map will be amended to reflect the implementation of Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460 (Park and Recreation Fees and Dedications). The conditions will be amended as follows: Add Condition No. 24 VESTING TRACT 2321] Consent Calendar Staff Report Page 2 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 a 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. RECOleIENDATIONS: The applicant of the following map has requested an extension of time to allow for recordation of a final map. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval, based upon the above listed findings. VESTING TRACT NO. 23211 - D2 ENTERPRISES - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District 128 Units 7.3 Acres South of Margarita Road and Easterly of Moraga Road - Schedule A - R-3 Zone - EXIENSION OF TIME THROUGH May 31, 1991 - FIRST EXTENSION. RJM:aea 3-07-g0 Zoning Area: Rancho California Supervtsortal DIstrict: Ftrst E.A. Number 32219' Ragtonal Tam No. ~ Vesting Tentative Tract 23211 t 4 RIVERSTDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT LaJZ ~'L~ r~ L~, 1. Applicant: A t Hontgonery 2. Engineer/Rap.: D~ Enterprises 3. Type of Reqtest: To butld a 128 unit condomtntum c~nplex 4. Location: 5. Extsttng Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning 7. Site Land Use Surrounding Land Uses Comprehensive General Plan Des t gna tt on 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Recmndations: 12. Letters: 13. Sphere of Influence: on one lot. ~uth of Margartta Road and East of Norage Road. R-3-2500 R-1-10,000o R-3, R-3-2,500, R-1 The site supports a house and vacant land. Vacant landmapartments, single family residential Land Use: CATEGORY I Density: 8-20 D.U./ac. Total Acreage: 7.3 acres Total Lots: 128 units DU Per Acre: 17.5 Road: 03-09-88 Health: 03-16-88 Flood: 03-07-88 Fire: 03-10-88 Building and Safety: 03-11-BB Ht. Palomar: 01-12-88 Opposing/Suoporttng: None received Not within a City Sphere ANALYSIS: ProJect Description · Vesting" Tentative Tract Map No. 23211, Amended No. 2 is an application to develop 7.3 acres into a 128 unit condmtntmum project, with a overall density 17.53 du./ac. The project site is located south of Mergerite Rd. and east of Moraga M. tn the Rancho California zoning area. Lind Use/Zoning- The subject site currently supports a single lastly residence. Surrounding land uses include single lastly residential to the north and east and vacant land ad- Jecewt to the stte to the east end vest, The edJace~t propert to' the south is currently vacant, but m 344 untt condoeintum project (TR 2160~ for approved was the stte by the Board of Supervisors on 10/28/86, and has been refiled as "Vesting" Tract I1o. 23304. The project site is currently zoned R-3-2500. This zoning (Ca 4500) ms approved. by the Bard of Supervisors on 11/19/85. Adjacent property to the vest is also zoned R-~25OO, Adjoining property is zoned R-3 to the south, R-I-IO,O00 to the east:(CZff4JN), approved 3/15/881, and R-1 across Margartts Rd. to the north. Vesttng Tentative Tract 23211 Staff Report Page 2 DestQn Consideration: The proposed 128 untt condoetntum project has been designed in accordance with the standards of the R-3-2500 (General Residential 2500 sq. ft. minimum zone. The project conststs of t~o butldtng types (8 plex Ind 16 plex), and four differ- t~t unit floor plans ranging frm 750 sq, ft. to 1050 sq. it. It's colors and architecture reflect a "Townhouse" theme. Due to the tract's vesting status, the following additional plans were submitted for review in compliance with ordinance 4~0; -Landscape and Irrigation Plan -Grading Plan -Drainage ~lan. -Entry Monumentatton -Lighting Plan These plans were found to be adequate and will be implemented through the condi- tions of approval. Ca~rehenstve General Plan Consistency: The C~rehensive General Plan's Open Space and Conservation Element shows this site in "Areas Not Designated As Open Space". The Land Use Element of the Compre- hensive General Plan shows the site in the South e t Territory and Area, the Rancho California Area, and the Mount ~alomar Observakory ~c~l~n~l~t- trig Area. The policies of the Rancho Caltfornta-Temecula Land Use Planning Area state that "Future land uses within this area should generally be Category I and Category II land uses", Category I land uses tnclude residential developments wtth densities ranging from 8 to 20 D,U./AC. It requires water and sewer service and must be served by a arterial highway. The Cuunty Health Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve d~stic water to the project. The Eastern Municipal Water District hms supplied the Health Depmrlanent with a statement agreeing to allow t~e proJec~ sewer syste to be connected to the sewers of the district. The site is within m five minute fire response arem, and Schedule A fire protec- tion is required. The denstry as proposed by Vesttng Tentative Tract No. 23211 is 17.53 d~elltng units per acre. Review of the pol ctes of the Land Use Element tn the Comprehen- sive General Plan indicates that the subject project fits the requtrmnents of CaSegot7 l. residential at this t~me. Envirereental Assesmerit: aqd is within the MS. Palmr Special Llghttng Area. The subject site is also within the Tamcull Union 5chool District and the Elstnor~ Union High 5chool Dis- trict. -These school districts are impacted by overcrovdtng. Vesting Tentative Tract 23211 Staff Report Page 3 Potent1·1 tmpacts upon the fit. Palomar Observatory can be mitigated through con- fo~mance with the conditions of approval and the Comprehensive General Plan's Nount Palomar Spaeta1Ltghtln Area policies. The subject site is too urbantzeU to be actual habitat for the ~tephans Kangaroo Rat. Therefore no ittgatton is m required. Htttgatton of Impacts to the.area's school and ltbrary wtll be accom- plished through the payment of mitigation fees prtor to the Issuance of butlding With the implementation of the above referenced mitigation, it has been dete~ined ~t the propos~ project will not havea significant adverse affect on the env~r- mnt and · ~ative Declaration has ben prepared. Findin;s: 1. "Vesting" Tentative Tract No. 23211 is an R-3-2500 1 lot statutory condo- mtntum project, with 128 untts. 2. The project site currently Supports one single famtly dwelling. Surrounding Land Uses include stngle family residential to the north and south, east,and west.' " Tract 21608 (344 unit condomintum project) has been approved on the adjacent property to the south. 5. Surrounding zoning consists of R-l, R-3-2500, R-3 and R-1-10,000, R-A-2~, R-3-3000, R-2 and A-2-20. Review of the policies of the Land Use Element in the Comprehensive General Plan indicates that the subject project and the subject site Net the requirements of Category % at this time. 7. The tntttal study for Environmental Assessment No. 32219 has tnd(cated that the project will create no significant adverse impacts upon the env~roffnent. CONCLU$%ON$ i 1, The proposal ts consistent with Ordinance No, 348 and 460, 2- The proposal ts consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive General Plan. 3. The proposal ts compatible with area development. 4. Potential envlromental tEPaCtS will be mitigated through adherence to conditions of approval. Vesting Tentative Tract 23211 Staff Report Page 4 RECOIIqENDATIONS: Based upon the ftndtngs and conclusions Incorporated tn thts staff report, Staff reco~nends: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Envtronmenta] Assessment No. 32219 based upon the findtngs incorporated tnto the tntttal study and the conclusion that the proposed project vtll not have a significant effect upon the enfironment; and APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 23211, subject to the attached conditions of approval. DW:sc 417188 IICATIIIAL. IIAP al18. ART MONTGOMERY lIB l.I AC. TO OONDO.PROJICT : ace nO. CAIJF. ' IW. Obt I Z~ , SI ~~~CHO. CA~FORNIA AD. ART. t10'  ,, '~ZL - , e/® · T'l I ', I · / ' ~ ART MOHTOOMER~' ~ .... " ~..~..~ Ua Y.t AC'TO CONDO.PROJECT .__ Cim~R~CHO CALIFORNIA RD ART · I · . f · ~ ¢Of, avT~ ~.. ,a~,y/A'~' D~,aJi, 1~f8~ COUNTY OF FIIVERS{)F,, CALFORNIA ART MONTGOMERY AP · g~ki-:iP-~,e OCT 19 1989 RiVER)iDE COU~E',u PLA i O DEP =IElilEI1; RIVERSIDE COUNTY pLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Please complete two (2) copies of this application form. The appropOCe[tel l~ei~ process this request is listed on the current fee schedule. All approvals of time extensions must be consistent with the pe~a~imlhl~.:eljemeq~'t~:' Nfhe Riverside County General Plan, and must conform to either the currently ap~li~ei schedule of improvements specified by the Riverside County Land Division Ordinance for land divisions or the Riverside County Land Use Ordinance for Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Public Use Permits. CASE NO: Tract/Vested Tract Map 23211 Car/CUP/PUP ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO(s) 921-370-004 EXTENSION REQUEST: First X Second Third NOTE: Only Land Divisions may obtain a second or third extension of time. Appl icant's Name D2 Enterprises Mailing Address 28465 Front Street, Suite 204 je.m/u_~ Ca. 92390 Signature Phone 714-699-1322 Owner's Name Mailing Addres Marstan Corporation 1225 W. 190th Street, Suite r Gydeny ..~ OFFICE USE ONLY '~ .= -.= .... ,,,:,,- - 46.209 0,4S~S STREE1~ ROOM INDIO. CALIFORNIA 9220: ITEM NO. 27 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 28, 1990 Plot Plan No. 1 Advanced Cardiovascular System PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Sam Reed That the City Council: 1. ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 3; 2. APPROVE Change Zone No. 3; and 3. APPROVE Plot Plan No. 1; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended at the Planning Commission hearing. APPLICATION INFORMATION STAFFRPT\PP1 Advanced Cardiovascular System Ehrlich Rominger Construct a manufacturing facility on a 25.21~ acre site with associated office and parking as follows: A. Construct a four story manufacturing building with office space consisting of 270,780 gross square feet. B. Construct a tri-level parking structure consisting of 393 parking spaces. APPLICANT: R EPR ESENTAT I VE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: Construct a 9,000 square foot bi-level structure for service equipment housing immediately west of the proposed 4-story building Reconfigure and repave the existing parking and asphalt areas to accommodate required parking and landscaping. Change the maximum height limitation contained in the development standards for the M-M [Medium Manufacturing) zone on this site from 50 feet to 75 feet. West side of Ynez Road, immediately south of the Apricot Road alignment· BACKGROUND: On August 6, 1990, the Temecula Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject applications with certain changes as noted in the Conditions of Approval. The project was originally submitted to the City of Temecula on April 6, 1990. The following information is contained in the City Council packets: 1. Plot Plan No. I Expanded Initial Study 2. Site Plan, Elevations, and Floor Plans. The original Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 6, 1990, and amended Conditions of Approval have been attached for review. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 3; 2. APPROVE Change of Zone No. 3; and 3. APPROVE Plot Plan No. 1; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended at the Planning Commission hearing. 2 Notice of Pubtic Hearing THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Plot Plan #1/Change of Zone #3 Applicant: Advanced Cardlovascular System Location: West side of Ynez Road, south of the Apricot Road alignment. Proposal: Construct a manufacturing facility on a 25.24 acre site with associated office and parking to include a 4-story manufacturing building with 270,780 gross square feet of office space, a trMevel parking structure having 393 spaces, a 9,000 square foot bMevel structure to house service equipment, reconfiguration and repaying of existing parking, and a change in maximum height limitation for M-M (medium manufacturing) zone from 50 feet to 75 feet. Environmental Action: Negative Declaration. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula Planning Department (714) 694-6400 PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING: Temecula Community Center 28816 PUjol Street Temecula Tuesday. August 28. 1990 7:00 PM mmmm, mmmmm~.~mmmmm.~ m~m~mmmmmmmmm STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 6, 1990 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 3 Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Advanced Cardiovascular System REPRESENTATIVE: Ehrlich Rominger PROPOSAL: Construct a manufacturing facility on a 25.24 acre site with associated office and parking as follows: A. Construct a four story manufacturing building with office space consisting of 270,780 gross square feet. B. Construct a tri-level parking structure consisting of 393 parking spaces. C. Construct a 9,000 square foot bi-level structure for service equipment housing immediately west of the proposed 4-story. building D. Reconfigure and repave the existing parking and asphalt areas to accommodate required parking and landscaping. E. Change the maximum height limitation contained in the development standards for the M-M { Medium Manufacturing) zone on this site from 50 feet to 75 feet. LOCAT 1 ON: West side of Ynez Road, immediately south of the Apricot Road alignment. EXISTING ZONING: M-M - Medium Manufacturing SURROUNDING ZONING: North: CPS - Scenic Highway Commercial South: CPS - Scenic Highway Commercial STAFFRPT\PP1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: ANALYSIS: East: Across Ynez, A-2-20 - Heavy Agricultural-20 acre minimum West: Across 1-15, CPS - Scenic Highway Commercial North: South: East: West: Commercial under construction Vacant - auto dealership approved Vacant - proposed regional mall Interstate 15 Site Size: 25.24 acres gross Man ufacturi ng/Office Square Feet: 270,780 sq.ft. Total Parking Spaces: 1,102 Percentage Landscaping On-site: 38% No. of Access Driveways: 2 No. of Large Existing Buildings: 2 Height of Existing Large Buildings: 21 ft. No. of Small Existing Buildings: 2 Height of Small Existing Buildings: 24 ft. No. of Existing Parking Spaces: 826 Current No. of Employees: 681 No. of Employees at Buildout 1,804 Plot Plan No. I was submitted to the City of Temecula on April 6, 1990. The project was initially reviewed by the Development Review Committee on May 17, 1990. The project had previously been reviewed by the County's Land Development Committee on a fast-track basis, but with the incorporation of the City, the project was delayed in favor of local consideration. Site and Area Settinq Advanced Cardiovascular operates an existing manufacturing facility on the site in question. The existing operation covers the majority of the 25.24 acre site, and is comprised of two (2) major single story manufacturing buildings (211,300 sq.ft. ), 2 double story buildings {11,000 sq.ft.), a series of small storage buildings and yards, an extensive paved area used for on-site circulation and parking, and a recreational ball court. The applicant has indicated on the site plan that 681 employees currently work on the site and that there are 826 existing parking stalls on-site. The site is almost entirely paved over at this time. The area in the immediate vicinity of this project 2 SITE DESIGN: is undergoing rapid urbanization. A 40+ acre community commercial project is under construction immediately to the north. Plans for a regional shopping center and associated uses are being formulated for a 230 acre site immediately east of this project across Ynez Road, although nothing has yet been approved. The site to the south is currently vacant, but a Toyota Auto dealership has been approved for the site. The Ynez Road corridor between Winchester Road and Rancho California Road is only partially improved at this time and has been constructed in places with inadequate right- of-way to accommodate full buildout. Area Improvements A Mello-Roos Assessment District ( No. 88-12) has been formed to provide infrastructure improvements for this area. This assessment district lies between 1-15 and Margarita Road, approximately between Winchester Road and Rancho California Road. The major improvements associated with this district include construction of the Apricot freeway overpass, full-width construction of Ynez Road, Overland Drive and Solana Way, flood control improvements, and sewer and water lines. Infrastructure in the area is inadequate to support this or surrounding proposals at this time. All the area projects, working in concert with the assessment district, will be providing area improvements to support proposed uses. This project has been conditioned to construct on-site and adjacent improvements prior to building occupancy in the event the assessment district fails to do so in a reasonable time. Buildinq Layout The additional proposed expansion of the ACS facilities is constrained to some degree by the existing buildings on-site which comprise approximately 233,000 square feet of total floor area. The proposed expansion will allow a total building floor area of 522,080 square feet to be constructed. The bulk of that floor area will be contained within the two large existing manufacturing buildings and the 3 proposed 4 story manufacturing/office facility. The proposed building is located immediately adjacent to Ynez Road. The north end of the building is shifted at an architecturally distinct angle away from the balance of the building. This area is planned to be primarily office space. The required front setback from the street right-of-way is 10 feet. This project is 62 feet back from the street right-d-way. Parkinq Analysis As submitted, the applicant has provided the following parking detail: Number of employees (maximum) by year 2000, = 1,804. The largest number of employees on a shift is 2/3 of the maximum number { 1,80q), equaling 1,203. The following spaces have been shown on the plot plan: Standard stalls 700 Compact stalls 1 Handicapped stalls 18 Ground With Level Structure 876 208 18 862 1,102 Required Provided Loading Spaces: 7 7 The applicant has provided parking calculations based on the "Manufacturing" requirement of the Zoning Ordinance 18. 1226. This section requires two (2) spaces for every three (3) employees on the largest shift, plus one (1) space for each company operated vehicle. Using the applicant provided employee calculation of 1,804 for the year 2000, based on Section 18.12. (26), the applicant would be required to provide 802 stalls, plus 20 stalls for the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rideshare Program. The total of 822 stalls would be reduced by two percent (16 stalls) as allowed in Ordinance No. 348 Rideshare Program, lowering the total to 806 required stalls. Under Section 18.12(22) of Ordinance 348, "Industrial Uses", parking would be calculated using one of the following two methods: a. Where the number of employees can be determined, "One space for every two employees on the largest shift plus one space for every vehicle kept in connection with the use", no vehicles are identified as being kept on site so 602 spaces would be required. -OR - b. Where the number of employees cannot be determined, "One space for every 250 square feet of office area, one space for every 500 square feet of fabrication area, and one space for 1,000 square feet of storage area..." Given the applicant's breakdown: 84,000 sq.ft. = Office area 406,000 sq.ft. = Fabrication area 32,000 sq .ft. = Storaqe area 522,000 sq. ft. A total of 1,180 parking stalls would be required. Under the calculation for Section 18.12 ( 22 ) A, the applicant exceeds the parking requirement (without the structure) by 204 stalls. Under the calculation for 18.12{26), the applicant exceeds the required parking (without the structure) by 60 stalls. In both cases all handicap, bicycle, compact, and rideshare stall spaces are in compliance with City of Temecula Code requirements. Under Section 18.12122)B, the applicant would be short approximately 75 spaces, including the parking structure. Based on Staff's determination that the ultimate number of employees cannot be determined, Section 18.12{22)B will be utilized. Under this Section the office, fabrication, and storage area breakdown will dictate parking requirements. This necessitates the construction of the proposed parking structure. This condition will provide adequate stall space for the future continued use of the site. Access Two access points serve the project from Ynez Road. No access will be allowed onto Apricot Road. Vehicular access extends throughout the site along the northern edge of the site, between the two existing buildings and proposed Building "E". and throughout the southern area of the site where the multi-level parking structure is located. Architecture and Landscapinq Landscaping is provided throughout the project. Ordinance No. 3~8 [ Medium Manufacturing ) standards require a minimum 10% of the site must be landscaped. If plazas and walkways are included, this project proposes that 38.6% of the site be landscaped. The architectural style of the building is modern and industrial in appearance. The office portion of the building is set at an angle against the bulk of the building, which offsets the basic rectilinear design of the structure. Articulation is achieved through recessed panels and projections on the building's face. Certain entryways are afforded special articulation with triangular overhangs and balcony projections above them. To a large degree, the appearance of the building is dictated by the uses contained within it. especially in terms of lack of windows and the basic massing of the structure. Staff believes the architecture is appropriate for the site and the use and that it achieves a level of aesthetic quality basically commensurate with area development. Bedford Properties has had input on the architecture. The new building, in concert with new landscape improvements, will likely lead to an improved appearance over the project as currently constructed. As noted in the initial study, the structure will dominate the Ynez corridor until the area ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: develops at higher intensity in the future. That impact was not determined to be significant. Staff identified five major potential impacts to the environment with the implementation of the project. Those impacts were: o Traffic generation and circulation impacts o Visual impacts resulting from building mass and land use intensification o Liquefaction/Seismic impacts o Lack of adequate infrastructure o Growth inducement Staff expanded the scope of the initial study and requested detailed information on the potential impacts listed above. The initial study, attached, explored these impacts and Staff concluded that with proper mitigation, these negative aspects to the development could be reduced to a level of non- significance. The attached Expanded Initial Study analyses each projected impact. Conditions of Approval have been attached to mitigate these impacts. Transportation/Circulation The Traffic Study for the project was performed in February of 1990. An addendure to the Study was submitted in July, 1990, at the request of the Engineering Department. The objectives of the report were to review existing conditions, project the A.C.S. plot plan impacts as well as impacts from pending area development projects and assess infrastructure needs to meet those developing demands. The scope of the study included an inventory of existing conditions and flows, an evaluation of background traffic, a roadway network review relative to road and intersection capacities and mitigation measures. According to the Traffic Study, the following intersections will be significantly impacted (above 5% peak hour increase) with project implementation: o Ynez Road/Winchester Road (21.2%-AM and 3.8%-PM); o Ynez Road/Solana Way (28.6%-AM and 6.1%-PM); o Ynez Road/Rancho California Road (7.8%-AM and 2.4%-PM); o Northbound 1-15 ramps/Winchester Road ( 13.~%-AM and 2.5%-PM); o Margarita Road/Solana Way { 11.1%-AM and 1.9%-PM); o Ynez Road/North Project Access ( 49.2%-AM and 8.9%-PM ); o Ynez Road/Center Project Access 137.8%-AM and 6.7%-PM); and o Ynez Road/South Project Access (52.5%-AM and 11.8%-PM). These impacts are considered significant by the Staff. The major improvements which are needed to support the project are being constructed under the Mel Io- Roos Assessment District, under which the project applicant will be assessed. Road improvements along the project's Ynez Road frontage must be completed prior to occupancy of the four story structure. The intersections of Ynez Road and Winchester Road and Ynez Road and Solana Way should also be fully constructed and signalized. The Traffic Study incorrectly notes a third point of access onto the subject property. This third access was deleted upon advice from the County Road Department after the study was completed. Public improvements should be fully constructed in the area to avoid adverse temporary impact; however, it may not be reasonable to make project occupancy contingent on all the area's needed road improvements. Staff has attempted to provide a reasonable level of required improvements for this project. The construction of the Apricot alignment is not a condition of this project. Visual Impacts In considering potential aesthetic impacts resulting from this project, staff concluded 8 that two small viewsheds had the potential for i rapact: 1. The Interstate 15 corridor 2. The Ynez Road corridor, Staff requested that a cross section be submitted which depicted roadways, building heights, lineal distances and landscape treatments to evaluate the degree of view blockage, particularly along 1-15 since it has been designated a scenic corridor under the Southwest Area Community Plan (SWAP). After conducting several site inspections and reviewing the information submitted by the applicant, the staff has concluded that no major visual impact will occur along 1-15. The proposed 4 story structure is 75 feet tall (approximately 50 feet taller than existing buildings on the site, however, the building is set back from the freeway approximately 600 feet, thereby reducing the view blockage significantly from the freeway. The westerly view from Ynez Road will be blocked to a large degree due to the 62 foot setback from the right-of-way line (approximately 7L~ feet from the curb). This structure will dominate the western view along Ynez Road for approximately 600 feet. This view blockage along a short distance of Ynez Road should not constitute a significant impact, especially with landscape installation as conditioned. Liquefaction and Seismic Impacts The project site is in proximity to several major fault systems capable of generating substantial ground shaking episodes. Additionally, the area in the immediate vicinity is recognized as having liquefaction potential. A geotechnical report was prepared in May, 1988, in anticipation of this project. The report has been included in the Expanded Initial Study prepared for this project. The scope of the study included an analysis of soil conditions, building design factors and foundation support alternatives, liquefaction potential, groundwater depth and soil preparation and compaction requirements. Test borings reached as far as 70 feet. It was determined that the Wildomar-Elsinore Fault system encroaches on the southernmost corner of the property, and crosses Interstate 15 approximately 1,000 feet south of the subject property. All structures must be a minimum of 50 feet from the Alquist- Priolo Zone. After additional information was supplied, the report was accepted as adequate by the County Geologist on May 20, 1988. Mitigation measures for seismic related impacts have been attached. Adequate Infrastructure Availability Mello-Roos Assessment District No. 88-12 has been formed to provide improvements discussed in the Area Improvements section of this report. The most obvious needed improvements are related to roadway and traffic control installations. Other needed improvements include flood control and sewer and water lines. A utility availability summary was prepared by J. F. Davidson Associates and has been included in the Expanded Initial Study. Water (Rancho Water), sewer {EMWD), gas, electric, and telephone service were discussed. Conditions have been attached regarding flood control, sewer and water service, and roadway improvements. Growth Inducement This project is not expected to induce growth to a degree of significance. It will, however, stimulate local employment opportunities which will likely lead to a population influx for skilled labor and management personnel. Semi-skilled and low-skilled labor will likely be drawn from the local labor pool, which provides bendits to the City and reduces impact to regional air quality. Generally speaking, all new development induces further growth. Commercial and industrial development encourages local housing growth. This factor is perceived by 10 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: FINDINGS: Staff as a positive impact in terms of local employment and the subsequent reduction in regional travel for area residents· No significant negative impact is expected. The land use currently on this site is fully consistent with SWAP land use designations and policies. The Southwest Area Community Plan has been adopted as a policy guide by the City, which assists in projecting probable consistency with the future General Plan. Based on compliance with Ordinance No. 348 provisions, consistency with SWAP, and on the expanded initial study performed for this project which found no significant negative impacts, Staff recommends that the project be found to be consistent with the City's future General Plan. There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 3 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law. 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. The proposed use or action complies 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. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. The project is compatible with .surrounding land uses· The harmony ~n scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties, 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project. 10. 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. 11. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the following: ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 3; 2. APPROVAL of Change of Zone No. 3; and 3. APPROVAL of Plot Plan No. 1; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval· 12 ~ilti ijj,i i ~ / ~//4' ~ F ,F _[ NORTH ~ m 'ouI 'suae;sXS Jelnol~aolpJe~ 1.0'L91.68 'ON E~O~ ON '~HS "'agE~ VIV ~I~]/IHD~V ~]~)N~O~-R~H] .. i{ "i, CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No. 1 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the City Council approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utili zation contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 1, or as amended by these conditions. In the event the use hereby permitted ceases operation for a period of one { 1 ) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. LI Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way, and shall comply with Ordinance No. 655. 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 I10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty {30) inches. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit seven 17 ) copies of parking, landscaping, shading and irrigation plot plan to the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance No. 3~8. A minimum of 1,102 parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3L18. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three {:3) inches on four {~) inches of Class II base. The applicant may submit a Parkinq Study to the Planninq Director for review and approval to demonstrate that a reduced number of parkinq stalls will be required. {Condition amended at Planning Commission 8-6-90. ) STAFFRPT\PP1 10. 11. 12. 13. A minimum of 11 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Each parking space reserved for he 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 of height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to 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 in size with lettering not less than one I1 ) inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states 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 telephoning " In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have surface identification sign duplicating the symbol of accessibility in blue paint of at least three (3) square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Engineering Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of the specimen canopy trees along the freeways, streets, and within the parking areas. This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. Mitigation shall be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in the development of this project. Mitigations outlined in the approved Geotechnical Report shall be adhered to. Evidence of compliance with those conditions shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department prior to the issuance of building permits. This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Temecula Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification shall be based upon, but not limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. Forty-four Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project area in accordance with Ordinance No. 348 requirements. 15. Prior to 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 Director of Building and Safety. 16. Prior to 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. 17. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 18. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fees 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. Said fee shall not apply to the entire site, but rather to the new building and parking structure. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions. 22. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall post with the City a Flood Mitigation Fee based on the current fee schedule per Riverside County Flood Control Master Drainage Plan. 23. Drainage is involved on this development, and its resolution shall be as approved by the City Engineer's Office, including the payment of the appropriate drainage fee to Riverside County. The developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 33A. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including existing facilities, or by securing a drainage easement. The Development 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. ~60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the shall provide adequate facilities as approved by Engineering Department. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four {L~) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four (4) copies of a comprehensive grading plan to 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. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City maintained road right-d- way. No rough grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters, and approval by the City 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 prior to issuance of a grading permit. All street dedications shall be offered to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free of all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. Sufficient right-of-way along Ynez Road shall be confirmed to exist or conveyed for public use to provide for a public street for public use to provide for a 67 foot half width right-of-way. Construction and design of the improvements for Ynez road shall be bonded for in the event that the Mello-Roos does not construct the required improvements, in accordance with County Standard No. 100, Section A(110/134). Design and construction of Ynez Road and the construction of a signal at Ynez Road and Solona Way shall be completed prior to the occupancy of Phase 2 building improvements, or the completion of tenant improvements exceeding sixty percent of the proposed 270,780 square feet of building improvements. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Phase one tenant improvements shall be limited to 162,000 square feet of building area. Temporary street widening and striping will be required on Ynez Road if ultimate improvements have not been constructed prior to occupancy of the first phase. A street widening and striping plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Prior to occupancy of the first phase, a traffic signal shall be constructed at Ynez Road and Motor Car Parkway. The signal shall be constructed per the City standards, special provisions, and the approved Traffic Signal Plan. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the Standards of Ordinance 461 and as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant will be responsible for the installation of the street liqhts only if Assessment District No. 88-12 fails to provide the improvements. I Condition amended at Planning Commission 8-6-90. ) All work done within the City right-of-way shall have an encroachment permit. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered traffic engineer, and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer, and shall be included in the street improvement plans. Plans for a traffic signal shall be designed by a registered traffic and civil engineer, and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer, for the following intersections and shall be included in the street improvement plans with the second plan check submittal: Ynez Road at Motor Car Parkway. A minimum 300 foot left turn lane shall be provided for northbound Ynez Road and the southern A.C.S. entrance. A minimum 100 foot right turn pocket with required right-of-way shall be constructed for southbound right turn movements on Ynez Road into most southern driveway. Plans for traffic signal interconnect shall be designed, and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer, and shown on the street improvement plans in the following Iocationls): Ynez Road and South Access Drive and all signals north to Winchester. These off-site improvements will be required of the applicant only if Assessment District No. 88-12 fails to provide the improvements. I Condition amended at Planning Commission 8-6-90. ) Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design criteria. Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by I~J~f~f'M~li~lTf~f,~J1~lA~1~V,f~fJlZ~/~l~f the City Engineer. I Condition amended at Planning Commission 8-6-90. ) 5 A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered traffic engineer and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation, as required by the City Traffic Engineer or the City Engineer. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the approved signing and striping plan. The applicant will design the northern entrance to prohibit all left turning movements entering and exiting (ie. right turn in and out only). This is due to the close proximity of the entrance to the future Apricot Street Connection with Ynez Road. If a fair and equitable share of the developer's cost of transportation improvements has not been determined at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is needed, the developer shall be required to deposit $10,000 into a City established Road Benefit Funds. The developer is also required to sign an agreement with the City to either pay an amount or receive a refund equal to the difference between his estimated fair share and the amount of deposit with the City. Appropriate credit may be applied by the City Enqineer if off-site improvements are required. (Added by Planning Commission 8-6-90. ) The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. 50. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum based on the current fee schedule as mitigation for traffic signal impact. HEALTH DEPARTMENT 51. The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 1 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services are available in this area. Prior to buildinq plan submittal: 52. "Will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies. If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch I Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: a. Underground storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure {in accordance with AB 2185). d. Waste reduction management. FIRE DEPARTMENT With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recogni zed fi re protection standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 5~6. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3,000 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system {6"x~"x2 1/2x2 1/2 ), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrantis) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. f. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 55. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 56. Buildinq E, ~ Story Buildinq ae Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of 1,500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buildingIs). A statement that the building{s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans· Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as required by the Uniform Building Code. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. Building to meet "High Rise Standard" per Riverside County Ordinance Section 801. 57. 58. 59. 60. Parkinq Structure ae Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a Class III Standpipe System. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. be Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $~13.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee. Final Conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of Conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering Staff. ITEM NO. 28 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 28, 1990 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21383 RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 1 PREPARED BY: Gary Thornhill RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: ADOPT a Negative Declaration for the Development Agreement for TPM No, 21383 2. APPROVE Development Agreement for TPM No. 21383 Conduct a public hearing and introduce Ordinance 90- based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Rancho Core Associates REPRESENTATIVE: Dean Allen PROPOSAL: Approval of a Development Agreement BACKGROUND: STAFF R PT\T PM21383 A Time Extension request for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 was considered by the City Council on July 10, 1990. In approving the request, the Council required the R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: applicant to enter into a Development Agreement incorporating the Standards and Conditions ( see attached ) set forth in the Staff Report on the Extension Request. Attached is a copy of the Development Agreement incorporating the Conditions of Approval contained within the Staff Report. However, after careful consideration of one of the Conditions, Staff is recommending deletion of Condition "d", which requires the applicant to provide Lot 15 in adjacent Parcel Map No. 21382 for use as a road to complete a portion of the "Western Corridor". Unfortunately, because Lot 15 is owned by Bedford Properties and not the applicant, both Planning Staff and the City Attorney determined that the Condition would be difficult, if not impossible, for the applicant to implement. In addition to the deletion of Condition "c", Staff is recommending that Condition "F" be modified to provide for the dedication of two more lots (66 and 67) for open space purposes· These changes are reflected in Section 4.2, pages 16 and 17, of the attached Development Agreement. Also included in the attachment is an ordinance for the Developement Agreement. That the City Council: ADOPT a Negative Declaration for the Development Agreement. APPROVE the Development Agreement for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383. Conduct a public hearing and introduce Ordinance No. 90- Notice of Public Hearint, THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92390 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 Johnson & Johnson Development and Rancho Core Associates #1 Northwest corner of the intersection of Winchester and Diaz Roads. adoption of a Development Agreement for a 130industrial lot subdivision on 164 acres. Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the hearing(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula City Hall, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Gary Thornhill, City of Temecula Planning Department (714) 694-6400 PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING: Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula Tuesday. August 28. 1990 7:00 PM CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: NTG: DEPT: TITLE: CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR T.P.M. 21383 DEPT HD CITY ATTY CITY MGR Development Agreement MUST BE APPROVED by the City PRIOR TO RECORDATION of the final map incorporating all of the following standards: ae The road right of way for Via Industria would be changed to 88 feet creating a "Western Corridor". Lot access for lots fronting Via Industria will continue to be available from Via Industria. The Right of Way for Via Industria would be increased to 88 feet within PM 21382. (already recorded and partially constructed adjacent parcel to South). C® Lot lines would be adjusted for the dedication of an 88 feet road Right of Way in the vicinity of lots 73 F, 74 to extend Via Industria the "Western Corridor" toward the north. Provide Bedford Properties lot 15 in PM 21382 for use as a road to complete the southern connection to the "Western Corridor". No building permits for lots 46 through 75 will be issued until the revised road drawings are approved and dedication made for action development item #1, #2, and #3 above, Lots 68 through 73 will be dedicated as open space to minimize slope grading and preservation of chaparral in this area· There may be grading on those lots to accommodate road grading for Via Industria. Any grading on lots 68 thru 73 shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. In addition to the Flood Control Murrieta Creek Channel landscaping to the east of Diaz Road of approximately five acres, three acres in the vicinity of lots 12, 95, and 119 shall be maintained as a park by the owner's association. Lot lines would be adjusted to create a 150 foot wide linear parkway. Landscaping of slopes on lots 59 through 73 would be installed immediately upon water availability and completion of slope grading to these lots. ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) ORDINANCE NO. 90- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Temecula is a newly incorporated city falling with the scope of Government Code Section 65360 and thus not subject to the requirement that a General Plan be adopted or that development decisions be consistent therewith. In approving this Developmental Agreement, the City Council hereby finds that: (a) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a General Plan. (b) There is a reasonable probability that the development to be carried out pursuant to the Development Agreement will be consistent with the General Plan now being studied and developed. (c) There is little probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if the Development Agreement and the development to be carried out hereunder is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan actually adopted. (d) The Development Agreement and the development to be carried out hereunder otherwise complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and City ordinances. Section 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65867.5, Development Agreement No. 90-1 a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved. Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute said Development Agreement on behalf of the City of Temecula after execution thereof by all landowners listed therein, provided all such landowners have executed said Development Agreement within 30 days after adoption of this Ordinance. ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) Section 4. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVEDAND ADOPTED this , 1990. day of RON PARKS MAYOR ATTEST: DAVID F. DIXON City Clerk ggd/ORD19996 (082090-3) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, David S. Dixon, 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 , 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DAVID F. DIXON CITY CLERK APPROVEDAS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) Recorded at request of City Clerk City of Temecula When recorded return to City Clerk City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-1 A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA and RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. I Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-1 This Development Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is entered into effective on the date it is recorded with the Riverside County Recorder (hereinafter the 'Effective Date") by and among the CITY OF TEMECULA (hereinafter "CITY"), and the persons and entities listed below (hereinafter "OWNER"): RANCHO CORE ASSOCIATES NO. 1, a California limited partnership. RECITALS WHEREAS, CITY is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Section 65864, et sea. of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, CITY has adopted rules and regulations for consideration of development agreements pursuant to Section 65865 of the Government Code; and, WHEREAS, OWNER applied for and obtained certain development approvals from the County of Riverside, (hereinafter "COUNTY") prior to the incorporation of CITY; and, WHEREAS, said development approvals are binding on CITY to the same degree they were binding on COUNTY and for the same length of time; and, WHEREAS, OWNER sought and obtained approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 from the County of Riverside; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula approved an extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 conditioned upon OWNER's executing a Development Agreement with CITY; and, WHEREAS, OWNER has requested CITY to enter into a development agreement and proceedings have been taken in accordance with the rules and regulations of CITY; and, WHEREAS, by electing to enter into this Agreement, CITY shall bind future City Councils of CITY by the -1- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) obligations specified herein and limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of CITY; and, WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by CITY and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable; and, WHEREAS, the best interests of the citizens of the City of Temecula and the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and, WHEREAS, all of the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met with respect to the Project and the Agreement; and, WHEREAS, this Agreement and the Project are consistent with the Riverside County Southwest Area Community Plan, and is not anticipated to be inconsistent with the City of Temecula's General Plan, when adopted; and, WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matter; and, WHEREAS, development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide substantial benefits to CITY and will further important policies and goals of CITY; and, WHEREAS, this Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Property, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under Sections 65864 ~t seq. of the Government Code are intended; and, WHEREAS, OWNER has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in order to assure development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement. -2- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) COVENANTS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS. 1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows: 1.1.1 Agreement. "Agreement" means this Development 1.1.2 "City" means the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation of the State of California. 1.1.3 "COUNTY" means the County of Riverside, a political subdivision of the State of California. 1.1.3 "Development" means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping. "Development" does not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement or facility after the construction and completion thereof. 1.1.4 "Development Approvals, means all permits and other entitlements for use subject to approval or issuance by COUNTY or CITY in connection with development of the Property including but not limited to: (a) Specific plans and specific plan amendments; (b) Tentative and final subdivision and parcel maps; -3- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) (c) Conditional use permits, public use permits and plot plans; (d) Zoning; (e) Grading and building permits. 1.1.5 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of COUNTY or CITY in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests. 1.1.6 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals defined as Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 which is applicable to development of the Property. 1.1.7 "Effective Date" means the date this Agreement is recorded with the County Recorder of the County of Riverside. 1.1.8 "Existing Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals approved or issued prior to the Effective Date. Existing Development Approvals includes the Approvals incorporated herein as Exhibit "C" and all other Approvals which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date regardless of whether said approvals were granted by COUNTY or CITY. 1.1.9 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of COUNTY or CITY, as appropriate, governing the development and use of land including without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the property which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date of this Agreement or which may be enacted after the Effective Date and applied to this Property. "Land -4- ggd/ORD19996 (082090-3) Use Regulations" does not include any COUNTY or CITY ordinance, resolution, code rule, regulation or official policy, governing: (a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (b) Taxes and assessments; (c) The control and abatement of nuisances; (d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (e) domain. The exercise of the power of eminent 1.1.10 "OWNER" means the persons and entities listed as OWNER on page i of this Agreement and their successors-in-interest to all or any part of the Property. 1.1.11 "Mortgagee" means a mortgagee of a mortgage, a beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other security-device lender, and their successors and assigns. 1.1.12 "Project" means the development of the Property contemplated by the Development Plan as such Plan may be further defined, enhanced, or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 1.1.13 "Property" means the real property described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit to this Agreement. 1.1.14 'Reservations of Authority" means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to COUNTY or CITY under Section 3.4 of this Agreement. 1.1.15 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all Development Approvals required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property. -5- · ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) 1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of, this Agreement: Exhibit "A# -- Legal Description of the Property. Exhibit "B" -- Map Showing Property and Its Location. Exhibit "C" -- Existing Development Approvals. Exhibit #D" -- Existing Land Use Regulations. Exhibit "E" -- Fee Credits. 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 2.1 Binding Effect of AGreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out only in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 2.2 Ownership of Property. OWNER represents and covenants that it is the owner of the fee simple title to the Property or a portion thereof. 2.3 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of ten (10) years, unless this term is modified or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2.4 Assignment. 2.4.1 Right to Assign. OWNER shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et sea., or Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-04) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such sale, transfer or assignment shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties, and obligations arising under or from this Agreement -6- .ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent: (a) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or assignment of all or a part of the Property. (b) Concurrent with any such sale, transfer or assignment, or within fifteen (15) business days thereafter, OWNER shall notify CITY, in writing, of such sale, transfer, or assignment and shall provide CITY with an executed agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, by the purchaser, transferee, or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee, or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement. Any sale, transfer, or assignment not made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute a default by Owner under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this Subsection 2.4.1, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee, or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee, or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed. 2.4.2 Release of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or assignment, a transferring OWNER shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless such transferring OWNER is given a release in writing by CITY, which release shall be provided by CITY upon the full satisfaction by such transferring OWNER of all of the following conditions: (a) OWNER no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the Property. (b) OWNER is not then in default under this Agreement. -7- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) (c) OWNER has provided CITY with the notice and executed agreement required under Paragraph (b) of Subsection 2.4.1 above. (d) The purchaser, transferee or assignee provides CITY with security equivalent to any security previously provided by OWNER to secure performance of its obligations hereunder. 2.4.3 Subsequent Assignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment after an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Section. 2.4.4 Partial Release of Purchaser. Transferee. or Assignee of Industrial or Commercial Lot. A purchaser, transferee, or assignee of a lot, which has been finally subdivided as provided for in the Development Plan and for which a commercial or industrial plot plan for development of the lot has been finally approved pursuant to the Development Plan, may submit a request, in writing, to CITY to release said lot from the obligations under this Agreement relating to all other portions of the property. Said purchaser, transferee, or assignee of a lot shall reimburse CITY for any and all costs associated with the review of the request for release hereunder. Within thirty (30) days of such request, CITY shall review, and if the above conditions are satisfied shall approve the request for release and notify the purchaser, transferee, or assignee in writing thereof. No such release approved pursuant to this Subsection 2~4.4 shall cause, or otherwise affect, a release of OWNER from its duties and obligations under this Agreement. 2.4.5 Termination of Aareement With Respect to Individual Lots Upon Sale to Public and Completion of Construction. The provisions of Subsection 2.4.1 shall not apply to the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any lot which has been finally subdivided and is individually (and not in #bulk#) sold or leased to a member of the public or other ultimate user. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate with -8- .ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions: (a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in mbulku) sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user~ and, (b) A Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for a building on the lot, and the fees set forth under Section 4 of this Agreement have been paid. Notwithstanding the sale of any individual lot as set forth in subsection 2.4.5, OWNER shall remain liable to perform any and all outstanding obligations, still unperformed or uncompleted at the time of sale, with respect to said lot required by this Agreement or as a condition of any development approval. OWNER shall condition the sale and deed sufficiently to ensure the completion of said obligations. 2.5 Amendment or Cancellation of AGreement. This Agreement may be amended or cancelled in whole or in part only by written consent of all parties in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868. This provision shall not limit any remedy of CITY or OWNER as provided by this Agreement. 2.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force or effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) Expiration of the stated term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.3. (b) Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding, or annulling the adoption of the Ordinance approving this Agreement. (c) The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the Ordinance approving this Agreement. -9- ggcl/ORD19996 (082090-3) (d) Completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement including issuance of all required occupancy permits and acceptance by CITY or applicable public agency of all required dedications. Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any other land use entitlements approved for the Property. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. 2.7 Notices. (a) As used in this Agreement, notice includes, but is not limited to, the communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder. (b) All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below; or (iii) on the date of delivery shown in the records of the telegraph company after transmission by telegraph to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to CITY: City Clerk City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 -10- · ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) I f to OWNER: with a copy to: (c) Either party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, whether a party or an officer or representative of a party, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change. 3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 3.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement including the Reservations of Authority, OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383. The Project shall remain subject to all Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the Development Plan. 3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement including the Reservations of Authority, the rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to development of the Property shall be the Land Use Regulations, in connection with any Subsequent Development Approval. CITY -11- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) shall exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in connection with Subsequent Development Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan, and as provided by this Agreement including, but not limited to, the Reservations of Authority. CITY shall accept for processing, review, and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such applications shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters. 3.3 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing Development Approvals. In the event OWNER finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, OWNER shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to effectuate such change and CITY shall process and act on such application in accordance with the Land Use Regulations, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement including the Reservations of Authority. If approved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated herein as an addendum to Exhibit "C," and may be further changed from time to time as provided in this Section. Unless otherwise required by law, as determined in CITY's reasonable discretion, a change to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed "minor" and not require an amendment to this Agreement provided such change does not: (a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole; or, (b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or, (c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or, (d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes within the Property as a whole; or, (e) Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code. ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) 3.4 Reservations of Authority. 3.4.1 Limitations, Reservations, and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following Land Use Regulations shall apply to the development of the Property. (a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by CITY to cover the estimated actual costs to CITY of processing applications for Development Approvals or for monitoring compliance with any Development Approvals granted or issued. (b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of procedure. (c) Regulations governing construction standards and specifications including, without limitation, the City's Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, Fire Code, and Grading Code. (d) Regulations imposing Development Exactions, provided, however, that no such subsequently adopted Development Exaction shall be applicable to development of the Property unless such Development Exaction is applied uniformly to development, either throughout the CITY or within a defined area of benefit which includes the Property. (e) Land Use Regulations adopted after the effective date which may be in conflict with the Development Plan. To the extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed so as to provide OWNER with the rights and assurances provided under the Development Plan. 3.4.2 Subsequent Development ADDrOValS. This Agreement shall not prevent CITY, in acting on Subsequent Development Approvals, from applying the Land Use Regulations, nor shall this Agreement prevent CITY from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the Land Use Regulations. -13- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) 3.4.3 Modification or Suspension bV State or Federal Law. In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. 3.4.4 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that CITY is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations, reservations, and exceptions are intended to reserve to CITY all of its police power which cannot be so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to CITY all such power and authority which cannot be restricted by contract. 3.5 Public Works. If OWNER is required by this Agreement to construct any public works facilities which will be dedicated to CITY or any other public agency upon completion, OWNER shall perform such work in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as would be applicable to CITY or such other public agency should it have undertaken such construction. 3.6 Provision of Real Property Interests by CITY. In any instance where OWNER is required to construct any public improvement on land not owned by OWNER, OWNER shall at its sole cost and expense provide or cause to be provided, the real property interests necessary for the construction of such public improvements. In the event OWNER is unable, after exercising reasonable efforts, including, but not limited to, the rights under Sections 1001 and 1002 of the Civil Code, to acquire the real property interests necessary for the construction of such · public improvements, and if so instructed by OWNER and upon OWNER'S provision of adequate security for costs CITY may reasonably incur, CITY shall negotiate the purchase of the necessary real property interests to allow OWNER to construct the public improvements as required by this Agreement and, if necessary, in accordance with the -14- .ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) procedures established by law, use its power of eminent domain to acquire such required real property interests. OWNER shall pay all costs associated with such acquisition or condemnation proceedings. This section 3.6 is not intended by the parties to impose upon the OWNER an enforceable duty to acquire land or construct any public improvements on land not owned by OWNER, except to the extent that the OWNER elects to proceed with the development of the Project. 3.7 Regulation by other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that other public agencies not within the control of CITY possess authority to regulate aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with CITY and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. For example, pursuant to Government Code Section 66477 and Section 10.35 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-04, another local public agency may provide local park and recreation services and facilities and in that event, it is permitted, and therefore shall be permitted by the parties, to participate jointly with CITY to determine the location of land to be dedicated or in lieu fees to be paid for local park purposes, provided that CITY shall exercise its authority subject to the terms of this Agreement. 3.8 Tentative Tract Map Extension. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 66452.6 of the Government Code, no tentative subdivision map or tentative parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Property, shall be granted an extension of time except in accordance with the Existing Land Use Regulations. 3.9 Vesting Tentative Maps. If any tentative or final subdivision map, or tentative or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410, et Seq.) and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-04, and if this Agreement is determined by a final judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to OWNER, then and to that extent the rights, obligations, and protections afforded OWNER and CITY respectively, under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede the provisions of this Agreement. Except as set forth -15- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) immediately above, development, of the Property shall occur only as provided in this Agreement, and the provisions in this Agreement shall be controlling over any conflicting provision of law or ordinance concerning vesting maps. 3.10 Phasing Plan. Development of the Property shall be subject to all timing and phasing requirements established by the Development Plan. As of the Effective Date of this Agreement, however, this project is not a multiple phased project. 4. PUBLIC BENEFITS. 4.1 Intent. The parties acknowledge and agree that development of the Property will result in substantial public needs which will not be fully met by the Development Plan and further acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers substantial private benefits on OWNER which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the parties intend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on OWNER by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting from the Project. 4.2 Public Facilities and Services Mitigation Fee. 4.2.1 Dedications, Adjustments, and ImProvements. In addition to any other dedication, reservation, exaction, adjustment, improvement, or fee required for the approval or extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383, the underlying Development Project, or related Development Approvals, except as provided in Section 4.2.1(d) below, OWNER agrees that: (a) The road right of way for Via Industria shall be changed to eighty-eight feet (88') creating a "Western Corridor." Lot access for lots fronting Via Industria will continue to be available from Via Industria. (b) The Right of Way for Via Industria shall be increased to eighty-eight feet (88') within Parcel Map No. 21382, which is already recorded and partially constructed on an adjacent parcel to the South. (c) Lot lines shall be adjusted to provide for the dedication of an eighty-eight foot (88') road Right of Way in the vicinity -16- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) of lots 73 & 74 to extend Via Industria to the "Western Corridor" toward the north. (d) In lieu of Item No. 4 described on the Conditions to Parcel Map No. 21383, approved by the City Council on July 24, 1990, the following condition is imposed: Lots 66 and 67 will be dedicated as open space to minimize slope grading and preservation of chaparral in this area. (e) No building permits for lots 46 through 75 will be issued until the revised road drawings are approved and dedication made for Subsections a, b and c above. (f) Lots 68 through 73 will be dedicated as open space to minimize slope grading and preservation of chaparral in this area. There may be grading on those lots to accommodate road grading for Via Industria. Any grading on lots 68 through 73 shall be reviewed and approved in writing, in advance, by the Planning Director. (g) In addition to the Flood Control Murrieta Creek Channel landscaping to the east of Diaz Road of approximately five acres, three acres in the vicinity of lots 12, 95, and 119 shall be maintained as a park by the OWNER's association. Lot lines shall be adjusted to create a one-hundred-fifty foot (150') wide linear parkway. (h) Landscaping of slopes on lots 59 through 73 shall be installed immediately upon water availability and completion of slope grading to these lots. 4.2.2 Amount and Components of Fee. The developer(s) of the Property shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the Property or Project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. (The term "developer(s) of the Property or Project" as used in this Section shall mean the person(s) who seeks a building permit to construct structures on the parcels created by Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383. These individuals shall hereinafter be referred to as the "DEVELOPER".) If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or -17- .ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) 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 an Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to OWNER. OWNER understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated, (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees), and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. CITY and OWNER agree that: (a) The fee collected will be used for City- wide road and public facility improvements. (b) The road and public facility improvements, (or portions thereof), to be financed will serve the project by providing access, reducing congestion, and providing adequate public facilities, such as, but not limited to, City Hall, police station, fire station, community center and parks. (c) There is a need for such road and public facility improvements for the project as the project will generate traffic onto the roads to be improved and demand for additional public facilities. (d) There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the road and public facility improvements in that the amount of the fee is no more than the amount of benefit to be received by each unit from access to and use of the road and public facility improvements. 4.2.3 Time of Payment. Any fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.2 shall be paid to CITY prior to the issuance of building permits for each lot. No fees shall be payable for building permits issued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, but any fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.2 shall be paid prior to the re-issuance or extension of any building permit for a lot for which such fees have not previously been paid. -18- .ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) 4.2.4 Annual Fee Adjustment. Any fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.2 shall be adjusted annually during the term of this Agreement on the anniversary of the Effective Date in accordance with the changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area (hereinafter CPI) published monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The annual adjustment shall be calculated in the following manner: (a) Divide the CPI for month and year of the Effective Date into the CPI for the month immediately preceding the anniversary in which said fees are to be adjusted. (b) Multiply the quotient obtained by the calculation in Paragraph (a) above times said fees. (c) The result of the multiplication obtained in Paragraph (b) above shall constitute the fees payable during the succeeding year. If the CPI specified herein is discontinued or revised during the term of this Agreement, such other government index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would have been obtained if the CPI had not been discontinued. In no event shall the fees be less than the fees set forth in Subsection 4.2.2. 4.2.5 Credits. OWNER shall be entitled to credit against the fees required pursuant to Subsection 4.2.2 for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or the payment of fees as specifically set forth in Exhibit 'E." 5. FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. If deemed appropriate, CITY and OWNER will cooperate in the formation of any special assessment district, community facilities district or alternate financing mechanism to pay for the construction and/or maintenance and operation of public infrastructure -19- -ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) facilities required as part of the Development Plan. CITY also agrees that, to the extent any such district or other financing entity is formed and sells bonds in order to finance such reimbursements, OWNER may be reimbursed to the extent that OWNER spends funds or dedicates land for the establishment of public facilities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring CITY or the City Council to form any such district or to issue and sell bonds. 6. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE. 6.1 Periodic Review. The Planning Director shall review this Agreement annually, on or before the anniversary of the Effective Date, in order to ascertain the good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of the Agreement, OWNER shall submit an Annual Monitoring Report, in a form acceptable to the Planning Director, within thirty (30) days after written notice from the Planning Director. The Annual Monitoring Report shall be accompanied by an annual review and administration fee sufficient to defray the estimated costs of review and administration of the Agreement during the succeeding year. The amount of the annual review and administration fee shall be set annually by resolution of the City Council. 6.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Planning Director shall conduct such special reviews. 6.3 Procedure. (a) During either a periodic review or a special review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER. (b) Upon completion of a periodic review or a special review, the Planning Director shall submit a report to the City Council setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by OWNER with the terms of this Agreement and his recommended finding on that issue. (c) If the City Council finds on the basis of substantial evidence that OWNER has complied in -20- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review shall be concluded. (d) If the City Council makes a preliminary finding that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Council may modify or terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 6.4 and Section 6.5. Notice of default as provided under Section 7.4 of this Agreement shall be given to OWNER prior to or concurrent with, proceedings under Section 6.4 and Section 6.5. 6.4 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination. If, upon a finding under Section 6.3, CITY determines to proceed with modification or termination of this Agreement, CITY shall give written notice to OWNER of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing and shall contain: (a) The time and place of the hearing; (b) A statement as to whether or not CITY proposes to terminate or to modify the Agreement; and, (c) Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform OWNER of the nature of the proceeding. 6.5 Hearin~ on Modification or Termination. At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination, OWNER shall be given an opportunity to be heard. OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on OWNER. If the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement and impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the CITY. The decision of the City Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6.6 Certificate of Agreement Compliance. If, at the conclusion of a Periodic or Special Review, OWNER is found to be in compliance with this Agreement, CITY shall, upon request by OWNER, issue a Certificate of Agreement -21- ggd/01~319996 (082090-3) Compliance ("Certificate") to OWNER stating that after the most recent Periodic or Special Review and based upon the information known or made known to the Planning Director and City Council that (1) this Agreement remains in effect and (2) OWNER is not in default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain information necessary to communicate constructive record notice of the finding of compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a Periodic or Special Review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next Periodic Review. OWNER may record the Certificate with the County Recorder. Whether or not the Certificate is relied upon by assignees or other transferees or OWNER, CITY shall not be bound by a Certificate if a default existed at the time of the Periodic or Special Review, but was concealed from or otherwise not known to the Planning Director or City Council. 7. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. 7.1 Remedies in General. It is acknowledged by the parties that CITY would not have entered into this Agreement if it were to be liable in damages under this Agreement, or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. In general, each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that CITY shall not be liable in damages to OWNER, or to any successor in interest of OWNER, or to any other person, and OWNER covenants not to sue for damages or claim any damages: (a) For any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action which arises out of this Agreement; or (b) For the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided under or pursuant to this Agreement; or (c) Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement. -22 - ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) 7.2 Specific Performance. The parties acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance and other non-monetary relief are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all parties for the following reasons: (a) Money damages are unavailable against CITY as provided in Section 7.1 above. (b) Due to the size, nature and scope of the project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property or portions thereof. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. 7.3 Release. Except for nondamage remedies, including the remedy of specific performance and judicial review as provided for in Section 6.5. OWNER, for itself, its successors and assignees, hereby releases the CITY, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, upon the CITY because it entered into this Agreement or because of the terms of this Agreement. 7.4 Termination or Modification of Aqreement for Default of OWNER. Subject to the provisions contained in Subsection 6.5 herein, CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement for any failure of OWNER to perform any material duty or obligation of OWNER under this Agreement, or to comply in good faith with the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "default"); provided, however, CITY may terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this Section only after providing written notice to OWNER of -23 - · ggd/ORD19996 ( 082090-3 ) default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by OWNER to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, OWNER has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. 7.5 Termination of Agreement for Default of CITy. OWNER may terminate this Agreement only in the event of a default by CITY in the performance of a material term of this Agreement and only after providing written notice to CITY of default setting forth the nature of the default and the actions, if any, required by CITY to cure such default and, where the default can be cured, CITY has failed to take such actions and cure such default within sixty (60) days after the effective date of such notice or, in the event that such default cannot be cured within such sixty (60) day period but can be cured within a longer time, has failed to commence the actions necessary to cure such default within such sixty (60) day period and to diligently proceed to complete such actions and cure such default. 8. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION. 8.1 General Plan Litigation. CITY is a newly incorporated city falling with the scope of Government Code Section 65360 and thus not subject to the requirement that a General Plan be adopted or that development decisions be consistent therewith. CITY and OWNER agree and CITY finds that: (a) CITY is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a General Plan. (b) There is a reasonable probability that the development to be carried out pursuant to this Agreement will be consistent with the General Plan now being studied and developed. (c) There is little probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if this Agreement and the development to be carried out hereunder is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan actually adopted. -24- , ggd/ORD19996 (082090-3) (d) This Agreement and the development to be carried out hereunder otherwise complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and CITY ordinances. CITY shall have no liability in damages under this Agreement for any failure of CITY to perform under this Agreement or the inability of OWNER to develop the Property as contemplated by the Development Plan of this Agreement as the result of a judicial determination that on the Effective Date, or at any time thereafter, the General Plan, or portions thereof, are invalid or inadequate or not in compliance with law. 8.2 Third Party Litigation Concerning AQreement. OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys, fees, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against CITY, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. CITY shall promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and CITY shall cooperate in the defense. If CITY fails to promptly notify OWNER of any such claim, action, or proceeding, or if CITY fails to cooperate in the defense, OWNER shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless CITY. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding. 8.3 Indemnity. In addition to the provisions of 8.2 above, OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from any liability whatsoever, based or asserted upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors and independent contractors, for property damage, bodily injury, or death (OWNER's employees included) or any other element of damage of any kind or nature, relating to or in any way connected with or arising from the activities contemplated hereunder, including, but not limited to, the study, design, engineering, construction, completion, failure and conveyance of the public improvements, save and except claims for damages arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of CITY. OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, CITY, its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors in any legal action based upon such alleged acts or -25- .ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) omissions. CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such legal action. 8.4 Environment Assurances. OWNER shall indemnify and hold CITY, its officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any liability, based or asserted, upon any act or omission of OWNER, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, predecessors in interest, successors, assigns and independent contractors for any violation of any federal, state, or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to environmental conditions on, under or about the Property, including, but not limited to, soil and groundwater conditions, and OWNER shall defend, at its expense, including attorneys' fees, CITY, its officers, agents and employees in any action based or asserted upon any such alleged act or omission CITY may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such action. 8.5 Reservation of Rights. With respect to Sections 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 herein, CITY reserves the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which OWNER selects, hires, or otherwise engages to defend CITY hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct its own defense, provided, however, that OWNER shall reimburse CITY forthwith for any and all reasonable expenses incurred for such defense, including attorneys' fees, upon billing and accounting therefor by CITY. 8.6 Survival. The provisions of this Sections 8.1 through 8.6, inclusive, shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 9. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER, in any manner, at OWNER's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device securing financing with respect to the Property. CITY acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request, from time to time, to meet with OWNER and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good faith any such request for interpretation or modification. CITY will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. -26- .ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) OWNER shall reimburse CITY for any and all of City's costs associated with said negotiations, interpretations, and modifications and shall make reimbursement payments to CITY within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from CITY. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: (a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith and for value, unless otherwise required by law. (b) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing to the CITY in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive written notification from CITY of any default by OWNER in the performance of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement. (c) If CITY timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of default to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. (d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure, shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform any of OWNER's obligations or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance; provided, however, that to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant by CITY, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to CITY's performance hereunder, and further provided that any sale, -27- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.4 of this Agreement. (e) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, pursuant to subsection (d) above and who elects not to assume the obligations of OWNER setforth herein shall not be entitled to any rights to develop which have or may have vested as a result of this Agreement. 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Recordation of Aqreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk of the City of Temecula within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. 10.2 Entire Aqreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings, or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings, or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 10.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provision of the Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the fees set forth therein, are essential elements of this Agreement and CITY would not have entered into this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no further force and effect whatsoever. 10.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a -28- .ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 10.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 10.6 Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural unless a different intent is clearly evident from the context. 10.7 Joint and Several Obligations. If at any time during the term of this Agreement the Property is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one OWNER, all obligations of such OWNERS under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such OWNER shall be the default of all such OWNERS. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no OWNER of a single lot which has been finally subdivided and sold to such OWNER as a member of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as provided under Section 4 hereof. 10.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 10.9 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 10.10 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 10.11 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, -29- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party's control, (including the party's employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the party's control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder may be extended by the written agreement of the parties for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5) years. 10.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party. 10.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion thereof. 10.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, each of which fully executed counterpart shall be deemed an original irrespective of the date of execution. 10.15 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by a party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the filing, removal, or change of venue to any other court. 10.16 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the -3o- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between CITY and OWNER is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property. 10.17 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 10.18 Eminent Domain. No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or restrict the exercise by CITY of its power of eminent domain. 10.19 AQent for Service of Process. In the event OWNER is not a resident of the State of California or it is an association, partnership, or joint venture without a member, partner, or joint venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event, OWNER shall file with the Planning Director, upon its execution of this Agreement, a designation of a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence, and business addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not feasible, then in such event OWNER may be personally served with such process out of this County and such service shall constitute valid service upon OWNER. OWNER is amenable to the process so served, submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests thereto. 10.20 Authority to Execute. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of OWNER warrants and -31- ggd/ORD19996(082090-3) represents that he/they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/their corporation, partnership or business entity and warrants and represents that he/they has/have the authority to bind OWNER to the performance of its obligations hereunder. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year set forth below. Rancho Core Associates No. 1, a California Limited Partnership By: Johnson & Johnson Development Corporation, a California corporation Its: General Partner DATE D: DATED: By: By: William P. Johnson, Chairman of the Board Dean K. Allen, President CITY OF TEMECULA DATED: ATTEST: By: Ron Parks Mayor DAVID F. DIXON City Clerk IIII IIII i111 -32- ggd/ORD19996 (082090-3) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney (ALL SIGNATURES SHALL BE ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC. EXECUTION ON BEHALF OF ANY CORPORATION SHALL BE BY TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS.) EXHIBIT C EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 EXHIBIT D EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS Riverside County Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460, as the same were incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-4. '. EXHIBIT E FEE CREDITS None Ex'~IBIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PARCEL · OF PARCEL MaP NO, 4646 IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A8 SHOWN BY MaP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORD8 OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF PARCEL · LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF DIAZ ROAD OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4646, as SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 PAGE 75 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRXBED as FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF DIAZ ROAD AND THE CENTERLINE OF Twex 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL 3 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL 4, as SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30t 00w EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY' PROLONGATION OF 8AXD CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 50 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WaY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGIWNXNG; -THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30t 00" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THAT CERTAXN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 80.00 FEET TO THE 80UTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MURRIETA CREEK; THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 30e 00" EAST ALONG SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF MURRIETA CREEK ·8.23 FEET TO a POINT; THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 30e 00' WEST ALONG THE a LINE PARALLEL TO AND 26.78 FEET DISTANT FROM 8AID NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD 80.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF way LINE OF DIAZ ROAD; THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30e 00' WEST LONG THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD ·8.23 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY RPOOLONGATXON OF THE CENTERLINE OF THAT CERTAIN 66 FOOT WIDTH ROAD AND THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DIAZ ROAD, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Neste. Brudin. & Stone. Inc. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: P.O. Box 851 Hemet, California 92343 Date of Environmental Assessment: 8-21-90 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TENEGIIJ~ Name of Proposal, if applicable: Tentative Parcel Map 21383 6. Location of Proposal: Northwest corner of Diaz and Winchester Roads. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" 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? Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or ' physical features? ee Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils. either on or or off site? X BLANKIES/FORMS -1 - Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands. or changes in siltatlon. 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? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides. mudslid,s. 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? CO Alteration of air movement. moisture. or temperature, or any change in climate. whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents. or the course or direction of water movements. in either marine or fresh waters? be Substantial changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns. or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? de Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ee Discharge into surface waters. or in any alteration of surface water quality. including. but not limited. to. temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Yes Maybe No X B LA N K I ES/FORMS -2° Yes Maybe No Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants ) ? 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? 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 Ibirds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Ce Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? BLA N K I ESI FORMS -3- 10. 11. 12. 13, Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. 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? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X X X X BLANKIESIFORMS 'q" b· Effects on existing parking faclli- ties, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? de Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: 16. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ,,Y,e,s Maybe N_9o X X X X X X .. X BLANK I ES/FORMS -5- 17. 18. 19. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard {excluding mental health)? 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? 20. 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? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X X X X X BLANKIES/FORMS -6- 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? ( A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future. ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or' indirectly? Yes Maybe No BLANK IES/FORMS -7- III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project involves a Development Agreement with Rancho Core Associates No. 1 regarding a 130 lot industrial subdivision on 164 acres. Execution of a Development Agreement with the City was made a condition of granting the extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 by the Temecula City Council at its July 24, 1990 meeting. The underlying development project has been previously reviewed under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383. The Subject Property is located at the Northwest corner of the intersection of Winchester and Diaz Roads in the M-SC zone. The purpose of the Development Agreement is to formalize in contract form the conditions and understanding between the City and the Applicant which were the basis for the approval of the extension of Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383. One of the key provisions of the Development Agreement is the dedication of the foothill lots, lots 66 through 73, as open space. 3 BLANKIES/FORMS 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 in 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. Date For CITY OF TEMECULA BLA N K I ES/FORMS -9- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: NTG: DEPT: TZTLE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21383 SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME DEPT HD"~ CITY ATTY CITY HGR Recommendation That the City Council SET FOR HEARING the second extension of time request for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 on July 24, 1990. Project Information Request Filed: Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Uses: Project Statistics: County Planning, Febrqary 23, 1990 Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383, second application for a one year time extension. Rancho Core Associates No. 1 NBS/Lowry Second extension of time request for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383, 130 industrial lot subdivision on 164 acres. Northwest corner of the intersection of Winchester and Diaz Roads. M-SC North: South: East: West: M-SC M-SC R-R, M-SC R -A-20 North: Vacant South: Industrial Park East: Murrieta Creek West: H illside/Vacant Tentative Parcel Map for 130 industrial lots on 164 acres. The minimum proposed lot size is one ( 1 ) gross acre. Project Backclround This project was originally approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on March 24, 1987. The first extension of time was applied for on March 16, 1989 and was approved on October 24. 1989. The second extension of time was applied for at the Riverside County Planning Department on February 23, 1990. The case was then transferred to the City of Temecula with a RECEIVE and FILE recommendation. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 21383 PAGE 2 Area Settinq Approximately one half of the site lies in the Murrieta Creek Flood Plain area. The other half ascends the valley floor and extends into the foothills of the Santa Rosa Plateau. The site is currently vacant. To the south is an existing industrial park. Easterly of the site is the Murrieta Creek Channel, which is zoned R-R. Northerly of the project is vacant area zoned M-SC. To the west of the proposed industrial site is hillside area zoned R-A, with 20 acre minimum lot sizes. Staff Concerns Staff recommends that the project be set for public hearing because of concerns which include the following issues: The intensity of the proposed grading is severe and staff requests policy direction. Approximately 3,400,000 cubic yards of earth on 164 acres are proposed to be moved. Possible land use conflict with the future General Plan in terms of appropriate development in this relatively large. undisturbed open area. Staff Recommendation That the City Council SET FOR HEARING the second extension of time request for Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 on July 24, 1990. Commerce County Ao'm,~ Ctr AUTO CENTEl : .li!l -;' I "", / / CZ 4002 ,/ CZ 4011 & CZ t44 / ....I \ VAC '\ VA C :~,,,,,, / /' .. C;~O2A/: · ?.-,,\ .,,,,,,.or, ·,,, -,/, el,I, VAC' App. RANCI"IO CORE SSO E Xe I Use INDUSTRIAL/COMME. RCIAL SEWERED RM. }~ ~..~. kee TEMECULA Sec. 3 T. 8 S.,R .3W. Assetser's Ik. 909 Iml. t2 ~ "~: Ckceletk)n JEFFERSON AVE. IlAJ. IOO' RiVERSiDE coun;,u PLAnninc DEPAR;nlEn; *~/~,/~0 Mr. Ross Gellet Willdan Associates 155 Hospitality Lane, Suite 110 San Bernardino, CA 92408 RE: Transfer of Case File for Project Within the City of Temecula (Case Number) Dear Mr. Geller: The above referenced case(s) is being forwarded to you for any additional processing that may be required. The subject case{s} was considered at a public hearing and is being forwarded to the City Council of Temecula for action, as noted below. /"'7 Approved by the Planning Director and being forwarded to the City Council to RECEIVE AND FILE the Planning Director's action. Approved by the Planning Commission and being forwarded to the City Council to RECEIVE AND FILE the Planning Commission's action. / / Approved by the Planning Commission and being forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing.. / / With the case file being transmitted to you, as staff for the City of Temecula, the County Planning Department will not be taking further action on the subject case(s). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office at 275-3208. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joseph A. Richards, Planning Director Richard~H6tt,~incipal Planner 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 79733 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SUITE E BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-82T PLANNING COMMISSION: 3-29-90 Agenda Item Nc.: 3-1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BOARD ROOM - 14TH FLOOR - 4080 LEMON STREET - RIVERSIDE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR STAFF REPORT NOTE: The following will be presented to the Planning Commission as consent calendar items. Unless specifically requested by the applicant at the time of consideration, these items may net be d~scussed and are subject to approval by the Commission uqder a single motion. CEC'A: The following tract have conformed to the reGuiremer, ts of the C&! ifc,-nia Envl ronn',ental Qua~ ity Act of 197C. It has bee!: determined that the individual map will not have a sign-'ficant effect up;~ the environment. GENERAL PLAN: Unless otherwise noted, the following trasts ha..e been determined to be comsistent with the general plan a~ ~ts eler:',ents. O~DINL~:CE NO. 65S: The conditioris of approval for the ma; ~'i ll be ar.,eq:e-~ to reflect the implementat:o:: of Oral:rants (Stephens Kat~garou Rat Miti~atior,). -ks conditions will be ar.e~ded as follows: 383, ad~ Comd';tior No. 20. RE2?~'-IE'j:LTZONS: The applicant of tl~e following map has requested at, e..tension o~ time to allow for recordation of a final map. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends approval. TRACT NO. 21383 - NBS Lowry - Temecula Area - First Superviscria~ District - 130 Lots - 164 Acres - Southwest of Diaz Road and west of Rancho California - Schedule E - M-SC Zone - EXTENSION OF TI~E THROUSH MARCH 24, 1991 - Second Extension. ' ':/bc ~,,!n 3,/5/90 2oning Area: Temecula Supervisorial Di strict: E.A. Number: 30363 Regional Team No: Two First INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23383 And.,3 Planning Commission: 1-21-87 Agenda Item: No. g RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Appl i ca nt: 2. Engineer: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: e 9. 10. Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: Land Division Data: 1]. Agency Recommendations: 12. Letters: 13. Sphere of Influence: Rancho Core Associates No. 1 N.B.S. Lowry To divide 164.07 acres into 130 lots Southwesterly of Di az Road southeasterly of Cherry Street M-SC M-SC, R-A-20, and R-R Flat open area sloping the west Area transitioning to activities and upwards towards industrial Dark Land Use: Total Acreage: 164.D7 Total Lots: 130 Proposed Man. Lot Size: Road: 3-24-87 Health: ~-15-B6 & 1-21-86 Flood: 5-21-86 Fire: 5-15-86 Other: Building & Safety: Opposing/Supporting: None wri tang Not within a City Sphere Category I! Industrial 1/ac gross 9-4 -86 as of this ANALYSIS: Project Description: Tentative Parcel Map No. 21383 Amended No. 3 is an application to divide 164.07 acres into 130 lots. The minimum lot size proposed is 1 acre gross. The proposed project is a schedule 'E" parcel map. The project site is located southeasterly of Diaz Road and southeasterly of Cherry Street. At present, the subject property is vacant and is zoned M-SC. Surrounding properties are zoned M-SC, R-A-20, and R-R. The general characteristics of the area are vacant lots transittoning to industrial parks and service commercial USES. |NDUSTRI~ PARCEL MAP NO. 21383 Amd. t3 Staff Report Page 2 EMVIRONMEMTAL AMALYSIS: Env ironmental Assessment No. 30363 indicates concerns impact the subject s ire: L iquefact ion: resources. the fol lowlng env ironmental Eros ion: and Archaeolog ical The Department of Build ing and Safety's letter dated 9-4-86 provides adequate mit lgat ion for 1 iquefact ion concerns. Eros ion concerns can be mlt igated through project des ign and proper grad ing techniques. Archaeological Report, PD 1125 was prepared for the project site, and the report showed no f incls anc~ reconm~nds no mit igat ion requ iremerits. PROJECT CONSISTENCY/COMPATIBILITY: The subject property lies within the Southwest Land Use Planning Area. The site also 1 ies within the Mr. Palomar Observatory Pol icy Area. Rev jew of the Open Space & Conservat ion Map of the Comprehens ire General Plan shows the s ire as Areas Not Des ignated as Open Space. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive General Plan designated the site Category II land uses. A full range of public services and facilities are available to the subject property. The proposed 130 lots industrial/co~nercial subdivision is a logical extension of the ex ist ing and proposed industrial pattern in the area. The proposed project is cornpat ible with the industrial park located directly southeast of the roject and the tent at ively approved schedule "E" parcel map located to the SOut~ Of the project. Industrial Parcel I~ap No. 21382 was subm itted concurrently with this project, anti was approved by the Planning Commission on December 3, lg86. Parcel Map 21382 is proposing the s~ne type of project with the s a~e proposed 1 ots ize. Staff recon~nends approval of Tent at ive Parcel Map No. 21383, Amd. 13 in that the proposal is cons istent with the General Plan, tompat ible with the development, and conforms to the requ irements of Oral inance Nos. 348 and 460. FINDIIGS: 1. The applicant proposes to divide 164.07 acres into 130 lots with a min imu~ lot s ize of I acre gross. The subject site is currently vacant and is zoned M-SC. Surrounding properties consist of vacant lots, a Industrial park, proposed Industrial Subdivision, approved industrial subdivisions and the Nurrieta Creek Bed; and are zoned M-SC, and R-A-20, end R-R. 4. The Comprehensive General Plan calls for Category II land use. INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 21383 Amd. 13 Staff Report Page 3 5. The site is subject to 1 iquefact ion, and eros ion. COMCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed project is consistent wlth the Comprehens ire General Plan. 2. The proposed project is cornpat ible with exist ing and proposed surround in~ 1 and use. 3. The proposed project is in conformance with Ordinance No. 348 and 46~. 4. All environmental concerns can be adequately mitigated. RECOIqqERDATIONS ADOPTIOM of a Negat ive Declarat ion for Env ironmental Assessment No. 30363, based on the conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, APPROVAL of Tentat ive Parcel Map 21383, Amended No. 3 subject to the cone it ions Of approval, and based on the findings and conclusions incorporatec~ in the Staff report. DM:bc 12/22/86 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL lieDUS'TRIAL PARCEl. NAP I10. 21383 Date: ~ 24, 1987 Expires: rg~q~ 24, 1989 STANDARD COMDITIONS The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance 460, Schedule E, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative mp will expire twe year's after the Board of Supervisors approved date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. e The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Hap Ace and Riverside County Ordinance 460. e The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Surveyor's Office and tko copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Se If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additional ly provided for in these conditions of approval. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Deparbnent of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. If grading is proposed on slopes of 10% or greater, and environmental assessment approval will be required from the Planning Department prior to an acceptance of the plans by the Building Department. One mylar copy of the approved grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for transmittal to the Road Department. 7. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordatton of the final map. Be The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement reconnendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 3-24-87 , a copy of which is attached. 9. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. II)USTRIAL PARCEL NAP I10. 21383 A~d. ~3 Conditions of Approval Page Z 10. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until .the governing body accepts of abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Commissioner, Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Comissioner. 11. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilites, 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 County Surveyor. 12. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 5-15-86 & 1-21-86, a copy of which is attahced. 13. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverisde County Control District's letter dated 5-21-86, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Conrnissioner. 14. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvements recommendations outlined in the County Fire !~arshal's letter dated 5-15-86, a copy of which is attached. 15. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. 16. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.BC of Ordinance 460. b. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance trlth the development standards of the M-SC zone. c. 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. 17. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied. INDUSTRIAL PARCEL ~ NO. Z:1383/el. #3 Conditions of Approval Page 3 el Prior to retardation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that al 1 pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met. County Fire Deparbnent County Flood Control County Heal th Department County Planning Department The land-divider shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director Pm, iem, ~ weeenla44on e~' the 4F4mma~, map the subdiv4dem, she.l) pnvide a ww4~t, en s~,a(emen( (poe Ramshe Wat. ep that have been met, a eelmy e~ wh4eh 4s ariaeked, Deleted per Planning Connission January 21, 1987. PPieP to peeepda(ten e( the (4Mal map lhe subdivide~ sha;~ pwovtde a weeewmeedaStens dated 9-4-8G kava beer melh; a copy e~ whisk 4s a(tashed, Deleted per Planning Commission January 21, 1987. e. Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plants with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street light layout first from the Road Deparl~nent's traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor. Following approval of the street lighting layout by the Road Department's traffic engineer, the developer shall also file an application with LAFCO for the formation of a street lighting district, or annexation to a existing lighting district, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall secure conditional approval of the street lighting application from LAFCO, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to del innate identified environmental concerns and shal 1 be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. INDUSTRIAL PARCEl. NAP 10. Z1383 Amcl. f3 CoadtUons of Approval Page 4 18. The following note shall be placed on the Envtror, nental Constraints Sheet: "A Geologtc Report was prepared for this property by Letghton and Associates on June 23, 1986, and is on ftle at the Riverside Count), Planntng Department. Spectflc items of concern tn the report are as follows: Liquefaction." The following note shall be placed on the Envtrormnental Constraint Sheet: 'County Archaeological Report No. 1125 was prepared for this proparty and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of GIADIIIG PER!qlTS the following conditions shall be satisfied: If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: 1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process· Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through Narch. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. b. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combination there of, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan, increase slope ratio (i.e., 3:1) retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. All cut slopes located adjacent to undergraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: 1. The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain· INDUSTRIAL PARCRI. MAPNO. 21383, Amd. Conditions of Approval Page 5 #3 2. 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 proporotion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and s~bility pezmit such rounding. 19. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied. a. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460· 12/23/86 20. Prior to the issuance of a grading permits, the applicant shall ccmply 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. (A~ded per Planning Cu~,~Hssion on 3-29-90)· /bc 3/12/90 i{ I V F,l'tSII )F, C(. 1LJNI'Y FI Rii Di~,I'AI{'I'M F, NT IN GOOPERAIlON WI IH 1lIE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOJlESIFIY RAY IIEBRARD FIRF, C!IIF, F 05-15-86 To: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 210 WF.S I SAN IA(.'INI ~1 AV I!NUF. I'ERI.US, CAI.II:( )RNIA g2 t70 TEI,EPI I()NE: (714) 657-3 IR3. Attn: Team II Re: PM 21383 - Amendment#3 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recomme8ds the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: COMMERCIAL FIRE PROTECTION The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000 GPM and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 2000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. Approved super fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2{"x2t") shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Applicant/developer shall furnish one (1) copy of the water system plans to tile Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet tile fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering section. MICHAEL E. GRAY Planning Officer cdt Planning Department PARCEL MAP NO. 21383 -2- January 21, 1986 This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District agreeing to allow the 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 dra~,ing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel ~p No. 21383 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract." _The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. It will be necessa~ for the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized prior to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely, H. Ralph Luchs, R.S. Administrative Supem'isor HRL:cg CUNTYOF RIVERSIDE- DEPARTMENT OF  3,515 IIh STREET M~I4., ( !wO ST ~'F t L 0 ICE BOx 1370). IIIVEJIISIDE, CA. 92502 HEALTH January 21, 1986 Riverside County Planning Depart~nent - Team 2 4080 Lemon St. Riverside, C~ 92501 " RIVERb:up_. uuuNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PARCEL MAP NO. 21383; Parcel 4, ~ 4646, PM 6/75, Riverside County Records. (132 Parcels) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 21383 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch eauals 200 feet, along with the original drawing, to the Count>' Sunreyor. The prints shall sh~ the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comp. ly in all resnects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the follmdng certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Parcel Map No. 21383 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 sen, ice to such tract. This certification does not constitute a .guarantee that it will supply water to such tract at any specific ouantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purD. ose." This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water conman>'. The plans must be submitted to the__Count.v Sun~e.vor's Office to review at ]east two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the fina] map. This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every parcel on demand providing satisfacton' financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessa~' for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the fina] maD. L, Roy D. S,,.,oot OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COL'NTY SURVEYOR Hatch 24, 1987 ~anaary-~T-~98~ Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Parcel Map 21383 - Amend #3 Schedule E - Team 2 As Amended at Planninq Commission 1-21-87 'As Amended at Board 3-24-R7 With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider proviOe the following street improvements and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate O's, and that their omission may require the map to be resubmitted for =.rther consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essenti~' parts and a requirement occurring in O~E is as binding as though OcCurring '^ all. They are intenGeo to be complementary and to describe the conditions for ~ complete ~esign of the improvement. All questions regarding the true me~.'ing of the conoitions shall ~e referred to the RoaO Ccmnissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect ~ownstream prsperties frcn camajes causeO by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., c:ncentra- tion Of diversion of flow· Protection shall :e :ravi:eo :y c:~structing adequate drainage facilities incl~ci~g enlar;in~ e~isting facilities or by securing a oraina~e easement :r ~otn. ~ll drainage easements small be shown on the final and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no ~uilding, obstructions, or encroaChmeritS by land fills are alloweo" The protection shall be as approveO by the Roao Department. The landdivider shall accept and properly Oispcse of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for orainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for orainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate Crainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. Parcel Map Z1383 - Amend #3 Schedule E - Team 2 -Newembep-l~r-t~j~)6 January 21, 1987 Page 2n d At P1 ing Commission '1-21-87 As Am· de ann As Amended at Board 3-24-87 *4. 11. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. Diaz Road & Winchester Road shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101, t~YE~)~ 76'/100'). "A" Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, (32'/44'). Streets "B", "C", "E", "F" and "G" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard rio. 111, Section A. (56'/78'). Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk) or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Primary and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road maintained by the County shall be constructed within the puDlic right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B, (32'/60'} at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Commissioner. This is necessary for c'~:ulation purposes. Prior to the reCOrdation of the final ~;, the developer shall deposit with t~e Riverside County Road :epart~ent, a cash su~ of 51,750.00 per gross acre as ~itigation for traffic signal i:pacts. Shoul~ the developer chOoSe to defer the ti~e of payment, ne =ay enter into a written agreement ;vith the County deferrim; sai~ ;ay-ent to t~e time of issuance of a builcirg ;er~it. :-:r~vement plans shall be based ~pon a center!in· :rofile e<t~noing a mini~u~ of 3C0 feet beyond t~e pro:ect :o~nCaries ~t a ;ra~e and alignment as approved by the ~iversice County ~cad Commissioner. Completion of road improvements ~oes not i=ply acceptance for maintenance by County. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provi:eo in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. *Deleted at Planning Commission 1-21-87 ** As Amended at Board 3-24-R7 Parcel Map 21383 - Amend #3 Schedule E - Team 2 Ne~ember-~g~-~g86 Jenue~"~'~~March 24, 1987 Page 3 As Amended At Planning Commission 1-21-87 As A~ended At Board 3-24-87 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 21. Aspbaltic 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 an~ 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on Dia~ Road and so noteO on the final map with the exception of one 40' opening between parcels 21 and 22 and one 40' opening between parcels 23 and 24. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall provide utility :'earance from Rancno Calif. ~later ~istrict prior to the recordatic~ ~f the final map. The ninimum centerline radii shall be ~]~' or as approved ~y the Road ~epart~ent. Street trees shall be ~lanteO in confor-arce ~itn t~e 2r~visi~ns of zrticle 12a of Crdinance ~60.53 anO their lacatian~s'? s-all =e s~awn on street irprovement ~lans. zll ~iveways shall conform to the applicable ~ivers~ze l$~nty StanCards an~ shall be shown on the street i=prsverent plans. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° ,vith a ~ininum feet of tangent beyond the flow line as ap~roveO ~y the Commissioner. Parcel Map 21383 - Amend #3 Schedule E - Team 2 I~y,ember-:~tr-)986 Jen~e~,~l-r-l~)e~ March 24, 1987 Page 4 As Amended At Planning Comission 1-11-87 A~s Amended at Board 3-24-87 22. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with PM 19582, PH 21029, PM 21382, MB 122/42-43. 23. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Significant issues involving fee contributions for the Winchester Road Bridge crossing the ~rrieta Creek along with signal locations at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Front Street shall be resolved. 24. Lot access shall be restricted on Winchester Road and Street "A" for a distance of 200' measured from the centerline of Diaz Road and so noted on the final map. GH:lh Very truly yours, Gus Hughes Road Division Engineer · K[NNIrrH L. wDWARD! ~HIEF IrNG|N~R IllB MARKLr'r ITREET P. O. BOX 1033 TS.A,.E'PHONE (714) 787-2015 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERlIDs., CALIFORNIA IIB02 May 21, 1986 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 2 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Parcel Map 21383 (Amended Map No. 3) The District's report on tentative Parcel Map 21383 dated March 20, 1986 is still current for the above land division. Very truly yours, OHN H. RASHUBA ;enior Civil Engineer CC: Road Dept. Dept. of Building & Safety Attn: Eric Traboulay MC:pml KENNETH L. EDWARDS CHIEF ENGINIrER 111B MARKET ITR£ET P. O. BOX 1033 TELEPHONE (714) 787-20t5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERIIDE, CALIFORNIA 12BO2 March 20, 1986 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California MAR 2 8 1986 RIV:n~zu~ ,..,..u,~TY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attention: Regional Team No. 2 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Parcel Map 21383 (Amended Map No. 2) Parcel Map 21383 is a proposal to subdivide approximately 164 acres in the Temecula area. The property is located southwest of Diaz Road, westerly of Rancho California Airport. The northeasterly portion of this property is located within the Murrieta Creek 100 year flood plain. Finished floors of all buildings must be elevated above expected flooding levels. The property is subject to offsite storm flows aI~ng its southwest boundary. These flows should be collected and conveyed to an adequate outlet. The District is concerned about development occurring in the Murrieta Creek watershed. The cumulative effect of development will cause increased storm runoff and, without adequate drainage facilities in the area, will have a significant adverse impact on downstream properties. A practical and equitable mitigating measure for such an impact is the adoption and implementation of an Area Drainage Plan. Adoption of the Murrieta Area Drainage Plan, however, is not expected until the Spring of 1986. Rather than await formal adoption of the Murrieta Area Drainage Plan, the developer has requested that a condition of approval be added requiring a drainage mitigation payment prior to construction. Following are the District's recommendations: In accordance with the written request of the applicant to the County of Riverside, dated January 31, 1986, the final map shall not be recorded until the applicant, his successors or assigns, has executed a Special Drainage Facilities Agreement with the County. Grading and building permits shall not be issued for Parcel Map 21383 or any unit thereof until the developer has provided evidence of compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Parcel Map 21383 (Amended Map No. 2) -2- March 20, 1986 10. The property should be graded so that all building sites will be free from flooding from Murrieta Creek during a 100 year storm. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facili- ties. Development of this property should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties to ensure that watercourses remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not diverted from one watershed to another. This may require the construction of temporary drainage facilities or off- site construction and grading. 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 build- ings and obstructions." All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained within the street right of way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, additional drainage facilities should be installed. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape should also be provided. The property's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area and outlet points. A drainage easement should be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or di- verted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the recorded drainage easement should be submitted to the District for review prior to the recordation of the final map. Riverside County Planning Department Re: Parcel Map 21383 (Amended Map No. 2) -3- March 20, 1986 CC: A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District for review prior to recordation of the final map. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer DAVID T. SHELDON Chief of Planning Division Road Dept. Dept. of Building & Safety Attn: Eric Traboulay Neste, Brudin and Stone MC:pml ITEM NO. 29 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department August 28, 1990 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23513 PREPARED BY: R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: Mark Rhoades Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: R EPRESENTAT I VE: PROPOSAL: LOCAT ION: EXISTING AND SURROUNDING ZONING: Abhai Kumar Sawh To-Mac Engineering To subdivide 1~.37 acres into 11 residential lots. North side of Santiago Road, westerly of Margarita Road. R-R ( Rural Residential) BACKGROUND: STAFF R PT\TM23513 Tentative Tract No. 23513 is an application to subdivide a 1~.37 acre site into 11 lots. The project was reviewed by the City"s Staff and brought before the City Council on June 26, 1990. At the June 26 meeting, ~;taff recommended that the item be set for public hearing. Since that meeting, Staff has requested and received from the applicant additional information regarding grading. 1 ANALYSIS: ZONING CONSISTENCY: S.W.A.P. CONSISTENCY: FINDINGS: Grading on the site will compose approximately 64,000 cubic yards of cut, with 24,000 cubic yards of fill. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of earth will be removed from the site. Grading on the site will remove a maximum of approximately 27 feet in some areas. The existing zoning of the site is R-R (Rural Residential). The R-R zoning designation allows one half acre {1/2 acre) lot sizes. The smallest lots proposed for this project are 0.8 acres net, and the largest proposed parcel is 2.3 net acres. The project is consistent with the existing zoning designation. The Southwest Area Plan designation for the site is Residential, 1-2 dwelling units per acre. Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the S.W.A.P. However, surrounding density is lower than that proposed by this application. The project is located proximally to Santiago Estates which has a two (2) acre lot size minimum. Contiguous to the proposed Tract 23513, the average lot size is just over five (5) acres. A basic level of useable and total open space has been provided on individual lots to meet the needs of future residents. There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 23513 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed within a reasonable time in accordance with State Law. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted General Plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complies 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 configurations, circulation patterns, access, and density. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. 10. 11. 12. 13. The proposal will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Initial Study for this project. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the State Map Act in regard to future passive energy control opportunities. 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 projects. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application are herein incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Department .Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: RE-AFFIRM the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 23513, based on the analysis and findings contained in the County Initial Study and Staff Report. APPROVE Tentative Tract No. 23513, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 2351:~ Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: Plannin.q Department Prior to issuance of Building Permits, applicant sha)l pay required applicable Q.U.).M.B.Y. Act Fees, Enqineerlnq Department If a fair and equitab)e share of the developer~a cost of transportation improvements has not been determined at the time s Certificate of Occupancy is needed, the developer shall be required to deposit $10,000 into a City established Road Benefit Fund. The developer is also required to sign an agreement with the City to either pay an amount or receive a refund equa) to the difference between his estimated fair share and the amount of deposit with the CIty. 5TA FF R PT\TM23513 4 Notice of Pubic Hearira, THE CITY OF TEMECULA 43172 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 93290 A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the CITY COUNCIL to consider the matter(s) described below. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Eavironmental Action: Tentative Tract 23513 Abhai Kumar Sawh North side of Santiago Road, Westerly of Margarita Road An 11 lot residential subdivision on 14.37 acres Negative Deciaration Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the heating(s) or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pubic hearing(s) described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the pubic hearing(s). The proposed project application(s) may be viewed at the public information counter, Temecula Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Questions concerning the project(s) may be addressed to Mark Rhoades, City of Temecula Planning Department, (714)694-6400. PLACE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING TIME OF HEARING Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street Temecula Tuesday. August 28. 1990 7:00 PM CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT AB#: HTG: DEPT: TITLE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO, 23513 JUNE 26, 1990 OEPT HD CITY ATTY CiTY MGR RECOMMENDATION That the City Council RECEIVE and FILE Tentative Tract Map No. 23513. PROJECT INFORMATION Request Filed: Case No.: Applicant: Representative: Proposal: Location: Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Surrounding Land Uses: Project Statistics: County Planning, March 2, 1988 Tentative Tract Map No. 23513 Abhai Kumar Sawh To-Mac Engineering An 11 lot residential subdivision on lq.37 acres North side of Santiago Road westerly of Margarita Road R-R North: R - R South: R - R East: R-R West: R - R North: Natural terrain South: Natural terrain East: Natural terrain West: One single family residence Tentative Tract Map 23513 for 11 residential lots on lq. 37 acres. PROJECT BACKGROUND Tentative Tract No. 23513 is an application to subdivide a lq.q acre site into 11 parcels. The site consists of three vacant parcels of gently rolling hills with grassland and coastal sage scrub and cactus. the project is located north of Santiago Road and west of Margarita Road. Currently the site is zoned R-R, and surrounding zoning includes R-R. The request was filed for this project with the County on March 2, 1988. The project was approved by the County Commission on March lq, 1990, and was transmitted with a RECEIVE and FILE recommendation on May 18, 1990. AREA SETTING the project lies in an area characterized by gently rolling hills and some sharper knolls and arroyos. The vegetation is apparently natural, containing cactus and open grassland. Some portions of the subject site are open to natural vistas which include the Santa Rosa mountains and portions of the Temecula Valley. ZONING The proposed site is zoned R-R (Rural Residential ). The R-R district allows a minimum density of 1/2 acre lot sizes. The proposed lot sizes are all in excess of the minimum requirement. SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN The S.W.A.P. identifies this site and surrounding areas as 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. This project proposes a density which is generally one (1) unit per acre. GRADING At the proposed density, substantial grading will take place. This would be necessary in order to accommodate the proposed number of pads on the existing terrain. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council RECEIVE and FILE Tentative Tract Map No. 23513° II ttMilVld fllVl,IBIl,L4illi .NlltlillfiOlll llAJ3 NttlJl~aaflNtf] I~Slll*ral / //,. / , L I I t d'# / I App. AB,HAI KUMAR SAWH, ETAL Ume DIVI)E Ifro 112 AC. MIN. LOTS , Arem RANCHO CALIFORNIA .... 'f~C:' ";/" T.eS.,R-2W. A.:w;i'i~'l'B~' ' ~ ~ SANTIAGO RD - ARTERIAL - 110' " [L,,,A ~ lID - SECONDARY - 88' -,- ~ Rd. I:. f'1.56 AOete 02/05/90 Dram By O,5L/_Cyv I-- ."' - 1'- 4002 MVERSIDE 'CO{dN1'Y PLANIWNG DEPARTMENT ,,o RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 23513 AMENDED NO, 1 DATE: EXPIRES: STANDARD CONDITIONS: The following conditions of approval are for Tentative Tract No. 23513, Amended No. 1, which will subdivide a 14.37 acre site into eleven parcels located north of Santiago Road and west of Margarita Road in Rancho Santa Rosa. 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, 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 Tract No. 23513, Amended No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code, Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceed,n9 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 proceed,n9 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 subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance No. 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and Ordinance No. 460· The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soil~ report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any grading if proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter ?0, as amended by Ordinance No. 45? and as may be additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. TENTATZVE TRACT NO, 23513 AHENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of County maintained road right-of-way. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 03-08-89, a copy of which is attached. Legal access as required by Ordinance No. 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County 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 Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 04-19-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 03-08-89, a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance No. 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 12-04-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department - Land Use Section's letter dated 04-0?-89, a copy of which is attached. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23513 ANENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 3 18. 19. 20, 21. 22. 23. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department - Grading Section's letter dated 03-09-89, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the County Geologist's transmittal dated March 13, 1990, a copy of which is attached. (Added at Planning Commission on March 14, 1990). The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Elsinore Union High School District's letter dated 01-04-89, a copy of which is attached. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Plannin9Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: A. All lots shall have a minimum size of 1.0 acres gross. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance No. 460. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance No. 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-R zone. Prior to the RECORDATION of the final map, the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the recordatton of the final map, the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outltned in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County Flood Control County Health Department County Planning Department TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23513 AMENDED NO, 1 Conditions of Approval Page 4 24. 25. 26. Prior to the recordat,on of the ftnal map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared tn conjunction wtth the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. .A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Butlding and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "County Biological Report No. 404 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: Sage Scrub vegetation." The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "County Archaeological Report No. 1381 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department." Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentat,on during and after the grading process· Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas whtch may be graded durtng the htgher probability rain months of January through March. 3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 4. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. Grading plans shall conform to Board-adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or f111 slopes, or Individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benchlng) plan, increase slope ratio (i.e., 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23513 AMENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 5 27. 28. 29. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceed ten (10) feet tn 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. Where cut and/or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved in a continuous, undulating fashion. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding p rope r t y. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. C. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS, the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply wtth Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded 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. DK:csf 2/14/90 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER It COUNTY SURVEYOR LsP, oy D, Smoot Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: March 8, 1989 (O4JNTY AI~INISTRATWE (INTER NAD.JN~ ADORE~: P,O. BOX 1090 IJVt]L%'IDi:, CALIFORNLA 92502 (714) 787-6554 TR 23513 - Amend ~1 Schedule B - Team I - SMD#9 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 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 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., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing Adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/ or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall accept and properly ~ispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER · 4080 LENON STREET, RIVI3L~!DE, CAUFORNIA 92801 TR 23513 - Amend #1 Hatch 8, 1989 Page 2 11 Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. "B" Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105 Section B. (36'/60') "A" Street northeasterly of Street "B" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section B. (36'/60') Santiago Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 44 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, Section B. (32'/44') "A" Street southwesterly of "B" Street shall be improved with 28 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 40 foot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section B. (18'/30') Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by County. Standard cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement ~f the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifi- cations. TR 235~3 - Amend March 8, 1989 Page 4 3e 4. 26. 7e 28. 29¸. EB:Jw Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. The applicant by design is requesting a vacation of the existing dedicated rights-of-way along Santiago Road. Said vacation shall be applied for by the applicant and approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the recordation of the final map or any phase thereof. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with PM 43/52-53, PM 152/62-63, PM 42/47-48, and PM 130/40-41. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 at all intersections of roads constructed or improved within the subdivision. The county Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the subdivision is within an existing assessment district. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in accordance with Governmental Code Section 25210.1. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. A striping plan is required for Santiago Road. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. 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. Subdivision Engineer TR 23513 - Amend #1 March 8, 1989 Page 3 16. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho California Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline radii shall'be in conformance with County Standard #114 of Ordinance 461. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along Santiago Road in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalks). The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. A minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed between driveways. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights of way to provide for a primary access road to a paved and maintained road. Said access road shall be constructed in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60') at a grade and alignment approved by the Road Commissioner. Said offsite access road shall be the easterly extension of Santiago Road and to Santiago Road or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Said offsite access road shall be the westerly extension of Santiago Road to Santiago Road or as approved by the Road Commissioner. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a wrilten agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Lot access shall be restricted on Santiago Road and so noted on the final map. COUNTY i IVERSIDE DEPARTMENT April 19, 1989 AMENDED N0. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 Attn: Kim Dittmer Illll,,fll Illfill lOSS RAMSEY ITREET JANlING, CA O2220 . ~TH ~OADWAY k, '~. CA 12225 WlVERSIDE. CA 12504 ¢OIO~A 10S S~UTH I~NA VISTA CO~O~A,.CA 11720 IllIT ll0 NORTH STATE IT. HEMEl. CA 12345 4E-20S OASfS ITREE1 IOeO. CA O2201 LiE! 101e5 FRASER D~. LAKE ELiINO~E. CA. tliIO PiLl IPlllll 1255 T.4/iQUtTZ,,41CCALLUM ,ALl i~INGS. CA 12162 PIIIll 13?lIOeTH'O' ITREET KRRIS, CA 12370 III1f!lllll 1520 LINDEN STREET RIVERSIDE, CA. 12507 S818 MIS$1OH ILV~. NVERSIDE. CA l~50i P~; T~ACTKAP 235Z3: BexnQ a subdivision of Parcels 1-3 of P.M. 8?55, on file in Book 43 of Parcel Maps, Pages 52 and 53 Xn the Office of the Riverside Recorder, also being a portion of the Temecula Rancho. (11 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of PubAXe Health has revxewed Tentative Map No. 23513 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the oriqinal drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and 3oint specifications, and the size of the main at the ~unction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title ~2, C~apter 18, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. Riverside County Plannan0 Dept. Page Two Attn: Kim Dirtmet April 19, 1989 The plans shall be sisned by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the desiqn of the water system Xn Tract Map 23513 is accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Western Municipal Water District and that the water service,storage and distribution system will be adequate to provide water service to such parcel. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel at any specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the.water company. The plans must be submitted to the County_ ~rveyor's Office to review at least two weeks to the request for the recordation of the final m~- This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water District aqreeln~ 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 arranqements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to recordatXon of the final map. This Department will permit domestic sewage disposal from the individual lots in this subdivision as per a percolatxon report submitted by To-Mac Engineering dated November 30, 1980 as follows: LOT NO. SO. FT. IIO0 GAL. 1 60 Z 40 3 40 4 40 5 90 6 90 7 80 8 60 9 60 10 110 11 110 NOTE: lEACH LINES TO BE INSTALLED IN TEST AREAS ONLY. Riverside County Plannina Dept. Page Three ATTN: Kim Dirtmar Apr~! 19. 1989 The above information is an indication of the type of sewage dXlposal systems based on existing ground elevations at the time the tests were conducted. If any grading. compaction. cutting. etc. Zs accomplished and is in excess of two feet. additional sewaae dlsDosal Information shall be required Drlor to flnalzng of the maD. The size of the SeDtlC tank and effluent disposal area shall be determined based uDon the occupancy of each individual lot. There shall be an unoccupied area on each lot where sewage disposal. as required above. may be installed in conforminca with the current Uniform Plumbinq Code. There shall be an additional unoccupied area equal to 100% of the above-required sewage disposal systems for sewage dlsposal installation in case of failure. However. sewage disposal systems are considered temporary and if sewage lines of a sewer dlstrict become available. connection to the system should be made at that time. It will be necessary for financial proceedznqs to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. +ncere , , Environmental Healt Services SM:tac K&'NNLr'rH L. EDWARDS CHIEF ENGINEER ! Ill MARKrr ITREI"T P. O. BOX IO83 TELEPHONE (714) 7ET.lOI E RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERBIDE, CALIFORNIA 12502 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Re: Attention: Regional Team No. E;,- Area "~me c. I~ V~ : ,/I t 't~r, c 4L 2 3~'13 A,,,-e-,f,,/x,~. I We have reviewed this case and have the following comments: Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard. However, a storm of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc- tion should comply with all applicable ordinances. The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water- courses which traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings. A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of 18 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided for mobile home supports." This project is in the drainage plan fees shall be regulations. paid in accordance with the appl:rcab~e rules and The proposed zoning is consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood control facilities or floodproofing may be required to fully develop to the implied density. The District's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. The attached comments apply. Very truTy yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS OHN H KASHUBA ~~r'Civil Engineers DATE: /'t~vc~ ~ (IV~ RIVE!~!DE COUNTY tIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NEWMAN FIBminS&~Oft'K:, 46-209 Oasis Str~, .~ite 405 i~!io, CA 92201 [619] 342-8886 12-4-89 PianninS & F~nS Office 4080 Lemon Street, Suite 11L Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: DIANE KIRSKEY TEACT 23513 - AMENDED With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "B" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2i") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more 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 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Dept." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. Prior to the recordation of the final.map, the applicant/developer shall provide alternate or secondary access as approved by the County Road Department. NAZAKDOUS FIRE AREA The land division is located in the "Hazardous Fire Area" of Riverside County as shown on a map on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Any building constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with the special construction provisions contained in Riverside County Ordinance 546. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Subject: TRACT 23513 Page 2 Driveways not to exceed 15I grade. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of paTment, he/she may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Kurt Mantwell, Fire Safety Specialist ama April 7, 1989 Administrative Center · 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 Riverside County Planning Department Attentions Diane Kirksey County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Tract 23513, Amend #1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: 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 parcel map pursuant to Section 19.5 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. Very truly yours, Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLAN CORRECTING SHEET NOTE: Refer to Log Number for any inquiry. This application expires on Date JOB LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS Sheet No. -':l/97,ff /- by County Ordinance 457. /'Veaee ...e~e eef effete N ,...L..a (~w~emtnlf S as listed below. ark,., o&,t,,s..,;,,~ ~,.. d ,e,.t f ,4,,, , , Z ,e/to CHECKED BY APPROVED BY ze4,.zog ~ev. 7m4) . COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Department of Building and Safety TO: FROM: RE: Planning - File Grading Section 7- 4cr z3 /3 ,qn,;z> / i~ IJ:X::/SDC Date: DATE: INITIAL:~S/~ ~(Please make the following a condition of approval: ":~_a. Prior to commencing any grading exceeding 5~ cubic yards, the owner of that property shall obtain a grading permit from the Department of Building and Safety ___b. Prior to approval of this use/subdivision a grading permit and approval of the rough grading shall be obtained 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. ___d. Constructing of material permit. a road, ,where greater than 50 cubic yards is placed or moved, requires a grading ..... The Grading Section has no comment on this site FOR FINAL GRADING PLAN - PLEASE PROVIDE APPLICABLE INFORMATION FOR COUNTY GRADING FORMS: 284-86 284-21 284-120 284- ( A. C./Paving ) EBI,-13/4 (5/88) INTER-DEPARTMENTAL LITTIR COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'March 13~ 1990 TO: Diana Kirksey - Team I ~ FROM: Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist Tentative Tract Map 23513 Slope Stability Report No. 225 The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability at the subject site: "Geotechnical Analysis of Slope Stability for Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, ~15 Acre Site, Proposed Residential Development, Rancho California, Riverside County, CA," by Leighton and Associates, dated February 20, 1990. This report determined that: Planned fill and fill over cut slopes will be graded at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), to a height 20 feet. Cut slopes are planned at a 2:1 gradient to a maximum height of 15 feet. 2. Cut slopes will expose Pauba sandstone and/or alluvium materials. Proposed fill and fill over cut slopes will be stable against deep-seated failure and surficial failure. Cut slopes should be grossly stable provided they are fee of adverse geologic conditions. This report recommended that: All cut slopes shall be observed by an engineering geologist during site grading. The General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Appendix C in the subject report) shall be incorporated into project design and construction. Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought tolerant vegetation as soon as possible after site grading. Berms shall be provided at the top of fill slopes and brow ditches shall be constructed at the top of cut slopes. Diane Kirksey March 13, 1990 Page -2- Lot drainage shall be directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is minimized. The outer portion of fill slopes should either be overbuilt by 2 feet and trimmed back to the finished slope or compacted in increments of 5 feet by a sheeps foot roller as the fill is placed and then track walked to achieve the final configuration. This report satisfies the General Plan requirement for a slope stability report. The recommendations made in this report shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. SAK: barn JATE: December 28, 1988 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Rood Control District Fish & Game U.S, Postal Service - Ruth E, Davidson U.S, Fish & Wildllfe Services ER iiDE counc,u PLAnninG DEPaRC!ilEnC Southern California Edison Southern California Gas General Telephone Ca1 Tran ~8 Temecula Union School District Elstnore Union H.S:* ~ Commissioner Bresson U.C.R. Arch Unlt C.J. Crotinger Community Plans TRACT 23513 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 33455 - Abhai Kumar Sawh - To-Mac Engineering - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - North of Santiago Road and West of Nargarita Rd - R-R Zone - 14.37 Acres - REQUEST To Subdivide 14.37 Acres into 11 Residential Parcels - Nod 119 - A.P. 923-400-003,004,011 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for January 26, 1989. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your conmnents and recommendations are requested prior to January 26, 1989 in order that we may include then in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Alex Gann at 787-1363. Planner COMMENTS: The Elsinore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing student population caused by new residential, con~nercial and industrial .construction. Therefore, pursuant -to California Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, this district levies a fee against all new development projects within its boundaries. DATE: 1/4/89 SIGNATURE ;A~F ripen+ .arl~ snA 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 Dr. Larry B. Haw. SUD~rinfpnripnf 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 bdwb~e a_,d She.ill ~k F. kn T~ Riverside Co. Planning Dept. 4080 Lemon. St., 9th Floor Riverside, Ca 92501 SUBJECT: ""~'JZ,Lr--T ~3'S,L'~- "l'~--t-('--A "lJ~'4'sS' L~C~, ,/2~(~'~ Th~ District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: Is not Within EMWD's: v/ water service area sewer service area /Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to be served by EMWD: Water Service Any and all necessary onsite and any offsite water mains, regulators, pumping plants, storage tanks, and appurtenant facilities and works. All mains and facilities are to be regionally sized. Participation in regional water facilities, and fee payments must be met. t Water mains will not be allowed along lot lines/private lands. Fire flow requirements and backflow prevention reouirements must be met. · .J t-' !~ewer Service ' Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and -.. appurtenant works that might include monitoring man)oles, lift stations, force mains, and effluent disposal/use. Sewers will not be allowed along lot -lines/private land. Fee payment and participation in regional sewers, treatment, and.effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations will be allowed. EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Planning Department 2~5 S. San Jacinto Stt~t · Post Office ~x R3~ · S/n Jacinto, Glifornia 92383-15~ · Telephone (.714) 925-7676 I PLAnnina DEPA u: nC APPLICATION FOR 1,4ND USE AND DEVELOPMENT DATE: 3/2/88 DCHANGEOFZONENO. CONDrI1ONALUSE PERMIT NQ PARCEL MAP PLOT PLAN NQ PUS~K~U~PERMffNQ TRACTMAPN0, TEMPORARY USE PERMff NO, 23513 A I/R.ICAIfr IllFOe ' ~3~ V~nd P, Lvet iload ~1 CaJon, Ca. 92020 Telm~NA: ( 619 ) ~-219~ (81~-5~m.) 2. ~l ~m: Same 3. ~~t~: ~C ~GZ~NG 4~934 iln Steer, ~1l, ~. 92390 714 676-5715 T~ N~: ( ) (8 Am.- 5 p.m.) NOTE :~ more than one person is k, wo~ed in the ownership ol the property besng developed · separate pege must elLlobed to this aDINK3IiOn weNc~ lisa the Mmee ~ Id~m ot I~ Dlrlonl hlq In imeresf m the owher8~ the Ixolxrty B. INIOJICT INFORtlATION 1. Purpose of Request (d/tcribe project): (Ordinance 348 ref. no.) Dlv~Lde mabject property ~mto Z/2 acre m~Ln~mm Zots- 2 Related cam ~ m C~nChon w~th this request: C- I~RT~ INF011AT10N 6 liGNATURE OF AINatlCANT AIMII4X'I Plml4 NO(I). 92:)-400-003,004,011 General Ioclt~n {llreet elMfall. etcj IlntL~o Io4d kit of lilzlazita Road, tememecula temec~ta Ilancho I 8S 2w 14,37 Acres Llgll ~ t)evt eliot 11911 ~i~it II ~ in the Olive el Itte Coufi~ Rlclx0tf| Mly I)e IttlChed. Attache~ Thomas BrOtherS Page No 8NI C(Kxdmles -- Paqe 12~,, S4 lee Attached DATE 3-2-88 Aulkx~lormis~ry*-m:o'~tBtmmb~glmm: ~aNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNERIS) See Attache4 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 (7 14) 787-6181 46-2O90ASfS STREET, ROOM 3O4 INDiO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8271 CASE N( E,A. NO. b'rAFF USE ONLY ' ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Please complete Parts I and i l of this form and provide all of the addiUonal materials requested in Part IlL Failure to do so may delay the review and process of your project. If you are unable to provide the information, or you need assistance, please feel free to contact the Planning Department at (714) 787-6418. PART I: General Information 1. What is the Total Acreage involved? Z4.37 acres 2. Is there a previous application filed for the same site? YES IEF NO D If"Yes," provide Case Number. Also provide the Environmental Assessment Number, ff known, and Environmental Impact Report Number, if applicable. CASE NO. I>N 8755 (Parcel Map, Zone Change, etc.) E.A. NO. If Known). EIR NO. (if applicable) 3. Additional comments you may wish to supply regarding your project (Attach an additional sheet if necessary.) PART Ih Environmental Questionnaire 1. Is the project wtthin an Akluist-Prioio Special Studies Zone? YES rn NO I~x To determine if your project is located in a Special Studies Zone, contact the Public Information Section, or refer to the Special Study Zones Maps available at the Public Information Counter of the Planning Department. If the project is within a zone, refer to Ordinance 547.1, or discuss the situation with the County Geologist. If a fault hazard report is necessary, complete the investigation pdor to submitting your application and provide 6 copies of the report with this form. If a waiver of the requirements is granted, submit a copy of the waiver with this form. 2. Is the project located within a hazard management zone or licluitaction area as shown on maps of the "Seismic Safety Ele- ment Technical Report"? YES D NO I:~X To determine if your project is subject to the geologic hazards noted above you should consult the "Seismic Safety & Safety Element Technical Rapoff which is available at the Public Information Counter of the Planning Department. If the answer to question #2 is "Yes," contact the appropriate Geographic Planning Team Section to discuss appropriate measure tO minimize the hazard Incorporate any mitigation measures into the project design priorto submitting the applica- tion or indicate in the space provided below the results of your discussions with the Planning Teem. 3. If your project is in the desert ares, is it within a blowsand hazard area? YES m NO in ~1/.~ The Planning Offices in Indio and Riverside will provide you with information concerning blowsand hszard~You may also wish to contact the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. If your project is subject to blowsand hazards, submit a blowsand control plan with the application, (Alsc refer to Section 14.1 of Ordinance 460, if your project is a parcel map or subdivision). 4. Is water service available at the project site? YES ix NO [] If "No," how far must the water line(s) be extended to provide service? Number of feet or miles Further explanation: 5. Is sewer service available st the site? YES rn NO I::F:x If *'No," how far must the water line(s) be extended to provide service? Number of feet or miles 6. Additional Comments: SeZ=t,:Lc Tanks to be used. PART III: Additional Materials _ The lollowing items must be lubmitted with thi~ form: 1. At least three (3) panoramic photographs (color prtntf4 of the project site, or an aerial Photo d the sitt If color phetogrephs ere utilized, irk?Jude a map identitying: · The position from which each photograph was taken b The area of coverage of each p,holograph 2. A Clear photocopy (Xerox or similar copy) of the mate portion of the U.S. Geological Survey quldrengie map, delin- eating the boundaries of the projed site, ALso note the title of the map. I certify that I have investigated the Questions in Pads I and II Ind the answers are true and correct tO the best of my knowledge, )mthony 3. 'Z'esrt. ch RCt; 23.93.4 Tr~,/~I~COMPLETING FORM 8l NATURE sss4zssss~ssm~ RXVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATXVE CENTER, NINTH FLOOR 4080 LEMON STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 Roger S. Streeter, Planntng Director A PUBLIC IEj~Zlt has been scheduled before the R,eXIlING COIFJ:SSION to consider 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 Planning Co,,,Isston will constder ~hether or not to adopt the negative declaration along with the proposed project at thts hearing. Place of Hearlng: Board Rome, 14th Floor, 4080 Lmm~ Street, RIverside, CA I)a~ of Heartng: WEDNESIXe, Y, F!]i~ARY Z%, ~ The time of heartng ts Indicated with each application listed below. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Department before the hearing or may appear and be heard in sup rt of or opposition to the adoption of the negative declaration and/or approvaV°of this project at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you my be limited to raisin only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Co~mnlsston at, or prior to, the public hearing. The environmental finding along with the proposed project application amy be viewed at the public information counter Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. TRACT NAP NO. 23513, EA 33455 is an application for To-Hac Engineering for property located in the Rancho California Area and First Supervtsorial District and generally described as north of Santiago Rd and west of Margartta Rd and which proposes to divide 14.37± acres into 11 lots TIRE OF HEARIMG: 9:30 a.e. · -, iVE:UdDE count.U --PLAnninG DEP, :tClTiEnC -: iNVe)eNSNTAL/eSESSMENT lEA.) men: ~1qtOJECT C.,ME 1YPE(s) AND M. NBERS(s): --NAME OF PERSON(s) ~NG E.A.: g imMCT INrOItMATION -'-* -- :" ':~ONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: -ITANDAFID 'EVALUATION tK)DLX.E NINBER(s): )ESCR~ (Mckade (,,/..:ws:f mkdmum IN mile Incl uees f~/, =~9 o~--/~ II /~ ~-., ,~ ,../ ,.--,, -1-,' ,-,-( S;'b,. r~.~',~ ~.~r 3 I. MITAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.($): IL.-/. 3') ;OrBQUARE FEET fi '2-~- L/OO-TOo '~. Oo H / , col. D. F,,,XISTINGZONING: }~'/~,, E, FROPOSED Z(;)NING: ' F, STREET REFERENCES: /U, n*..[ IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? IS TIE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? G. IECTION, TOWNSHIP. RAN(3E DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Cbocl to al~fmxtm option(s) below end p.~Dft~f ~. Mormu~oeeeWoJ~edebtn'adop~l~tcmcPMns,""eEMAror lacy ken". Comiaa~B. Wll end Ceayl. Vend VL e° -- GENERAL. R,AN OPEN IPACE AND CONSERVATION DEIIONATION AI er pert ef ee project die b in 'Area Not DelraM m Open 8m,:e". Gc,,,,pka t~,~T~d m. W RlendDmM, VendVI. D A~~rpert~~eew~jecteeeNeen~pen~peceendC~merau~nemj~Mti~n~eherthenthme~~~.~.ti~r*~d Mx;ee. Complete .et=t:m'e I, NKl. eed loNy~V and VL I. INVIItONMENTAL HAZARDS AND REtOUFICE8 AlaEIIMENT A. ~1di~~t~1~f~h~rADQ~d~rid~f:~f;~-.~f~r~m~1~:f~M~~4n~~~nF~ VL3 (Circle One). This information is neoeMary to Na, ,, !rim De 8plxolxi. lend nee euttabatty filings in Section Ifi. B. CdticeJ rlls~'ft 11 .....f' IliVh Risk No~md-Low Risk HAZARDS _~/NA 8 PS U R 8 Rockfadl Hazard (On-ere IrmmCUon) 7-/1/Exlanehe Sons (U$J}~ Sc~: Conmr~Uon Service Sot; Surveys) 8,,~ Erakin OJ,S.D.A. 8cm Conmwst~ 8mvkx Soi~ Surveys) 9,,~ W~cl Ersoelon&Biowsand(fig. V!.l, (F~. Vt.6) Ord. 4eO. k 142 & Ord. 484) 10-/%/ Dam. Inurethe AJma 0raM;. ~q.?) NA U R 12./,/AkTx~ NcdN Fig. 9.18.5. N.18.11 & V1.12 & 1984 NCUZ ~ M.a,.F.B.) NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) 13. ~ RaJlroecf Noise (Fig. V1.13- V1.16) NA A B C D (F~. va.11) 14./%/Highway Node (Fig. V1.17- V129) 15. A//NA A B C D (Fie. V1.11) NA A B C D (FIG. Vl.11 ) 16. ~ Project (3ef~erlted Noise AffectinQ Noime Serm~tive Umes (Fig. v1.11 ) 17./c/NoiNSefmJtheProje~t(FiO. V1.11) 18. ~ Nr C)ueJity hnpactl From P~t 19. Project 8ermaive to Ah' 0uality ;o. ~ water Q~mJmy In~ From Projeu 21. ~ Project Sermmve to we Oua,ty 32: :~_ Hazsrdous MsteriNs and Wastes I,e. edous Irlm Are (Fig. VL30- VI.31 ) 25._ Olher RESOURCES Controlace) 8Q._,.,.,.,.,.,.,.~_ IdM Flemoumem0ri0. VL41-VL42) II_Z~_ EnerWlbmxecmp'k;VtaS-Vl.44) Definitions Por Land Use kitability end Noise AGceptablllty bungs NA - Nm.&Tpk-~l. 8 - Oenoqdy~ PS -. u - Odmm.yUn.dmb~ n - ~ A - m - ~oedmm'mr, yAooep/ble C - (aenemmy~ D - LandUeeDmcourmDed I,~IOETIRIdlI&~TION Commeletetllmlartunlmmm~es.Wo~,lmlomNKIIn'/'0':placl~c4ficPlmnm",'"RBMAP'or~ VlmgmConmuiylqoUcy 1. OPEN SPACE AND ~ATION MAP DESKNATION(s): /U/ For ell m, bidrite with · yes (Y) or no (N) whether Iny public fv,,ilities mncl/or lervicls ilLmS rely significantly Iffect of be lifetied I:my the prOp~l. All mfemnoecl f~uret ere contained in the Comprehensive Gemrat Plan. For any imbue RILlkid yl~ (Y), vwqqte (lltl lOutGet, I;ll'mCill multecl, f!'KJi~S Of tlCt, IrKI mitigation mutes uriclet $eclion V. PUBUC FACIUTIES AND SERVICES Cin;ulmticm Orqi. N.l-IV.11.Dimm in k. V Exim~'n9, Rume i Ile:tJ,cl Rcmcls) Bike TM (1ring. N.12 - N,13) We (AeenWlm) ~mwer (AgencyLmiem) Fire acevim (Rg. N.16 - N.18) M ~m (Fil N.11 · NAB) Iclvxe (Iqg. N.11' - N.18) IoN Wee 0qg- N.17 - N.18) l"lN~endPe,' ,_ tim {Iqg. N. le . N.20) Fqum rob&an Trails (Fig. IV.19 - W.241 Riv. Co. SO0 ~ EOuestrimn Trait Maps) UNities 0qg. IV.25 - N.26) Lkrar~ (Ir~g. N.I? - N.18) i See~:88 (F~g, NAT · N.18) 14__N' Aklmm (lr;9. IL18~ · L18.4. IL18~ · ILltl0 & N~ - N,q6) laeedonlilnltiJelm, y, ilhlx,.i::vftoorl.~entwtththepollcksmd~~h~~! docunm~ Ind I.e:J~f, oor l~l lmt with the C(,.,,f,,V'LI~I~.& Q, meral Pint I not. exliin: 41 · IV. I. Nt) USE DLqTWMWA'TION D. 1181 m'lmrt~lhe lx~m,MclMW M, In 'Amm n~De~m OIxn SIx~".snd is nol ln a~~.~ ,'~'i~M, 1.2. 3. 8 Ind T. ~ ql_'li~Dr4 4, 5, 6.7 III k In · Caromunity Plmn. 1. Lind tm ¢~W,m'y(lw) M:ml.,y t~ mSCxxi me I~:umw~l Ixulect Also Mists Imnd .m ty;x~ ~A..._a~:lmnili. ~..,....w.oil. 3. I D.1 ~ ~ D.2. wll ~ INflmmrm ~ ,~.m:ta:l at I~ ~M'4k~l:.,~lnl 8tm~? ixlmin: 5. Is 1he I~or..~wwl Imnmjeci mmmistmmt with re'me Ix:iicies and designations ~ the C~'nmun~ PUn? I nut. ex;~in: 6. Is the ~,,~;usms mmmpmiit:~ wJ~ oxiBUnO aM'tO{ $w~med mun'ounding mr.:J urnins? I ~ exi:~ku: 1. Breed on this initial study, Is the Ix,..p:met co, mime, at with the Compmtm 6enm~ Pin? v' I m,~ ,.&f.m;.s"~e by Section and issue Number thcm iesues identifying i,oc, m'eWxmcils: I c ,,q i., I Ill Of lift Of IM pn;iect die II In Im Clxn ~8~,~r.m:l C, Qnswvltmm ~ Ir.,.,4YlIt tie Ikio,,A'mg: I. Imme p,,.;uv, mxeam~wlh lhe dnigrmbm(s)t lnot, mpla~. & lined oe lls kdlial dudy, Is b k~-.mv: r..a'kmht Mtlm I,e Cr.-,.r.-.~m'.ska 6,mmal Plan? l reX. mbrenoe by Section end m Mmmbor l~x,m imam Idl,Uly,.] b,r.,m-. ti, mncla: V, liq RMATION IOURC!~, RNINNGI OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEAIURES A. NX)fTIONAL liFORMATION REOUtFW. D BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL AS,.~ESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: DATE lEe'nON/ INFORMAnON IFORMA'nON 1tSUE NO. REQUIRED REQUESTED o DATE ,~X)EQUACY I~IFORMATK~ RECEIVED ffrr. SlNOJ)ATE1 For llch illue mlrked yes (Y) grt~er tl:,tiOn$ ILB Ind IV.B, ~ ~he ~ In~l illue number end do the Uk>wing, in the formrot u shown below: 1. Lilt ell additionIt rtlevtnt dlta Iouroml, Including agencies ~;,-,mJItecl. I. elate ell findings of fact regarding environmental concerns. a. 8ate specific mitigation mlmsures, If identifiable without rm:luirtng an environmmqtal implct report (E.I.R.) 4. If m:lditionll informltion il require~l before the envirogrnental ulellment P,,In be completed, refer to ~ubtection A. 6. ff 8dditionll sheets am needed to Ix~nplete thil meCtiOn, CheCk the box It the end of the lection and attach h n~ceweery sheets. ~i~CTION/ IBSUE NO. ~OURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: :ZZTB ~/~'9 · · · · V. INFORMATION IOUFICF..~, FINDIN{)8 OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEAIUFIE$ (oontinued) 801,,IFICES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIO ATION MEASURES: VL, INVIRONMEN"'rAL IMPACT' ~(TF..RMINA"rlON: The pmlect d not haw · mmOnmamnt Wlm~ ~n ~o ;m.wf~4~mM and a NmOal~ Om~m~at~n may be Thin pmlect {mum hmmvm · ml~nl~cmnt effect en ~ ,mna~.,,mnt. I~,,;mvmr, Ibm wm nero tm· mlm~t eemcl In Ihtm omme I~umm l~m ndti~mtk:m em~m dmm=~lx~! In lecem V hmvm I~ mlmmte~ mD h limcdectandaNegative~mylxlxePered. The Ixe,Ject my lave · dgnl6ant effect on the environment end an Env~x,,,.mnlal Inq:8,c't Refxxl Imm~F,We6. . CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PRESENTA T!ONS/ PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD BUSINESS 1. A GENDA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT A REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 1990 - 8:00 PM Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall Dedication of Tract 18518-3 - Pavilion Pointe RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Accept Dedication of Lot 51 of Tract 18518-3, Pavilion Pointe. 2. Dedication of Tract 21764 - Ridgeview by Warmington Homes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Accept Dedication of Ease~nent Deed for Tract 21764 Ridgeview. 3. Annexation to the TCSD, Zone A of Tract 21820, Mesa Homes RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve Annexation of Tract 21810, Mesa Homes into the TCSD, Zone A MANAGERS REPORT DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: September 18, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California Riverside County Service Area JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite t05 - Temecula, CA 92390 [714] 699-0235 Fax: [7~4] (~99-4390 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 17, 1990 Rebecca L. Stein - CSA 143 Supervising Office Assistant I Temecula Community Service District Agenda Items for August 28, 1990 Please find attached the CSA 143 Staff Report for Completion of the Process for Dedication for Tract 18518-3 Pavilion Pointe by Pavilion Homes. This office requests this item to be placed on the Temecula Community Service District Agenda for August 28, 1990. Should there be some reason this item can not be approved on this date please notify this office immediately. The Developer has been notified the CSA will assume maintenance responsibility when approved by the Temecula Community Service District Board. Riverside County Service Area 143 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 105 - Ternecula, CA 92390 [7t4] 699-0235 Fax: [7~4] 699-4390 DATE: August 17, 1990 TO: FROM: SI/BJECT: Temecula Community Service District ~?~ Riverside County Service Area 143 Jeanine R. Overson - Director /~ Staff Report for August 28, 1990 T~D Meeting Completion of Process for Dedication Tract 18518-3 Pavilion Pointe by Pavilion Homes The CSA 143 requests the TCSD to accept the above tract, therefore, enabling the CSA to commence maintenance on these areas. This will complete the Process for Dedication. This dedication package has been reviewed and approved by Riverside County Counsel and Building Services and also by Dana Robie of the City Engineering Department. TWILLDAN ASSOCIATES ~'~~ ~ ~~ t r a n s mitt a I DATE JOe NO. We are forwarding E] By Mail i/By Messenger Description Remarks This Material is sent for E] Checking I~Your Files E] Approval Er~nformation E] Other [] Please sign Copies and return to our office. COPIES TO: 155 HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 110, SAN BERNARDINO, VERY TRULY YOURS W~~TES CA 92408-3317, (714) 824-2143, FAX (714) 888-5107 Recorded at request of and return Department of Building Services Real Property Management Division c?ECEIVED JUL I 6 1990 FRE_E RECORDING C,' oF ll3is instrunent is for/tF~ben~it of the~G'f~Sy of RiversiOe and is entitled to be recorded without fee. (Govt. Code 6103) Parcel: Lot 51 of Tract 18518-3 Project: PAVILION POINTE GRANT DEED, FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, O & L Properties, a California General Partnership ("GRANTOR") hereby grants and conveys to the City of Temecula Community Service D~stri.ct.~"GRANTEE"),. together with the right to further grant or transfer the same to others, a fee simple estate for the purpose of main- taining, operating, altering, repairing, and replacing equipment and landscaping over and within the boundaries of, all that certain real property located in the County of Riverside, State of Cal'ifornia, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference (the "Maintenance Area"). If GRANTEE, or its governmental entity, successors or assigns, determ~,nes it is unable, incapable, or unwilling to maintain said Maintenance Area, then maintenance shall, after notice, become the responsiblity of GRANTOR, with all covenants and agreements of this conveyance extending to and becoming obligations of all heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the GRANTOR. Riverside Counfy Service Area '!43 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California r~oad, Suite '105 - Temecula, CA 92390 [714) 699-0235 Fax: (714] 699-4390 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 17, 1990 June Greek - City of Temecula Deputy Clerk ' Rebecca L. Stexn CSA 143 Sue g ' P rvisin O ' Temecula Community Service District Agenda Items for August 28, 1990 Please find attached the CSA 143 Staff Report for Completion of the Process for Dedication for Tract 21764 Ridgeview by Warmington Homes. This office requests this item to be placed on the Temecula Community Service District Agenda for August 28, 1990. Should there be some reason this item can not be approved on this date please notify this office immediately. The Developer has been notified the CSA will assume maintenance responsibility when approved by the Temecula Community Service District Board. Riverside County Service Area 443 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite t05 - Ternecula, CA 92390 [714] 699-0235 Fax: [744] 699-4390 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 17, 1990 Temecula Community Service District Riverside County Service Area 143 Completion of Process for Dedication Tract 21764 Ridgeview by Warmington Homes Drainage Channel The CSA 143 requests the TCSD to accept the above tract, therefore, enabling the CSA to commence maintenance on these areas. This will complete the Process for Dedication. This dedication package has been reviewed and approved by Riverside County Counsel and Building Services and also by Dana Robie of the City Engineering Department. '~~7WlLLDAN ASSOCIATES ~,~s ~ ~~s t r a fi S nl i tt a I DATE/4,4~. JOB NO. We are forwarding l'1 By Mail I~ By Messenger Description C,P. ~ E-~-~z~et~7/ L~ on /'~, /v~, 2/7E~z;L- 1/88 Remarks This Material is sent for l"1 Checking I'1 Your Files F1 Approval D/Information [] Other D Pleose sign Copies and return to our office. COPIES TO: VERY TRULY YOURS WI LLDAN ASSOCIATES 155 HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 110, SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408-3317, (714)824-2143, FAX (714)888-5107 Recorded at request of and return to: Real Property Management Division 3133 Seventh Street /OC~'~I~. Riverside, CA 92507 FREE RECORDING This instrument is for the benefit of the(County of Riversid~ and is entitled to be recorded without fee.~h,~ (Govt. Code 6103) Ci'~ ~ ~r/Tecu/~ Parcel: Project: Tract No. 21764, Warmington Homes EASEMENT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, WARMINGTON.HOMES, a California corporation, and GATEWAY-MEADOWVIEW ASSOC/ATES, LTD., a California limited partnership (collectively "Grantor") hereby grant and convey to the City of Temecula Community Service District ("Grantee"), together with the right to further grant or transfer the same to others, perpetual drainage and flowage easements and rights-of- way for maintaining, operating, altering, repairing, and O~OY Tf~d~CULA C 1 n n 1 i e t Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows (the "Easement Area"): NO. referred to as Easement Note D of 7 e map recorded in book 194 Pages 59 through 64 inolusivc of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, California. If Grantee, or its governmental entity, successors, or assigns, determines it is unable, incapable, or unwilling to maintain said Easement Area, maintenance shall, after notice, - become the responsibility of Grantor, with all covenants and agreements of this easement extending to aHd becoming obligations · of all heirs, executors, administrators, successors, anu assigns of the Grantor. Dated: July 11, 1990 WARMINGTON HOMES, a Calif nia corporation GATEWAY-MEADOWVIEW ASSOCIATES, LTD., a California limited partnership BY: GATEWAY-RANCHO I, a California limited partnership By: Gateway Home Builders, Inc. a Califor 'a corporati n By' ~'~~i · g~ dent ANDERSON-MEADOWVIEW I, a California limited partnership By: Anderson. Communities STATE OF CAL RNIA COUNTY OF ~ ) SS. Oe~~~y~-/~/~7 , before me, the und rsigDed, a otar Public in an id S~ate, peTsonally appeared . executed the ~instrument and acknowledged to me that said corporation ~ of WARMINGTON HONES, the corporation that executed the within instrument pursuant to its byiaws or a resoiution of its board of dizectors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Not~arPubl~/4~;~ ' O ARY SHAFONSKy ~ . TARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAl, OFFICE INNMO ' -"Y ~" · ' i . ORANGE COUNTY YCo m~ , in ssion Expires May 31, 1991 CERTIFICATE OF ACEEt~ANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ' On this llth day of July , 19 90 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared David Anderson and personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be persons who executed the within instrument as President and Secretary, on behalf of Anderson Communities the corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that said corporation execut&d the within instrument pursuant to its bylaws or a resolution of its board of-directors, said corporation being known to me to be the general pa'rtner of Anderson-Meadowview I the limited partnership that executed the within instrument as one of the general partners of Gateway-Meadowview Associates, Ltd. the limited partnership that executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same as the general partner and that such limited partnership executed the same as such partner, and that such limited partnership executed the same. Slgnature~_~KA~~'~L~J~-~ Jeani~e Stuck Name (Typed or Printed) CORPORATION AS A GENERAL PARTNER OF A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS A PARTNER OF A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Satisfactory Evidence) · om~s aq~ paan~ox~ dlqs~gua~wd po~tmlI q~ns a~q~ pu~ 'aou3~d q~ns s{ ~m~s ~qa p~an~x~ dlqsaau~=~d p~3~m~l q~ns a~qa pu{ a~u3=~d aq~ s{ ~m{s 9q~ p~n$~x~ uol~{~od3o~ q~n$ a~q~ ~m oa pa~p~i^ou~{ -p~g 'sa~e~Doss~ ~e~A~opeo~-Xe~a~e9 ~o sa9u~aed ]Ragug$ ~q~ ~o ~uo s~ ~uamn~su~ u~q~a ~q~ p~n~x~ ~eq~ d~qsaau~a~d p~m~l ~q~ I oq~ue~-~e~a~e~ ~0 a~u~a~d IeI~U~$ 9q~ 9q O~ 9m O~ ttt~Ou~ ~U~q uo~aodzoD p~es 's~o~o~a~p ~o p2~oq s~ ~o uo~nIos~ ~' ~o s~lXq sa~ o~ ~u~nsand ~uamn~su~ u~q~^ ~ya p~3no~x~ uo~eaodao~ p1~s 3~q~ ~m o~ p~paI~ou~o~ pu~ p~meu u~q~ uo~3~od~oo ~q~ pu~ ~u~mn~su~ u~q~n ~q~ p~no~x~ oq~ suosa~d ~q o~ (~u~p~^~ pu~ -~ 'oq~zS o6~oo~ p~ae~dd~ XIIeuos~d plss 06 6I * XinC ~o X~p ~II stq~ nO OO2Ic N~S aO XIN~O9 YIN~O~ITY9 ~0 2IVI$ Riverside County Service Area '143 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite '~05 - Temecula, CA 92390 [714) 699-0235 Fax: I714) 699-4390 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 16, 1990 June Greek - City of Temecula Deputy Clerk ~ Deborah M. Tharp - CSA 143 Office Assistant~ Temecula Community Service District Agenda Item for Aug. 28, 1990 Please find attached the CSA 143 Staff Report for Annexation to TCSD Zone A for Tract 21820, Mesa Homes. Ihis office request this item to be placed on the Temecula COmmunity Service District Agenda for August 28, 1990. Should you have any questions on this matter please contact this office. Riverside County Service Area '143 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 105 - Temecula, CA 92390 [714] 699-0235 Fax: [714] 699-4390 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 16, 1990 Temecula Community Service District Riverside County Service Area 143 Jeanine R. Overson - Director Report for August 28, 1990 TCSD Meeting Annexation to TCSD Zone A Tract 21820 Mesa Homes The above tract has requested annexation to the TCSD for additional services. All legals have been reviewed and approved by Dana Robie of the City of Temecula. The CSA 143 recommends annexation of this area into the TCSD. cc: Dana Robie APPt.TCATION TO THe- T~-MF. CUT.~ COMMUNTTY ~RVTCF..~ DI~TRTCT Mail or deliver to: Temecula Communi~.v Service District c/o CSA 143 29377 Rancho California Road. Sutie 105 Temec,]a. CA 92~90 For office use only INTRODUCTION: The questions on this form are designed to obtain sufficient data about the proposed project and site to allow staff to assess this proposal. ~,,Mmit thi, origin~]. ~ ho,,na~ry m~D ~nd mete- ~Dd bonnam leg~l description of the affected ~rea. and two {2) complete copies of ~]~ m~teri~lm. No other ~plicmtion for~will Me ~ccepted. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO: ANNEXATION .TO TCSD ZONE A (Describe proposal or action requested) ~PLICANT: MESA HOMES, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Telephone:714-676-7 290 ADDRESS: ?~76~ .qTN~.T.F. f)AK DRIVE, .ql]lTE 100, TEMECI]LA. CA 92390 CONTACT PERSON: CYNTHIA G. ZAJD Tele hone 714-676-7290 ]%d)DRESS: 28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE, SUITE 100, TEMECULA, CA [91390: LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) WEST OF VIA NORTE AND SOUTH OF CALLE TIARA AND CALLE FELICIDAD. A. OWNERSHIP: 1. Is the applicant~perty owner in the area of the proposed project (circle) NO 2. Is the applicant sole owner of this property (circle~ NO B. AREA INFORMATION: 1. How many acres or square miles of territory are included in this proposal? 20.77 e 2. Specifically describe how the property will-be improved or developed (e.g., n-mher of dwelling units,- mobilehomes, etc.) 23 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS Specifically describe how the property is presently used (e.g., vacant, groves, single family residences, etc.) VACANT Population within the area at the present time? Number of registered voters within the boundaries? Expected change in population which will result from this proposal? ~(9 Area assessed value? $ X~/x~ Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries by Assessor's Parcel Number 919-340-003 9. Current zoning? R-A-½ DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN: (attach additional sheets where necessary) Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. (Note: Refar to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.): V.T.T. NO. 21820 IS A SUBDIVISION IN THE TEMECULA ZONING AREA PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE 20.77 ACRES INTO 23 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 21,780 SQUARE FEET. Outline the full range of services which will be extended to the property as a result of this proposal, and the cost of these services to the landowner and/or future residents. ONE STREET LIGHT If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). Al,o. .tt$ch -treat lighting l~Vo,,t prepared bY the re~Donsihle [~uhltC Utility. ~na ~Dl~roved by the Co,,nty Traffic ~.ngineer. ONE STREET LIGHT INTENSITY: 1-8,000 LPSV 4. '-If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level of service to be provided· STREET LIGHT ANNEXATION ONLY PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up the total area? ONE ownership of the project How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project 3. How many-landowners are in favor of the project? (attach letters of consent from landowners) ~ ONE 4. HOw many landowners are not in favor of the project? NONE NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and address of people to whom notices and communications should be directed· NAME: CSABA F. KO / MESA HOMES ADDRESS: 28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE. SUITE 100 TELEPHONE: 714-676-7290 CITY & ZIP: TKMECU~.A. 92390 NAME: CYNTHIA G. zA.]D / MESA HOMES ADDRESS: 28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE, SUITE 100 TELEPHONE: 714-676-7290 CITY & ZIP:TKMECU~.A. 92390 APPLICANT ' S SIGNATURE: / C t TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: _ a .G. Za~d TITLE: Project Coordinator DATE: June 6, 1990 APPLICATION TO TH~ T~M~CUT.~ CO~O~3NITY ~RVIC~ DI~TRTCT Mail or deliver to| For office use only Temecula Co~munity Service District c/o CSA 143 29377 R~ncho California Road. Sutie 105 Temee. l~. CA 92~90 INTRODUCTION: The questions on this form are designed to obtain sufficient data about the proposed project and site to allow staff to assess this proposal. ~,,hmit thi~ original. ~ ho-naary m~ And ~ete- And ho-nas legal aescription of the Affected AreA. And two (2~ complete copies of All m~teriAls. No other ~plicAtion form will he Accepted. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO'. ANNEXATION .TO TCSD ZONE A (Describe proposal or action requested) APPLICANT: MESA HOMES. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Telephone'.714-676-7 290 ADDRESS: ~7~s .~TNOJ,F, OAK D~TVF., SIFrTF. lO0. TEMF, CITr,A. CA 92390 CONTACT PERSON'. CYNTHIA G. ZAJD Tele~one.' 71~-676-7290 ADDRESS** 28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE, SUITE 100, TEMECULA, CA 390 LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) ~EST OF VIA NORTE AND SOUTH OF CALLE TIARA AND CALLE FELICIDAD. A. OWNERSHIP: 1. IS the applicant~perty owner in the area of the proposed proJec= (circle) NO 2. Is the applicant sole owner of this property (circle/~ NO B. AREA INFORMATION: 1. How many acres or square miles of territory are included in this proposal? 20.77 e 2. Specifically describe how the property willie improved or developed (e.g., number of dwelling units~ mobilehomes, etc.) 23 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS 3. Specifically describe how the property is presently used vacant, groves, single family residences, etc.) VACANT \ 4. Population within the area at the present time? ~ (e.g., 5. Number of registered voters within the boundaries? 6. Expected change in population which will result from this proposal? ~O 7. Area assessed value? Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries by Assessor's Parcel Number 919-340-003 Ce 9. Current zoning? R-A-~ DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN: (attach additional sheets where necessary) Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. (Note: Refer to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.): V.T.T. NO. 21820 IS A SUBDIVISION IN THE TEMECULA ZONING AREA PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE 20.77 ACRES INTO 23 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 21,780 SQUARE FEET. Outline the full range of services which will be extended to the property as a result of this proposal, and the cost of these services to the landowner and/or future residents. ONE STREET LIGHT If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). Al.o. ~tt~ch ~treet lighting ]~yo,,t prepared bY the re-~pon~ihle p,,hliC Utility. ~na ~pproved bY the County Traffic F. ngineer. ONE STREET LIGHT INTENSITY: 1-8,000 LPSV 4. ~If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level of service to be provided· STREET LIGHT ~/~NEXATION ONLY PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up the area? ONE total ownership of the project How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project 3. How many~landowners are in favor of the project? (attach letters of consent from landowners) ONE 4. How many landowners are not in favor of the project? NONE NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and address of people to whom notices and communications should be directed. NAME: CSABA F. KO / MESA HOMES ADDI~ESS: 28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE. SUITE 100 NAME: CYNTHIA G. ZklD / MESA HOMES ADDRESS: 28765' SINGLE OAK DRIVE, SUITE 100 TELEPHONE: 714-67~-7290 CITY & ZIP: TEMEC~.A. 92390 TELEPHONE: 7 14-676-7290 CITY & ZIP:TEMECLn.A. 92390 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE= C TYPED OR PRINTED NAME= _ a .G. Zaid TITLE: Project Coordinator DATE| June 6, 1990 ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 250 Temecula, California 92390 June 15, 1990 JN 24903-M3 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. TO TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being all of Tract No. 21820 as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 219, Pages 46 through 53 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the most westerly corner of said Tract No. 21820, being a point in the centerline of Via Norte; thence along the boundary line of said Tract No. 21820 through the following courses: North 76°35'26'' East 33.00 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of 35.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears North 76°35'26" East; thence along said curve southeasterly 53.99 feet through a central angle of 88°22'48" to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave southerly and having a radius of 2444.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 11°47'22" East; thence along said curve easterly 992.74 feet through a central angle of 23°16'24"; thence tangent from said curve South 78°30'58'' East 281.20 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 1156.00 feet; thence along said curve easterly 209.08 feet through a central angle of 10°21'46'' to the northeasterly line of the Rancho Temecula; thence along said northeasterly line South 47°41'03'' East 304.79 feet; thence South 16°20'55'' West 196.08 feet; thence South 24°25'07'' West 102.61 feet; Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates Annexation No. To Temecula Community Service District June 15, 1990 JN 24903-M3 Page 2 of 2 thence North 60°09 36" West 103.51 feet; thence South 72°18 11" West 191.99 feet; thence South 52°44 42" West 438.90 feet; thence North 16°01 44" West 333.08 feet; thence North 80°21 35" West 117.00 feet; thence South 79°55 42" West 396.07 feet; thence South 65°34 57" West 138.62 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve in said centerline of Via Norte concave southwesterly and having a radius of 750.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 65°34'57" West; thence along said centerline, continuing along said boundary line through the following courses: along said curve northwesterly 178.48 feet through a central angle of 13°38'05"; thence tangent from said curve North 38°03'08'' West 171.64 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of 450.00 feet; thence along said curve northwesterly 193.54 feet through a central angle of 24°38'34"; thence tangent from said curve North 13°24'34'' West 185.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 21.33 Acres, more or less. Exhibit "A-I" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. * Exp. 12-31 0 k' ~ Delson D. Brokaw L.S. 4859 PREPARED UND6~ THE.....-, ;L"t.:' ;"' ".: ._'i ROAD ~ ~e. :'~';"L "':~':':" ~' : ""' ~" ~;'~' ":"""::' . ~ \ ,.,,.~-',' "'i?.-.:-~ __~ ,,,.,~../ /{~~ ,QY n 2 I ( 7 EXP. 6-30-g~. % , "" 290 ~). 5 4 7 2,.9~ z~_.5'. 0,] //- ,]5 090 \ ,--~S~¢~~ " VIA NORrE EXHIBIT ".A-I" TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION VIOlAll TY MAP 3NEEF I OF Z SHEET5 ~obe~l c'Bei~,cFtilliam c'F~bst ~2~c~ssociat~s PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS 28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE · SUITE 250 · RANCHO CALIFORNIA. CA 92390 (TI4) 676-8042 · FAX (714) 676-7240 DATE L/L/NE i 5, !~ ~ o SCALE I "= ODD' FIELD BOOK JOB NO 84003 TABLE OF COURSES OQ /'X '13'38'05' N38'03'08'W A-24'38'34' QQ NI3'24'34"W N76'35'26'E ()A-88'22'48' A-23'16'24' ee S78'30'58'E A-10'2{146' ()e S47'4 03'E S16'20'55'W e e s24,25,07-~ N60'og'36'w e e s72-18,11-w S52'44'42"~ e e NI6' N80'2 '35'W e e S79'55'42'W S65'34'57'W R' 750.00' L' 178.48' 1?1.64' R' 450.00' L' 193.54' 185.59' 33.00' (RADIAL) R- 35.00' L- 53.99' R-2444.00' L- 992-74' 281-20' R-Ii56-00' L- 209.08' 304.79' 196.08' 102.61 ' 103-51 ' 191.99' 438.90' 333.08' 117.00' 396.07' 138-62' (RADIAL)) EXHIBIT ".A'l" TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION A AIMEXA T/ON NO. TO TEM ECU/ A COMIWUHITY SER VICE D I d TR IC r TRACT NO. ZlBZO DArE SCALE JUNE 15~ SHEEr 8 OF E SHEET5 ~.obcrt cBcir~ , clYjlliam ~'Frbst ~2i~ c.~ssocjatcs PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. PLANNERS & SURVEYORS 28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE · SUITE 250 · RANCHO CALIFORNia. CA 92390 (714) 676-8042 · FAX (714) 676-7240 FIELD BOOK JOB NO d 4.~D3 ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 250 Temecula, California 92390 June 15, 1990 JN 24903-M3 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION NO. TO TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being all of Tract No. 21820 as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 219, Pages 46 through 53 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BESINNING at the most westerly corner of said Tract No. 21820, being apoint in the centerline of Via Norte; thence along the boundary line of said Tract No. 21820 through the following courses: North 76°35'26'' East 33.00 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of 35.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears North 76°35'26'' East; thence along said curve southeasterly 53.99 feet through a central angle of 88°22'48'' to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave southerly and having a radius of 2444.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 11°47'22'' East; thence along said curve easterly 992.74 feet through a central angle of 23°16'24"; thence tangent from said curve South 78'30'58" East 281.20 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 1156.00 feet; thence along said curve easterly 209.08 feet through a central angle of 10°21'46" to the northeasterly line of the Ranc~o Temecula; thence along said northeasterly line South 47°41'03'' East 304.79 feet; thence South 16°20'55'' West 196.08 feet; thence South 24°25'07'' West 102.61 feet; Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates Annexation No. To Temecula Community Service District June 15, 1990 JN 24903-M3 Page 2 of 2 thence North 60°09 36" West 103.51 feet; thence South 72°18 11" West 191.99 feet; thence South 52°44 42" West 438.90 feet; thence North 16°01 44" West 333.08 feet; thence North 80°21 35" West 117.00 feet; thence South 79°55 42" West 396.07 feet; thence South 65°34 57" West 138.62 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve in said centerline of Via Norte concave southwesterly and having a radius of 750.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 65'34'57" West; thence along said centerline, continuing along said boundary line through the following courses: along said curve northwesterly 178.48 feet through a central angle of 13°38'05"; thence tangent from said curve North 38°03'08'' West 171.64 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northeasterly and having a radius of 450.00 feet; thence along said curve northwesterly 193.54 feet through a central angle of 24°38'34"; thence tangent from said curve North 13°24'34'' West 185.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 21.33 Acres, more or less. Exhibit "A-I" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. L.S, 4859 Exp, 9-30*92 Delson D. Brokaw L.S. 4859 2P9 ~P'/_6'. ~5t / I- 35 \ EXHIBIT "/1'1" TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION ANNEXAT/O~/ NO, SgRV/Cg D/,ST'R/CT TIeACT NO ~l, eEO V/C/N/TY MAP NO F TD SC,4 L g SHEET I DF 2 ,SHEET5 Robert cBcirL, q~lliam cFrost a~e/qssociates PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS & SURVEYORS 28765 SINGLE OAK DRIVE · SUITE 250 · RANCHO CAL FORN A, CA 92390 (714) 676-8042 · FAX (714) 676-7240 DATE dUNE 15, 19.90 SCALE I "= 2DO' FIELD BOOK JOB NO 84~03