Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091890 CC AgendaCALL TO ORDER: Invocation Flag Salute ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER SEPTEMBER 18, 1990- 7:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 90-16 Resolution: No. 90-98 Pastor Roger Sowder Oak Springs Presbyterian Councilmember Moore Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks Proclamation - Certificates of Appreciation - City Seal Committee PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour 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. 2/aglndl/O612~O 1 09/131~0 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance Adol3tion Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Approve the minutes of August 14, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of August 21, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of August 28, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of August 31, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of September 4, 1990 as mailed. 3 Resolution AI)proving Payment of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 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. 21lglnddO812CO 2 OIl13/90 4 5 6 7 Second Reading of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement - Rancho Core Associates RECOMMENDrATION: 4.1 Read by title only and approve an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPRO VING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-01 Application for ABC License - Harold's Restaurant Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for restaurant located at 29000 "A" Front Street RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and file. Plot Plan No. 86 East side of La Serena way, north of General Kearney Road RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve Plot Plan No. 86. Parcel Mao No. 19587 Southwest of Jefferson Avenue, north of Murrieta Creek RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Receive and file. 21egende/Oe 1290 3 09113/90 8 Plot Plan No. 11604 Southeast comer of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Receive and file. 9 Tentative Parcel Mao No. 26036 On the west side of Enterprise Circle West, near the terminus of Rider Way RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Receive and file. 10 Tentative Tract MaD No. 23990 Generally between La Serena Way and Margarita Road; on south side of Via La Vida RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Receive and file. 11 12 Final Tract MaD Nos. 22916-1. -2. -3 and F Located along the north side of Pauba Road between Kaiser Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Final Tract Map Nos. 22916-1, -2, -3 and Final, subject to the conditions of approval, as amended. Final Tract MaD No. 23101-2 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve Final Tract Map No. 23101-2, subject to the conditions of approval. 2/~mdNOe 12SO 4 Oell 3~0 13 Public Document- City's Annual Operating Budget FY 1990-91 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Receive and file. 14 City Treasurer's Reoort for the Month Ending July 31, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Receive and file. CSD MEETING - (To be held at 8:00 PM) Please see separaM agenda COUNCIL BUSINESS 15 City Seal Selection RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Approve selection of Official City Flower. Approve recommendation for City Slogan. Select (by ballot) an Official City Seal (Logo). Direct staff to have camera ready art prepared for future use as appropriate. 16 Designation of Votino Delegate for League of California Cities Annual Conference RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Appoint a voting delegate and an alternate to represent the City at the Annual League of California Cities Business Session. 2/ageride/0812i0 IS Oil13/90 17 18 19 Acquisition of Park Lands 3 acres south-of Meadowview, north of La Serena Way (Bedford Properties) RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Direct staff to pursue acquisition of property offered by Bedford Properties. or 17.2 Decline offer of dedication of land. Scheduling of Meetings and Study Sessions RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Direct staff regarding scheduling future meetings. Building and Safety and Community Services Deoartment Positions RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES 19.2 Authorize the City Manager to fill Building and Safety and Community Services Department positions as recommended in the staff report. 20 Schedule Swearing In Ceremonies for Commissions RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Direct staff to schedule ceremony to swear in members of the Parks and Recreation, Traffic and Public Safety Commissions. 2/agerddOe 1290 6 09/13190 21 Lease of City Hall Office SI;)ace at 43172 Business Park Drive RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 Approve recommendations as contained in the staff report. 22 Riverside County Chaoter of the League of California Cities RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Authorize the Mayor to advise the League of California Cities that the City of Temecula favors the creation of a Riverside County Chapter of the League of California Cities. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: Traffic Commission Interviews, September 24, 1990, 7:00 PM, City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Next regular meeting: September 25, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California 2/egende/061290 7 09114/90 ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD AUGUST 14, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:01 PM at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor T. J. Mercer, Rancho Community Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Parks proclaimed October 21-28, 1990 "Red Ribbon Week". Mayor Parks proclaimed October 1990, as Energy Awareness Month in Temecula. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Keller, 39695 Creative Drive, asked the following questions: Will the City prepare a status of the City report, and if so when will this occur? A status report on the parks is reported to be forthcoming· When will this be completed ? Why are two Assistant City Manager's needed? What can be done to increase tourism in this community? 4%Minutes\081490 -1 - 08/31/90 City Council Meetinq Auqust 14, 1990 ® Is it possible to use one of the old theaters in the community to create a community theater? If development fees were not collected from the County, is it possible to receive land in lieu of money? With the increasing number of claims against the City, what is being done to alleviate these problems? 8. Why are positions on City committees not open to a broader base of citizens? Ray McLaughlin, 30025 Front Street, asked the status of Parcel Map No. 23371-10, which is affecting the residents of La Serena Way. He stated he learned this map has not received final City approval, and was approved by the County in 1981. He stated many items were approved before Temecula experienced major changes in traffic and the environmental impact that were not anticipated in 1981 and asked Council to address these problems when it comes before Council for final approval. He also pointed out that this project has been conditioned to make a cash contribution to the Road Department for the purpose of widening Rancho California Road overcrossing. Councilmember Mu~oz objected to an article in the Press Enterprise stating Councilmember Moore, Councilmember Lindemans and Councilmember Mu~oz violated the Brown Act. He stated they attended a bus tour and no City business was conducted. He further explained that the press accompanied the three councilmembers on this bus tour and were given 24 hour notice prior to the tour. CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Dixon requested the removal of Item No. 18 from the consent calendar to be continued to the meeting of August 28, 1990. Mayor Parks requested the removal of Item No. 15. Councilmember Lindemans requested the removal of Item No. 8 and Councilmember Mu~oz requested the removal of Items No. 14 and 17. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 1-7, 9-13 and 16 as follows: 1. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Ni nut.s\8\14\90 -2- 08/31/90 City Council Minutes AuGust 14, 1990 e Minutes 2.1 2.2 2.3 Approve the minutes of July 24, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of July 30, 1990 as mailed. Approve the minutes of July 31, 1990 as mailed. Resolution Suj~J~orting the Relocation of the S~3ace Systems Division From Los Angeles Air Force Base to March Air Force Base. 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE RELOCATION OF THE SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION FROM LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE TO MARCH AIR FORCE BASE. Claim for Damages - David Cuevas (a minor) 4.1 Deny the claim for damages. Claim for Damages - Mayra Cuevas (a minor) 5.1 Deny the claim for damages. Claim for Damages - Marquez vs. Citv of Temecula 6.1 Deny the claim for damages. Claim for Damages - Paul M. Stuart and Nicholas Stuart (a minor) 7.1 Deny the claim for damages Aj~peal No. 5 for Plot Plan No. 11756 9.1 Uphold the Appellant's appeal and approve Plot Plan No. 11756. nut es \8\ 14 \90 - 3 - 08/31 /90 City Council Minutes August 14, 1990 10. Resolution to Revise Method to Prepav Demand Payment Less Than ~ 1,000 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR PREPA YMENT OF DEMANDS. 11. 12. 13. Resolution ApzTroving Payment of Demands 11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALL OWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. Animal Control Agreement 12.1 Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the County of Riverside to provide Animal Control Services in the City of Temecula for one year. Three- Year Cooperation Agreements Urban County Qualification 1991-1993 13.1 Authorize the City Manager to enter into a cooperative agreement with the County of Riverside to participate in the Urban County Program. 14 i nut es \8\ 1/, \~0 - 4 - 08/] 1 /~0 City Council Minutes August 14, 1990 16. Public Use Permit No. 675 16.1 Receive and File. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks Moore, NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Resolution Establishing the City's AmTro~3riation Limit for Fiscal Year 1990-91 Councilmember Lindemans asked if the decision of LAFCO establishing the Gann Limit should be appealed by the Council rather than staff trying to have it amended. He stated Murrieta has a far greater spending limit based on a LAFCO determination one year later. Mary Jane Henry stated she is in the process of appealing the $8 1/2 million spending limit, set by LAFCO. She explained John McTighe is putting together a report that will determine what the Gann Limit should be. She said the City Attorney has recommended the City adopt a temporary Gann Limit which can be revised once the appeal process is completed. City Attorney Fields reported that the procedure will be as follows: Mr. McTighe is doing a study to determine what the appropriate Gann Limit should be, when this study is complete it will be brought to the City Council. The City Council will then conduct a public hearing and consider that report. If adopted a validation action will be brought to get a court approval of more appropriate limit. Once that process is complete, the City will have a new Gann Limit. Mary Jane Henry said a temporary Gann Limitation should be in compliance with the State Code at this time. Councilmember Lindemans asked that the word "temporary" be added to the Resolution. City Manager Dixon explained the appeal of the Gann Limit is a two or three step process. The City needs to raise the limits based on what the law will allow. The City has asked the County not only to review the way the Gann limit was set, but also how the tax rate was set. He reported a response has Ninutes\8\l~\~O -5- 08131190 City Council Minutes August 140 1990 14. not been receLved. Mr. McTighe's report will be brought before Council and a public hearing will take place. After the public hearing a court validation will be sought. He explained that tonight only step one is proposed. Councilmember Lindemans moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 90-85 with the addition of the word "temporary" in the title and body of the resolution. The resolution is entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 1990- 91. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Cable Television Consulting Services Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the $15,000 for consulting services is to be retrieved by the City through the fee process. Secondly, should this have gone through a bidding process before selecting TMC? Joe Hreha, Manager if Information Services, stated the $15,000 is to appropriate funds not included in the budget. The money is to be reimbursed from the Cable TV companies who apply for an application, and enter into a negotiation agreement. He replied two consultants recommended by the League of California Cities were contacted for proposals. TMC worked with the company currently applying and staff felt they were in the best position to evaluate the application and do the franchise agreement. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the fee collected added revenue to the City or if the fee only covers the consulting fee. Mr. Hreha stated it covers the consultants fees, City Attorney fees and processing fees. He explained that when negotiations are entered into, a $4,200 non-refundable fee is collected. N i nut es\8\ 1/,\90 - 6- 08/31/90 City Council Minutes Auqust 14, 1990 Mayor Parks asked how this fee compares with the County franchise fee. Mr. Hreha explained the City fee is higher because the Cable TV Ordinance is much more complex and requires a greater amount of time and work to administer. Councilmember Lindemans asked if a second company is granted a franchise to operate, would it be advantageous to move quickly so City streets are not opened again. Mr. Hreha answered that a paragraph is included in the ordinance which states all development must have capability to support two lines so streets will not need to be reopened. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISES Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROPRIATING ~15,000 FOR CABLE TELEVISION CONSULTING SERVICES The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, NOES: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 15. First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 232 11 Gary Martin, 30601 Cabrillo Avenue, representing Marstan Homes, requested City Council receive and file this tentative map since the County of Riverside's Planning Commission has already heard this request. He stated he would like to correct a few errors in the staff report. The application of extension was first filed October 19, 1989. He brought to the Council's attention that in January, 1990 a project was approved for 220 units next to this project that Ninutes\8\l~\~) -7- 08/]1/~0 City Council Minutes August 14, 1990 17. was not a vested map. He said this project is a vested map and already in existence. He said grading and loss of natural ridgeline has been approved by the Council for the adjacent project and a less dense project is currently being proposed for the site. Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Mu~oz seconded a motion to set this item for public hearing on August 28, 1990. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Rabies Vaccination Clinic and Do9 Licensin9 Program Councilmember Mu~oz asked how the veterinarian for this program was selected. Joe Hreha stated this is part of the County of Riverside's Animal Control Agreement. He said the County is required to provide this service to the City of Temecula as part of the agreement. Emmet Gibson, the Animal Control Officer headed up this program and he contacted Doctor Daniel Pearson who volunteered to provide this service. Mayor Parks asked that staff contact the other veterinarians in the City and give them an opportunity to participate in this program. City Manager Dixon stated staff will be sure that Mr. Gibson has called all the veterinarians in the City to give them all the same opportunity to be involved. Councilmember Mufloz asked that other veterinarians expressing an interest be placed on a list and rotated the next year. Ninutes\8\lZ,\~O -8- 08/31/~0 City Council Minutes Auqust 14, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve the City co-sponsoring the vaccination clinic and licensing program. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Manager Dixon requested adding Item No. 24 to the agenda. He explained it is a matter that came to staff's attention after the agenda was prepared. It has to do with participating in the RTA Joint Powers Agreement and requires a 4/5ths vote. RTA meets on August 23, 1990 and Council will not meet again before that date which makes action necessary at this time. Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to add Item No. 24 to the agenda based upon subsequent need. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING 19. Tentative Tract 2 1067, Revised- Third Extension of 77me Gary Thornhill, Chief Planner, stated this is a request by Kingsway Construction for a third extension of time to record the final map for Tract 21067. The project is a 104-1ot single family subdivision with 17.7 acres of open space, located along the northerly side of Pala Road south of State Route 79. The applicant has requested an extension of time is to allow for the review of flood control and drainage plan issues. The concern of staff over the required bridge and street improvements, have prompted addition of a condition, requiring the applicant to submit a focused traffic study to address the project's impact on the existing alignment of Pala Road and Route 79. In addition the report would H i nut es\8\ 14\~0 - 9- 08/31/~0 City Council Minutes Auqust 14, 1990 also look at a--fair share contribution of the cost of making those street and bridge improvements. He recommended Council grant the third extension of time for this project with the addition of the condition found on page five of the staff report. Councilmember Lindemans stated that according to the staff report 82% of the cost for widening the bridge is available through federal funding. He said this 82% needs to be secured and the bridge widened prior to adding more traffic to the problem area. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:50 PM. Marilyn Carney, 3838 Camino Del Rio, Suite 390, San Diego, representing Kingsway Construction Corporation, addressed the issue of Pala Road. She stated this project is part of Assessment District 159 and this district does not include money for bridges. She stated the developer will pay the fair share and requested that this be extended for the third time. Mayor Parks asked if she is in agreement with staff recommended changes. She stated the developer is in agreement. Councilmember Mu~oz asked for pictures of what the development will look like. He asked what the 17 acres of open space would look like. Ms. Carney introduced George Musser, Project Engineer, 2698 Mataro St., Pasadena, to answer further questions. Mr. Musser stated the open space is in the flood plain of Temecula Creek. He said this will remain open with no improvements at this time so if flood control improvements are needed, the land will be available. He also said this area will serve as a wildlife preserve. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if there is an area set aside for a neighborhood park? Mr. Musser answered this project has already been revised substantially and lots reduced to make land available for flood control. Mayor Parks declared a one minute break at 8:00 PM to change the tape. The meeting was resumed at 8:01 PM. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he felt staff should take advantage of the Quimby Act and set aside land for parks. Mayor Parks asked if this map falls within the Quimby Act designation? 14 i nutes\8\ 14\~0 - 10- 08/:~ 1/90 City Council Minutes August 14, 1990 City Attorney-Field stated this map came through the County prior to the adoption of the Quimby Act and unless the Council conditions this project tonight, it would not be subject to the current Quimby Ordinance. Mayor Parks asked the applicant if they would object to paying Quimby Fees, according to the current standard ordinance? Ms. Carney stated she would like to discuss the issue with the owners before an giving a final answer. Councilmember Lindemans asked if this could be moved off calendar for two weeks to add Quimby Fees and to the conditions of approval and asked that staff provide clearer information on whether the City has a working Quimby Act. Mayor Parks stated this Council wants to provide parks and maps are not going to be approved without the Quimby Act provisions being made a part of the conditions of approval. Ms. Carney stated she needed two weeks to discuss this matter and work out the details. Councilmember Birdsall said Council needs to make it clear that anything that comes before them must will be conditioned to include Quimby Act Provisions. This would make it clear to all applicants so it would not be necessary to continually send things back. City Manager Dixon stated that there are certain discretionary acts that the Council has. One is extension of time. Because it is a discretionary act, the Council has the ability to add conditions. If the applicant does not agree, a extension of time does not have to be approved. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue the public hearing for two weeks to allow staff to add the Quimby condition. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None H i nut es\8\ 1 ~,\~0 - 11 - 08/31/90 City Council Minutes August 14, 1990 RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:24 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 PM following the CSD Meeting. COUNCIL BUSINESS 20. Organizational Structure and Salary Range for Job Classifications City Manager Dixon reported this item has three issues that Council is asked to consider. Restructuring of the organization. Job descriptions that have not been approved. 3. A proposed salary range for those new positions. He explained that over the past 30 days he has given a great deal of thought to how best to serve this community and structure the organization to be responsive· He explained these changes are non-traditional, but structured so that all parts of the organization can be coordinated collectively. Whether the director of the grouping is called Director of Developmental Services or Assistant City Manager, is not important· The key factor is the functions being accomplished. He explained that the plan before Council tonight would split the organization in half; one for administrative support and one operations as it deals with developmental services· Number two, he explained there are a list of positions which the Council has not yet adopted. He said four or five positions need specific attention tonight, so that on-going recruitment may continue. Mayor Parks stated he would like to see this issue continued to a workshop meeting so that we can compare what is before the Council tonight to what has been previously approved. City Manager Dixon stated four positions need to be approved tonight so that these appointments can be made. Councilmember Birdsall said she agreed with the idea of the workshop. She asked for an overall picture of the entire structure for a basis of comparison. M i nutes\8\l 4\~0 - 12 - 08/:$1 RO City Council Minutes August 14, 1990 Mayor Parks called a-one minute break to change the tape at 9:15 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 9:16 PM. City Manager Dixon stated the intent was not to change positions approved by the Council, it is more in terms of functions and the grouping of these functions, with the latitude of adjusting positions within those functions. The intent is not to spend more but to spend less. Councilmember Birdsall asked which positions need to be approved tonight. City Manager Dixon said Chief Accountant, Director of Building and Safety, Director of Community Services and Senior Accountant are positions included in the 1990-91 budget but they have not had an approved title and salary range. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he felt salaries are too high, compared to other cities. He said he did not feel the City needs to pay these kinds of salaries to get good people. He said the City needs to be more in line with the private sector salary-wise. He suggested hiring people who as responsibilities increased, could grow into their jobs, and suggested that the community of Temecula is a big draw for quality employees. City Manager Dixon explained that the proposed changes in the budget would decrease total appropriations not increase them. He stated that the City must be competitive to recruit and retain quality people. He said the City needs qualified journeymen in Planning and Building and Safety to get this City up and running in the manner which the citizens and Council desires. He stated these are not positions where people should learn on the job. Councilmember Mu~oz stated that if a wide range of people are interviewed, qualified people can be found without overspending on salaries. He requested using the median range of salaries, subject to adjustment when the Council has it's study session. Mr. Dixon reported that he would have to re-recruit the positions of Building and Safety Official and Director of Community Services. He explained the City has gone through a 45-day recruitment and selected the top applicants. He said the City has interviewed nine people and ranked the top three. Councilmember Mu~oz said he felt these ranges need to be set lower and people should progress up through ranges accordingly. Minutes\8\l/,\~0 - 13- 08/31/90 ' City Council Minutes Auqust 14, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall asked if hiring is based on a scale according to experience. She said Council is not instructing Mr. Dixon to hire at the minimum of a job range, he is able to hire within a range. Councilmember Lindemans moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to authorize the City Manager to hire four positions (Chief Accountant, Director of Building and Safety, Director of Community Services and Senior Accountant) at a salary as close to the minimum recommended ranges as possible. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue the item to a study session to consider the remainder of the policies at the earliest convenient date. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None N i nut es\8\ 14\~0 - 14 - 08/31/~0 City Council Minutes Auqust 140 1990 21. Change of Zone No. Gary Thornhill, Chief Planner, stated this Zone Change was approved at a public hearing on June 6, 1990, The ordinance was not introduced at that time. Staff recommended to read by title only and introduce the ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION NO. 5~.~. ~, 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. Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 22. Development A~Zreement Procedures City Attorney Field reported that State Law requires the City Council adopt procedures for considering development agreements. The resolution before Council would adopt such procedures. He said the City has an application from Johnson and Johnson for a development agreement, and has scheduled a public hearing on this matter for August 28, 1990. N i nut es\8\ 1/, \90 - 15 ~ 08/31/~0 City Council Minutes AuGust 14, 1990 23. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Flood Control Agreement for Mesa Homes; Tracts 24131, 24132, 24133, 24134 and 24135, Located North of Margarita and East of Paba Road Councilmember Lindemans moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation as follows: 23.1 Approve the Flood Control Agreement between Mesa Homes, the Riverside County Flood Control District and the City of Temecula. 23.2 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding between Mesa Homes and the City of Temecula. 23.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the same. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: nut es \8\ 1A \90 - 16 - 08/) 1/90 City Council Minutes August 14, 1990 24. Riverside Transit Joint Powers Agreement City Manager Dixon reported at the Council Meeting of June 12, 1990, the Council appointed Councilmember Mu~oz to serve as a representative to the RTA. The RTA has informed us that the City needs to enter into an agreement to participate in the Joint Powers Agreement in order to have our representative seated. The next scheduled meeting is August 23, 1990, therefore this action needs to take place tonight. He recommended entering into the Joint Powers Agreement with RTA, appoint Councilmember Mu~oz and appoint an alternate member to that board. Councilmember Moore asked if the alternate needs to be a Councilmember. City Manager Dixon said this person needs to speak for the policy of the Council. Councilmember Lindemans suggested appointing the Mayor as alternate to be replaced when an alternate is chosen. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve staff recommendation and appoint Mayor Ron Parks as alternate member as follows: 24.1 Enter into the Joint Powers Agreement of the Riverside Transit Agency. 24.2 Appoint a member of the Riverside Transit Agency Board. 24.3 Appoint an alternate member of the Board. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Mu~oz seconded a motion to extend the meeting for 15 minutes to 10:15 PM. Ninutes\8\ll,\qO - 17- 08/]1/~0 City Council Minutes August 14, 1990 CITY MANAGER RETORTS City Manager Dixon spoke in answer to questions raised by Pat Keller. He said a report will be coming soon regarding the status of parks and also the status of funding with the County. Tourism is important to this community, and Old Town needs to be looked at. Arts and Culture are also important and he suggested talking about establishing various committees. Mr. Dixon also said that 10 days ago the press came out with a report he was running for Council in Moreno Valley. He stated that this is incorrect and that papers were never filed. He said his commitment is to this community, not short term but long term. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Moore requested staff distribute materials to the Council which she will make available on the downtown renewal program being undertaken in Lake Elsinore. Councilmember Birdsall requested the matter of securing a police dog for the Temecula Police Department be placed on the next agenda. Councilmember Mu~oz asked staff to report on the timing of the left turn pocket on Rancho California Road in front of the Woodcreek Apartments. He also requested that the City take steps to assure that all intersections are kept open during peak days and times when construction is taking place. Councilmember Lindemans asked that the matter of funding for the Temecula High School Marching Band banner be placed on the agenda. He also requested that staff provide the Council with copies of the minutes of all commission and committee meetings. Mayor Parks asked that a weekly status report be generated to keep Council informed on all projects in progress. He also requested an update on the status of the Sphere of Influence study and the radio tower move. N i nutes\8\ 14 \~0 - 18- 08/31 City Council Minutes Auqust 14, 1990 ADJOURNMENT - It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 10:20 PM to a study session on August 21, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA. The motion was unanimously carried. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATFEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk nut es\8\ 1/,\~0 - 19 - 08/31/~) MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD AUGUST 21, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:02 PM in the Temecula Community Center, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, Birdsall, Moore, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Mu~oz. PUBLIC COMMENTS Edward Doran, 39985 Stamos Court, Temecula, addressed the Council regarding the salary ranges for job classifications within the City. He questioned if job descriptions are available for the proposed positions and stated it is his feeling that positions in the City of Temecula should be given to residents of the City. He also stated that the City Council should limit the salary levels to be equivalent with similar positions in the private sector in the City. He also requested information of the status of park development and said the City should adopt a business plan. There being no further public comment, Mayor Parks opened the meeting and announced that this will be a study session and no official actions will be taken. Recommended Structure and Salary Ranges for Job Classifications City Manager David Dixon presented a staff report describing a structure he recommends for organizing the City· He discussed the traditional approach to City organization and the structure he hopes to implement. Mr. Dixon outlined the various functions to be included in two major divisions; Development Services and Administrative Support. He also explained that the Public Safety portion of the organization including Police, Fire and Animal Control will fall into a separate category called Contract Services. Minutes\8\21 \90 - 1 - 08/27/90 City Council Minutes Auoust 21, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall requested that the organizational charts used by the City indicate the positions which have been filled, and the names of the employees who are currently in these positions. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the salary ranges suggested in the report are open for discussion during this study session. City Manager Dixon responded that he would like to confirm that the salaries for various classifications are comparable with community standards before he addresses this matter with the Council. Mayor Parks questioned timing for bringing the two proposed Assistant City Manager/Division Directors on board. Mr. Dixon answered that gaining approval of the structure is more important than filling the positions immediately. He indicated, in his opinion, Departmental Services will need to be on-line in six to eight months. He advised Council that he is most interested in having the organization defined, to allow him to proceed in an orderly fashion. Councilmember Mu~oz stated that he is not comfortable with limiting the span of control to only two divisions and/or division heads. He said that the attitude of the organization is the responsibility of the City Manager and shouldn't be relegated to assistants. He also said controlling salaries should be given a much higher priority. Councilmember Moore commented that she finds the concept outlined by the City Manager very exciting. She said she feels the City Manager needs to be given the support of a day-to-day operations manager to free him to address the multiple priorities identified by the City Council as having immediate need. Councilmember Birdsall asked that the City look into getting some salary comparisons from the Temecula industrial/commercial community. She cited Advanced Cardiovascular Systems as being one example for comparison. 2. Designation of the Congestion Management Plan City Manager Dixon reported on the request for City participation in the Congestion Management Plan and explained that Assembly Bill 471, with the passage of Proposition 111, mandates such a plan be in place and be updated annually in every County. He recommended that the City designate the Riverside County Transportation Commission to prepare and coordinate the program within the County of Riverside. Minutes\8\21 \90 -2- 08/27/90 City Council Minutes August 21, 1990 Mayor Parks said he feels it is important that Measure A funds be tracked for the City of TeEnecula and said he would like to have the City represented on the RCTC. He asked that the matter be placed on the next regular agenda. Councilmember Birdsall asked that the matter of the City's requesting representation on the RCTC also be placed on that agenda. Consideration of Proclamation - Michael Chainpine City Manger Dixon advised that the request for proclamation submitted was an example of requests coming in to the City on a regular basis. He asked that the Council give staff some guidance on to how to address these requests for proclamations and presentations. Councilmember Birdsall said she would like to be assured that all special volunteers are recognized in some way by the City. She recommended that each member of the Council compile a list of the various types of services they feel are deserving of public recognition at a meeting and those that can be handled administratively by the staff. Councilmember Moore recommended that requests of this type be judged by the criteria of "scope and impact". Councilmember Birdsall asked that if staff prepares presentations which are not to be made at a Council meeting, an attempt be made to have the presentations made by a member of the Council. Consideration of Matching Funds for TVHS Band Banner Soonsorshil;) of Mrs. Temecula in the California/America Pageant Mayor Parks asked that these two items be considered out of order and together since they basically deal with the same question, the matter of requests for funds in addition to requests received during the budget hearings. Councilmember Moore said the community has traditionally supported this kind of requests through the various service organizations. She indicated that in her view, during the formative period of the City, the Council should take a very conservative approach to making donations. Minutee\8\21 \90 -3- 08/27/90 City Council Minutes August 21, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall asked that some policy guidelines be established to define what t~/pe of requests would qualify for City funding. Mayor Parks said guidelines should include a determination of how the funding will benefit the City in the form of publicity and enhanced community recognition. Councilmember Mu~oz agreed that the scope of the request needs to be a major factor in making decisions on funding. Staff was directed to place these requests on the agenda for the first regular meeting in September. RECESS Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:20 PM, the meeting was reconvened at 8:32 PM. Donation of Land for Park Use City Manager Dixon said he would like to recommend that the City accept all donations of land offered. He also recommended that the City encourage donations in the form of improvements and developmental services for parks. Mayor Parks said he is concerned about accepting land in areas such as the flood plain. He recommended that the Council set policies for what will be acceptable and place this matter on a future agenda. Councilmember Moore recommended that the condition the land is in should also be looked at prior to acceptance. She gave the example that land requiring extensive work to insure safe use could in fact be a liability to the City. Councilmember Mu~oz said he would like the matter of the donation of land from Richmond American Homes (west of Pala Road) on the agenda of September 18th. Minutes\8\21 \90 -4- O8/27/90 City Council Minutes Auoust 21, 1990 Status of City of Temecula Logo Councilmember Birdsall gave a status report on the committee selection to review the logo for the City. She said it is her intention to have the committee meet on August 29, 1990 and to have a recommendation for Council action by September 18, 1990. Mayor Parks said he would like the Committee to look at the proposal received from Ken Dodd to design a "camera ready" logo for $850. Councilmember Birdsall requested that the City Manager authorize the City Clerk to provide staff support for this committee. Future Goal Setting Session City Manager Dixon advised the Council that one or two meetings need to be set up between Council and management staff of the City and that these should be planned for the near future. Mayor Parks suggested that staff look at setting these sessions up for one or two Saturdays within the next month or two. CITY MANAGER REPORTS There was no report presented. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS No report was presented. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS No reports were presented. Minutes\8\21 \90 -5- 08/27/90 City Council Minutes August 21, 1990 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 9:07 PM to a meeting to be held August 28, 1990 at 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Lindemans absent. RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Minutes\8\21 \94:) -6- 08127/90 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD AUGUST 28, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:05 PM at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Betsy Hanna, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Tim Riter, Rancho Christian Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Moore. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Dedovesh, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, recommended the City adopt the C.A.T. (Combat Auto Theft) program for the City of Temecula. Dean Hill, 27622 Jefferson, spoke in opposition to the proposed Apricot Overpass. He stated this project would take a portion of his property and would adversely affect his business. Bob Fitkin, 30660 Milkyway, suggested having a dinner/fundraiser to honor the committee responsible for the traffic control program, and the traffic controllers themselves. For entertainment at the meeting, he proposed the traffic directors tell of the experiences they have had directing traffic. Armando Malanga, 40216 Calle Medusa, directed his comments to Mayor Parks. He asked several questions regarding the project the Mayor's company is involved in at Crystal Ridge Business Park. He asked if any preferential treatment had been requested or received. 4\Minutes\082890 - 1 - 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 He also asked Mr. Dixon about promises made to residents living on Calle Medusa Road. He stated his_daughter wrote a letter to City Manager Dixon three weeks ago and has not received a response. He stated this letter was also copied to the Councilmembers and they have not responded. City Manager Dixon replied that a letter has been dictated and will be going out shortly. Nancy Barber, 29838 Corte Castille, asked if the Mayor directed the Planning Department to speed up the planning process. She asked where his loyalties really stand and asked the Council if a "Code of Ethics" has been established to govern the actions of Councilmembers. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Parks requested the removal of Item No. 11 and Item No. 17. Councilmember Lindemans requested the removal of Items 7, 8, 1 O, 19 and stated he would vote no on Item No. 14. Councilmember Moore stated she would be abstaining from Item No. 16 to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Councilmember Mu~oz requested the removal of Items 4, 15, 16 and 18. He stated he would abstain from Item No. 11 due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Birdsall stated she would abstain from Item No. 11 due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Parks said he would abstain from Item No. 11 due to a conflict of interest. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 14 of the Consent Calendar as follows: 1. Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 14 i nut es \8\28\~0 - 2- 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes 2. Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 7, 1990 as mailed. 2.2 Approve the minutes of August 9, 1990 as mailed. August 28, 1990 Cancellation of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 11, 1990 3.1 Approve the cancellation of the City Council meeting scheduled for September 11, 1990. Health Benefits Plan 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ELECTING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT. Resolution Apl3roving Payment of Demands 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Cofiier Purchase 9.1 Authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Xerox for the lease for 60 months of a Xerox 1090 copier. Hinutes\8\28\~j)0 -3- 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 12. Resolution Designating the Riverside County Transportation Commission to PrexTare the Ceuntv Congestion Management Program 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. 90-93 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 13.1 Approve contract for Cal-ld services and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance Approving Zone Change No. 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. E~.~.6, 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 The motion was carried on Consent Calendar Item No. 14 by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ninutes\8\28\~O -4' 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 The motion to approve consent calendar was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Statement of Revenues and ExzTenditures for the Month Endin9 June 30, 1990 Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the $219,073 Gas Tax revenues have been received by the City. Mary Jane Henry, Manager of Finance stated this money has been received. She explained the purpose of this item is to clean-up the entry for the year end. Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation as follows: Receive and file the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual for the Seven Months Ending June 30, 1990. Amend the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget for the City Attorney by $40,000. Amend the Fiscal Year 1989-90 budget for Public Safety by $30,000. 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. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Ninutes\8\28\~0 -5- 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Selection of Auditors Councilmember Lindemans suggested selecting an auditor that had not been previously used by the City to avoid a possible conflict of interest. City Manager Dixon recommended selecting Peat Marwick Company to serve as auditor. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve the selection Peat Marwick Company to perform the audit of the City's financial statements. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 8. Cable Television Franchises Councilmember Lindemans questioned whether the applicant, Jones Intercable is financially sound and asked whether this application should be accepted. Councilmember Moore asked City Attorney Hanna if the City is compelled to accept this application. City Attorney Hanna replied that the City is compelled to accept the application but may request a financial statement. Councilmember Mu~oz asked why Inland Valley Cablevision declined to renegotiate a contract with the City. Joe Hreha, Manager of Information Systems responded that Inland Valley Cablevision wished to see what the City's action with Jones Intercable would be before making any changes in their present contract. Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to: Receive and file Telecommunications Management Corporation's evaluation and recommendations concerning Jones Intercable's application for a City of Temecula Cable Television franchise Ninutes\8\28\~0 -6- 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28. 1990 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. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 10. Travel Policy Councilmember Lindemans said he felt the per diem amount of $50.00 per day for travel expenses, and $100.00 per day in certain specified cities is too high and suggested receipts be required for actual amounts spent. City Manager Dixon suggested leaving the dollar amounts, but changing it to a maximum amount with receipts required. Councilmember Lindemans requested substituting the words "maximum reimbursable limit" for per diem. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to approve the travel policy with a change in per diem section to require receipts up to a maximum reimbursable limit of $50 per day and $100 per day in specified cities. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ninutes\8\28\~0 -7- 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 11. Bankinq Selection for the Year Ending June 30, 1990 City Attorney Hanna stated since three councilmembers have declared a conflict of interest concerning this item, the "Rule of Necessity" would be in effect. She explained one of the members abstaining because of a conflict would vote. This councilmember will be determined by drawing straws. Mayor Parks requested postponing this item until the end of the consent calendar. Having no objections, Item No. 15 was considered next. 15. Plot Plan No. 69 - Relocation of the KRTM-FM Radio Tower Councilmember Mu~oz expressed his disappointment with how long it has taken to get this problem resolved. He asked what "move and reduce" meant in the recommend action. Gary Thornhill, Chief Planner, stated the plan is to remove the existing tower and use the top half at the new site, reducing the height to 120 feet. Councilmember Mu~oz asked what will be done about the adjacent property owner's refusal to give an easement to construct the new tower. Elliott Yurick, representing the applicant, stated the tower will be air lifted in. Mr. Yurick stated the applicant would be happy to move the tower within 60- 90 days from date of obtaining a building permit. Rich Shields, Acting Building Director stated as soon as staff receives plans, review can be completed within one week. Councilmember Mu~oz suggested adding the condition that the tower would be moved within 75 days of this date, August 28, 1990. Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 8:00 PM. Mr. Ladd Penfold, stated he is working with four different agencies and he would be happy to add a condition that the tower would be moved within 75 to 90 days from the date that building permits are obtained from the City of Temecula. Mayor Parks asked how long it will take to complete construction needed to move the tower after the permits are obtained. Mr. Penfold replied 75 days. He stated his plan is to move the tower November 1, 1990. Hinutes\8\28\90 -8- 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Councilmember Mu~oz moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to receive and file Planning Commission's approval of Plot Plan 69 with the added condition that the tower must be relocated within 75 days from the date the applicant is issued the Building Permit. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:10 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the CSD meeting at 8:35 PM. 16. Vestin~ Find Tract Ma~ No. 23371-5 Councilmember Mu~oz asked if the practice of deferring payment of fees until the Building Permit is issued is common practice. Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer stated that this is what generally occurs. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23371-5, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore N i nut es\8\28\~0 - 9 - 0~/11/~:) City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 17. Annual Soils and Material Testino Contract for Fiscal Year 1990-91 Councilmember Mu~oz asked what has changed since the City requested proposals? Doug Stewart, answered that after doing research on the methods used by other cities, certain advantages were found to exist in allowing the developer to select the soils testing firm. He said it is staff's recommendation to reject the RFP's and to adopt the criteria to establish minimum standards listed in the staff report. Mayor Parks asked where the figures listed under traffic indices and pavement depth were from. Mr. Stewart answered from other cities and the County of Riverside. Mayor Parks said this report suggests requiring a greater thickness than the Green Book, and suggested continuing this item for further review. Doug Stewart stated this can be brought back for review, but the Council should reject the RFP's tonight. Councilmember Mu~oz suggested keeping the higher standards for road thickness, stating this would prevent added maintenance costs in the future. Councilmember Lindemans said he would like to approve staff recommendation as presented. Councilmember Mu~oz suggested approving staff recommendation as it stands, and directing staff to study this issue. Councilmember Mu~oz moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to accept staff recommendation with the amendment that the matter of pavement depths will be presented to Council in 30 days for additional consideration. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Hinutes\8\28\~O -10- 0~/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28.1990 18. Plot Plan 1162 1 - Koll Business Center Councilmember Mu~oz asked if a three year approval time is standard. Thornhill, Chief Planner answered that this is standard. Gary It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve Plot Plan No. 11621. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. Design Services for CFD 88-12 Councilmember Lindemans stated Mr. Mc Laughlin showed him a County provision stating Margarita Villages would be responsible for one-third of the cost of widening the Rancho California Road bridge. City Manager Dixon replied that Council approved an agreement with Lightfoot Planning. They are currently going through all the projects that have received approval, and are doing a brief on all conditions. If there is a requirement on Maragarita Villages, in terms of the bridge, it will be noted. Councilmember Lindemans asked what the timing on this District will be and if there is any way to speed this process up? City Manager Dixon answered when the program for the corridor is reviewed, it will be in two phases the freeway improvements and the Apricot Overcrossing are planned for phase two. He stated because of the process with CalTrans, these improvements must be in phase two, however if the City can speed up the time, it will. Mayor Parks said his understanding is that "Exhibit A" is a scope of services as outlined by J. F. Davidson and Associates, and asked if this is correct. Minutes\8\28\~O -11- 0q/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, said this is correct and by approving this item, Council'is authorizing the City Manager or his designee to further refine the numbers which are not final. This action is only to approve the consultant. Councilmember Mu~oz moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to award a contract for professional design services to J. F. Davidson and Associates for the Ynez Corridor Mello-Roos District - CFD-88-12. 11. Bankin9 Selection for the Year Ending June 30, 1990 At this time using the "Rule of Necessity", lots were cast to determine which of the abstaining members of Council would vote. Mayor Parks was the recipient of the X, making it necessary for him to cast a vote but not participate in the discussion. He then relinquished the chair to Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans. Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer, reported that RFP's were sent out for banking services. The proposals of the banks were analyzed and ranked according to the criteria outlined in the staff report. Councilmember Lindemans asked how the points on account structure and the ability to obtain requested information were derived in the case of Overland Bank. Ms. Henry answered that she reviewed the proposal with Kevin Jewelson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at Overland Bank. She requested a zero balance arrangement, instead of the manual transfer method. Councilmember Moore stated she felt staff did a thorough job of investigating all possibilities. Allan McDonald, 43466 Manzano Drive, President and Chief Executive Officer of Overland Bank, stated that the analysis performed by the Finance Director was exemplary. He said that last year when the City was formed, it sought proposals to provide banking services. He said Overland provided a package for the City to assist in the start-up. He said the original proposal included loan services as well as deposit services, and Overland structured their bid accordingly. The Interim City Manager only chose the deposit services, which removed all the profit from the relationship. He estimated the cost to serve the City was $5,000. He stated that Overland has gone out of its way to provide the services as requested, and thanked the City for its business over the past year. Councilmember Moore asked if this process is done annually. Ms. Henry answered that it can be done annually if the Council wishes. Ninutes\8\28\90 -12- 09/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Parks to appoint Security Pacific Bank as the City's bank for the year ending June 30, 1991. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Parks NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz Councilmember Lindemans explained his "no" vote by stating that he feels loyalty is more important than convenience. City Manager Dixon stated he understands Councilmember Lindemans' concerns, but the City needs to go forward with the business at hand. He stated staff has done an excellent job and it is not their intent to pit local business against non-local business, but to provide the best service for this City. He asked the Council to consider an action tonight, so that business may be conducted. Alan McDonald, Overland Bank, stated that in respect for the management of the City, Overland Bank will withdraw its bid. Councilmember Moore moved, Mayor Parks seconded a motion to appoint Security Pacific Bank as the City's bank for the year ending June 30, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz City Manager Dixon thanked Mr. McDonald for his support. Ninutes\8\28\~0 -13- 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 COUNCIL BUSINESS 20. Tentative Tract 23209, Amendment No. 4 Gary Thornhill, Chief Planner, reported the applicant has requested a continuance off-calendar of this item in order to redesign it. Mayor Parks asked if public comment needs to be taken if this item is continued off calendar. City Attorney Hanna answered that this is not a public hearing and it may be continued off-calendar without comment. Comments may be taken if so desired. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to continue this item off-calendar. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he felt the public should be heard regarding this item. Mayor Parks asked if this is referred to staff whether additional fees will be collected. Mr. Thornhill stated there is something that can be worked out to deal with the fees, but technically no. Mayor Parks stated he would vote against the motion in order to hear public comment on this issue. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Gary Thornhill stated this is a request of Alba Engineering to subdivide an 80 acre parcel into 257 lots with minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. The site is located west of Butterfield Stage Road and east of Walcott Lane. He said this item was discussed at length by the Planning Commission on August 6, 1990 and the central issues included the buffering of the site from the Vineyards located at the east of the site. Other issues included the lot size and the amount of grading proposed for this site. Density of the site and lack of a traffic study were also issues of concern. Based on these concerns, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project. Mayor Parks called a break at 9:20 PM to change the tape. Ninutes\8\28\90 -14- 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Larry Markurn, representing the applicant, stated the applicant recognizes the problems and-concerns of the citizens and would like the opportunity to redesign the project. He stated he would be happy to meet with the people who have concerns. Michael Lundin, 43875 Butternut Drive, the applicant, said he thought he was doing what he what was necessary in regards to this project. He stated that after hearing all the concerns he would like the opportunity to work with the property owners and requested the opportunity to redesign this project. Tom Hornbeak, 31749 Poole Court, stated at the Planning Commission meeting of August 6, 1990, 72 signatures were submitted supporting the recommendation of denial for this project. He also presented the City Clerk another 10 signatures in support of denial. He stated this project needs to be redesigned and he supports the applicants indication tonight that this should be done. He suggested this be a minimum of 1/2 acre zoning. He also stated staff should address the potential of increased traffic on Calle Medusa Road. John Moramarco, 32720 Rancho California Road, representing Callaway Vineyard and Winery, expressed the need for a 1 O0 foot buffer zone for noise mitigation. He also discussed planting rose bushes in low lying areas so air movement would not be stopped and interfere with the cold air circulation during the Spring of the year. He stated he spoke with the developer and as long as he agreed to the same terms as Marlborough Development, they would not have a problem. He said they have not kept the one acres lots that are needed. He further stated that the topography of Temecula has been changed and this will affect climatic conditions and air movement. He asked that the Council consider these problems. Audrey Cilierzo, 410220 Calle Contento, stated she is concerned about the density of this subdivision. She stated the Vineyards and Winery and trying to preserve their rural lifestyle, while the Council is directing a growing city. She urged mutual cooperation on both sides. Ron Henderson, 31832 Poole Court, stated that Agency 149 has asked for denial of this project. He said that the applicant has refused to redesign this project at the County's request, the request of a group of homeowners and the City Planning Department's request. Mr. Henderson requested that the Council deny this project. David LaPointe, 31769 Poole Court, stated he is in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial for this project. He said three Ninutes\8\28\~K) -15- 0~/11/~H) City Council Minutes August 28.1990 different factions are requesting denial - Calloway Winery, Homeowners Association and residents in the area. Steve Griley, 31812 Poole Court, asked that this be denied due to the high density of the project. Murray Mcclellan, 31822 Poole Court, asked that this project be denied. Kenton Crowley, 40970 Alton Court, stated he is in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny this tract. He said he moved out of Orange County to get away from high density housing and asked this be denied. Councilmember Lindemans requested the opportunity to ask John Moramarco a few more questions concerning the need of the 100 foot buffer zone for the vineyards. Mayor Parks asked that this be discussed by staff with Mr. Moramarco at a later time. Mr. Morarmarco said he would be willing to meet with staff and the Council at the vineyard to show what the problems are. Mr. Maramarco stated he would be willing to meet with the developer and discuss his concerns. Mayor Parks asked John Moramarco if he in agreement with continuing this off calendar for redesign of the project. He stated he did not have a problem with this. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he felt that the developer had the opportunity to redesign this project at an earlier point but choose not to. He recommended denial of the project. Larry Markum said the two choices tonight are to continue this off calendar and redesign the project, or resubmit the map under a different number. He said both options will have the same effect. The developer has acknowledged the problems that exist and is asking to work with the adjacent owners and the vineyards to come up with a design that staff, the Commission and the Council can support. Mayor Parks asked if the applicant was asked to do this at an earlier point at a Planning Commission level and a staff level. Gary Thornhill stated that it was suggested to the applicant to redesign the project earlier. Ron Henderson, 31832 Poole Court, stated that he met with Mike Lundine prior to the Planning Commission meeting and did not receive any cooperation. N i nut es \8\28\~0 - 16 - 09/11 / 90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Mr. Lundine responded that he did not feel he was uncooperative toward the homeowners. - Councilmember Mu~oz moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to approve recommendation of Staff and Planning Commission to deny Tentative Tract 23209, Amendment No. 4. Councilmember Lindemans said we are building a City, not looking at an individual piece of land. He emphasized the need to protect the wineries. Councilmember Moore said the applicant is willing to work with all parties involved and did not feel it is right to deny him this opportunity. Mayor Parks stated that he agreed with Councilmember Mu~oz in some respect that it does not appear the applicant has been cooperative with the parties involved, however this project has been through four amendments and a great deal of time. He said if the applicant is willing to work with all parties involved and pay the necessary fees, he is willing to continue this off calendar. Mayor Parks asked the applicant if he would be willing to pay additional fees to cover staff's time on this project. Larry Markurn stated the applicant will be willing to pay necessary fees. The motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz, NOES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to continue this off calendar to allow the applicant time to redesign the project and have the fees adjusted to cover expenses. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ninutes\8\28\~O -17- 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Moore seconded a motion to continue the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 10:00 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 1 O: 15 PM. 21. Road Improvements - 1-15 Off-ramps and Rancho California Road; Ynez Road to Front Street Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, reported on May 15, 1990, the Council directed the developer to re-study the issue with the main concern being the removal of the medians and trees. He said staff's recommendation is for the City Council to consider the redesign of street improvements for I-15 Off-ramps and Rancho California Road from Ynez to Front Street and to direct Margarita Village Development Group to proceed to construction. Jim Resney, representing the Margarita Development Group, explained this new design proposes elimination of a small portion of the median to allow left turn pockets on to the freeway off-ramps, and increased stacking for left turn lanes. This plan should meet the requirements of CalTrans and that portion of the specific plan requirement. He said the highlight of this design is the City Monument feature in two locations, creating a gateway into the City. He stated the asthetics should be improved with this new plan. Councilmember Mu~oz asked the following questions: What will happen to the removed lights. Can these be retained for use elsewhere, such as Sam Hicks Parks? 2. When will this project begin and when will it be completed? Can be have an agreement that during the construction period, mitigation measures will be taken to minimize impact on traffic? Woody Woodward, Bedford Properties, answered that street lights can be held for City use but suggest storing them as replacements. He said Cal Trans approval should be received by January or February of next year at which time the job will be immediately put out for bids. The project should be completed by July or August of 1991. Regarding traffic mitigation Ninutes\8\28\~O -18- 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 measures during construction, he said funds must be made available to direct traffic and furreel traffic during this time. Councilmember Mu~oz expressed his appreciation for a job well done. Councilmember Lindemans asked to hear from staff regarding additional conditions of the Margarita Village Specific Plan regarding the widening of the bridge. Jim Resney said to his knowledge there are no conditions having anything to do with widening the bridge. Mayor Parks stated that if the City finds conditions that require widening the bridge, the developer will have to widen the bridge. He asked staff to research this matter. Councilmember Birdsall stated there is a problem with trucks parking on the bridge and asked that the curbs be painted red. Jim Resney asked Council to appoint a liaison to work with Margarita Village, as the design is worked through. Mayor Parks also expressed his appreciation for an excellent job. Councilmember Birdsall suggested using one or two people from the Parks and Recreation Commission to coordinate with Margarita Development Group for landscaping. Mayor Parks referred this to staff to come back with a recommendation. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve the re-design of street improvements for I-15 off-ramps and Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Front Street and direct Bedford Properties to proceed to construction. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ninutes\8\28\~)0 -19- 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes 22. 23. August 28, 1990 Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Conservation Program City Manager Dixon reported that the staff report speaks for itself. We said Council needs to appoint a representative to work with the Joint Powers Authority. He stated this person should either be one of the Councilmembers or the City Manager. Councilmember Lindemans moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to: 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. 22.2 Certify that the SKR Program is exempt from CEQA. 22.3 Appoint Mayor Parks as the representative to sit as a Member of the Board of the Joint Powers Authority, which administers the Habitat Conservation Plan for the SKR. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Lease of Citv Hall Office Soace at 43172 Business Park Drive It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to continue this item to the meeting of September 18, 1990. The motion was unanimously carried. Ninutes\8\28\~0 -20- 0~/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Mayor Parks called a one minute break at 10:35 PM to change the tape. 24. Amendment to the Joint Funding Agreement for Rancho California Water District CSD 88-3 City Attorney Betsy Hanna explained there are two reasons this is back before the Council. There was an error in the description of the improvements on the First Amendment. The typographical errors have been corrected. A new agreement has been provided to the City Manager today. Councilmember Lindemans stated he originally voted no on this issue and will vote no again. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he has a problem with Mello Roos financing of this type and will also vote no. Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the Amendment to Joint Financing, Construction and Acquisition Agreement for Community Facilities District No. 88-3. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 25. Third Extension of Time - Tentative Tract 2 1067 Continued from the meeting of August 14, 1990 Mayor Parks stated the public hearing was opened on August 14, 1990 and is still open. Gary Thornhill, Chief Planner, stated this item has been continued to discuss with the applicant the imposition of Quimby Act Fees. The applicant has agreed to pay whatever fees are applicable to this project. Staff recommendation is to approve the third extension of time with the added condition imposing Quimby Fees. Ninutes\8\28\~O -21o 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Councilmember Mu~oz said the City needs land and not fees and asked the Council as a general policy matter to insist on land where it is at all possible. City Manager Dixon stated he did agree that the City needs land. He said, however, there are times when a piece of land may not be of sufficient size and in those cases the City should have the flexibility to accept fees to accumulate funds to buy a larger parcel. Councilmember Mu~oz asked what will be done in this particular project. Gary Thornhill stated that fees would probably be accepted because there is not any land in this project that would benefit the City. Councilmember Mu~oz stated that large developments need to have a local park where children can play, even if it means the giving up an acre of land in the middle of the project. He asked what guarantees do the residents have that there will be a park close by. Marilyn Carney, 3838 Camino Del Rio North, San Diego, asked that the decision regarding land or fees not be made tonight. She said the interim Parks and Recreation Plan calls for a minimum of five acres for a park and added the developer is being asked to donate one acre which is not a very usable park. She said this project has already reduced lot size, and asked that Council not require them to redesign the map tonight. She said the developer is trying to work with staff to take care of all the details. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 10:50 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to 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. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ninutes\8\28\90 -22- 09111190 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 26. Vestin~l Tentative Tract No. 232 11, First Extension Gary Thornhill, Chief Planner, reported this is a request for a first extension of time. He said this request has been reviewed, and although there are some concerns regarding density and grading of the site, staff's recommendation is for approval. He outlined staff's concerns regarding a density of 17.5 units per acre, which SWAP now limits 8-16 units per acre. He also stated additional conditions of approval from the Engineering Department have be distributed, along with the County conditions. Mayor Parks asked if the applicant has agreed to these additional conditions. Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer said these conditions have been agreed upon by the applicant. Councilmember Lindemans asked about the lower density project proposed for this site, scheduled to be heard before the Planning Commission on September 10, 1990. He asked why the higher density project is being voted upon at this time? Gary Thornhill answered that the applicant has two proposals. One of which is going through the process right now with a reduced density. This is the applicants' preferred project, but he needs assurance that he will have an approved project. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 11:00 PM. Gary Martin, 30601 Cabrillo, said the denial of this project will be extremely harmful. He stated this project has been in the process for a long period of time and the financing is dependant upon approval tonight. He stated that the intention of the developer is to built the lower density (105 unit project), not the 128 unit project. He stated he has sought direction to make this project responsive to the needs of this community. In regards to grading, Mr. Martin stated this grading is basically to match the grading of adjacent properties. Doug Stewart, stated in response to Councilmember Lindeman's question that there is a section under the map act that allows as long as the applicant files for an extension of time, he automatically gets a 60 day extension or until the Council takes an action, whichever takes place first. He stated the applicant has 60 days and after that, the project expires. Hinutes\8\28\~0 -23- 0~/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall asked if all that is being requested is an extension of time, what is the concern? Councilmember Mu~oz stated his concern is over the density of the 128 unit project. He said that the 105 unit project if much more desirable. He asked if this project will remain as a condominium project, not an apartment project. Mr. Martin answered that this project will remain condominiums. Art Montgomery, 3365 Country Rose, Encinitas, stated he was the former owner of this property and the designer of this project. He said he designed a project that he felt the community would be proud of. He asked for approval of this extension. Councilmember Mu~oz moved, Councilmember Lindemans seconded a motion to extend the meeting to 12:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Walt Dixon, 41785 Enterprise Circle South, said he is the owner of the property to the east, and stated he approves of what is proposed for this property. He said he has reviewed the 105 unit project finds it very acceptable. David Cervantes, 29983 Via Puesta Del Sol, representing Rancho Del Sol residents, expressed his concern regarding high density housing in this area. He said the "Rent for $99.00" signs and clowns along this area are not desirable to the residents living there. He stated that the notice of public hearing was not properly distributed to the concerned property owners. He asked that this project not be approved. William S. Booras, 29977 Via Puesta Del Sol, expressed his concern over the high density of this project. He said the citizens of this community are fighting for more parks and less density. He asked if this project will be occupied by owners, or investors creating an apartment situation. Mr. Booras asked that this project not be extended. Councilmember Lindemans said he met with Mr. Booras this afternoon and asked if the property was properly posted. He stated there is a piece of paper posted, but it is not large enough for people to see. Councilmember Lindemans said Mr. Booras presented him with a petition of 77 people that reads, "We the undersigned are against any further apartment house complexes on Margarita Road between Moraga Road and La Serena. Condo ownership is preferred with very low density. A park would be more beneficial to this area." He presented this petition to the City Clerk. Councilmember Lindemans asked that the next time a public hearing is posted, it should be large enough to read. Nirtutes\8\28\~0 -24- 0q/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Gary Thornhill stated that this issue is complex in that it is not just a matter of having 60 days extension on the map, the problem is this was a receive and file item. This had an approved time extension by The Riverside County Planning Commission. It has now been forwarded to the City and caught up in the process whereby it has never reached a final decision. Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 11:35 PM. City Attorney Hanna stated this is not just a discussion of a vesting map. It is really the City Council using the law to review what the County has done to make sure that the health and safety concerns of the City have been met. This is a considerably stricter limitation on the scope of what can be reviewed. If you wish to "hold" this item on your agenda until the time the other map comes before you, this is possible but it will have no effect on the developer. His map has already been extended by the County. Mayor Parks asked if Council chooses to approve it tonight, additional conditions can be added. City Attorney Hanna stated she believes that is the optimal choice. Mayor Parks asked if we can reduce the density of this map. The applicant agreed to reduce the density to 16 units per acre, which would meet the conditions of SWAP. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 11:45 PM. Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Moore seconded a motion to approve the first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23211 subject to the Amended Conditions of approval and the added condition that if the applicant develops the property as approved, the density will be reduced to 16 units per acre. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he felt even the 105 unit development is too high density for this area and for that reason would vote no. Councilmember Lindemans said he agreed with Councilmember Mu~oz and the City needs to stop somewhere with the high density. Mayor Parks said he felt the City has a need for condominiums as well as single-familiy detached dwellings. Ninutes\8\28\~0 -25- 0~/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 27. Plot Plan No. I and Change of Zone No. 3 Gary Thornhill, Chief Planner, reported this is a request by Advanced Cardiovascular Systems to construct a four story manufacturing building with office space consisting of 270,780 square feet; construct a tri-level parking structure; construct a 9,000 square foot bi-level structure for service equipment; reconfigure and repave the existing parking and asphalt areas to accommodate required parking and landscaping; and change the maximum height limitation contained in the development standards for the M-M zone on this site from 50 feet to 75 feet. This item was considered by the Planning Commission on August 6, 1990 and was recommended for approval. The recommendation is that the City Council: 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 conditions of approval as amended at the Planning Commission hearing. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 11:50 PM. David Olson, 45981 Classic Way, representing Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, offered to answer any questions the Council may have. Councilmember Mu~oz asked the applicant to show renderings of what the project will look like. Mr. Olson presented a visual description of the project· He said this project should be ready for occupancy the first quarter of 1992. The site is designed to support a larger number of employees· Minutes\8\28\~O -26- 0q/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Larry Markum, representing the applicant, spoke regarding the condition of approval requiring a Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee. He said the applicant is opposed because the entire area being developed is currently a parking lot, and therefore would not destroy Kangaroo Rat habitat. Bill Bopf, 28924 Front Street, Suite 106, spoke on behalf of the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation, in support of this project. He stated this is the type of business the Economic Development Corporation will try to seek out. He strongly requested support for this project. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 12:00 AM. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz tO: 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. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Birdsall moved, Councilmember Moore seconded a motion to extend the meeting until 12:30 AM. RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 12:00 AM. The meeting was reconvened at 12:10 AM. Ninutes\8\28\~O -27- 0~/11/~0 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 28. Development Agreement for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2 1383 - Rancho Core Associates No, I Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 12:10 AM. Gary Thornhill reported this item was before the City Council on July 1 O, 1990 as a receive and file item. At that time staff recommended additional conditions of approval be added to the project. The determination was made that a development agreement would be the appropriate vehicle for incorporating those conditions of approval. In response to that, a development agreement, and ordinance have been prepared. He reported this development agreement implements the conditions of approval that were recommended to the Council on July 1 O, 1990 with the exception of Condition D, which would present legal problems. In lieu of this condition the applicant offered to give the City two additional open space lots. Staff recommends: 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. 90-16 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. Councilmember Lindemans asked why this project is not multiple phased. He said this project with 130 lots, should take 10 to 15 years to build out. He requested that it be phased. Gary Thornhill said his understanding is the developer is proposing to phase the project. He said he has a phasing plan that has been made available to staff. Councilmember Lindemans asked staff if a Community Services District for the plan is feasible and whether the City should own and maintain the park at this location. Minutes\8\28\90 -28- 0~/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 City Manager Dixon stated that we can have a sub-zone in the CSD where specific types_of landscaping can be addressed. He said regarding the park, the City should own and maintain the park. Councilmember Lindemans requested adding these items to the agreement. Dean Allen, 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 202, stated this project was purchased in 1977, and in 1987 the plans were approved. He showed the Council a drawing illustrating this project. He said the conditions agreed upon give eight lots as open space to the City, provide another lot for access for a road, and provide a park lot in the center of the project. He said the park will consist of approximately nine acres when completed. He advised there is a phasing plan, which he presented to Council. In response to the second question regarding the maintenance of the park and hillside, it is currently the applicants proposal to maintain them as a property owners association in a very high quality manner. He said it is possible for the owners to maintain it originally, and possibly dedicate the maintenance to the CSD at a later point. Bill Johnson, 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 202, thanked Council and staff for their work on this project. He discussed the environmental sensitivity of the project, the quality of the project and the economic impact on the City. He said the linear parkway is intended to be used as a public facility. He stated he would welcome a discussion with CSD regarding maintenance, however a very high standard of maintenance is desired, and the money needed to do this would be provided by the property owners. Jogging and biking paths are also being looked at for this project. He said this project will be committed to bring jobs to Temecula. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 12:29 AM. Minutes\8\28\90 -29- 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Councilmember Moore moved, Councilmember Mu~oz seconded a motion to adopt a negative declaration for tentative Parcel Map No. 21383. The motion was carried by the following vote: NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-1 with the addition of placing the construction phasing map in the Development Agreement as Exhibit "F". The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks None None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Ninutes\8\28\~O -30- 0~/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28.1990 Councilmember Lindemans moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to authorize the Mayor to execute the development agreement between the City of Temecula and Rancho Core Associates No. 1. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to extend the meeting to 1:00 AM. The motion was unanimously carried. 29. Tentative Tract Mal3 No. 23513 Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 12:35 AM. Gary Thornhill stated this is a request to subdivide 14.37 acres into 11 lots. He said this project was reviewed by the City staff and brought before Council on June 26, 1990. At that meeting the staff recommended the item be set for public hearing. The grading concerns have been satisfied as well as the compatibility with surrounding projects. Projects to the North are 1/2 acre lots, which is consistent with this development. Staff recommends approval of this project. Councilmember Mu~oz asked how significant 27 feet of grading is. Gary Thornhill stated staff does not feel it is significant. He said they are basically creating building pads. Councilmember Lindemans asked if this project was noticed more than 300 feet as requested by Council on June 26, 1990. Mr. Thornhill stated he would need to check the case file. Tod Thomas, 41934 Main Street, stated he had letters in support of this project that are from property owners over 1,000 feet from the site. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 12:50 AM. Hinutes\8\28\~0 -31- 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28, 1990 Councilmember Mu~oz moved, Councilmember Birdsall seconded a motion to: 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. Approve Tentative Tract No. 23513, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon requested the meeting be adjourned to a meeting on Friday, August 31, 1990 at 9:00 AM at City Hall to discuss litigation and potential litigation pursuant to Government Code No. 54956.9, B-2. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Lindemans asked staff to withdraw the Temecula Valley High School Band Banner request from agenda consideration. Mayor Parks requested staff to receive facts regarding recent allegations of misuse of influence to be reviewed as is appropriate by the City Manager and City Attorney for possible report and comment. Ninutes\8\28\~0 -]2- 09/11/90 City Council Minutes August 28.1990 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 1:01 AM to a meeting on Friday, August 31, 1990 at 9:00 AM at City Hall to discuss litigation and potential litigation pursuant to Government Code No. 54956.9, B-2. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk Hinutes\8\28\90 -]]- 09/11/90 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD AUGUST 31, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 9:04 AM 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 Elizabeth L. Hanna, Finance Officer Mary Jane Henry, Consultant John McTighe, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments offered. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Parks announced that the City Council would adjourn to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 in the matter of Ramsey versus the County of Riverside and 54956.9(b2) relating to matters of potential litigation. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 9:07 AM. Councilmember Birdsall left the session at 9:49 AM. The adjourned regular meeting was reconvened at 9:54 AM. CITY MANAGER REPORTS No report given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS No report given. Minutes\8/31 \90 -1 ~ 09/05/90 City Council Minutes AuClust 31, 1990 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn the meeting at 9:57 AM to a meeting to be held on September 4, 1990, at 7:00 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA ATTEST: RONALD J. PARKS, MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Minutes\8/31 \90 -2- O9/05/90 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD SEPTEMBER 4, 1990 An adjourned regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:58 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were Captain Rick Sayre, acting City Manager, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Pro Tem Karel Lindemans. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were offered. STUD Y SESSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITEMS Lightfoot - Status Report Gary Thornhill gave a brief staff report and introduced George Williams representing the Lightfoot Planning Group, presently working under contract with the City of Temecula to complete a development inventory. Mr. Willlares discussed briefly the projects pre-approved by the County of Riverside prior to the City's incorporation. He explained that Lightfoot will be delivering to the City four maps as a part of their inventory which will detail existing land use, special districts (i.e. assessment districts), approved projects contained within the City and vacant lands to be developed. Minutes\ 1 \9\90 - 1 - 09/07/90 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 He also explained that the Lightfoot Group has been held up by the lack of an up-to-date bale map from the County. He said that this has resulted in a delay, but he does expect completion of the project by mid September. He said that the working maps are being developed as a result of analysis of 452 files which were active as of the time the City began to take the planning function over from the County. Recreational Land Suitability Study Gary Thornhill introduced John Davidson of Willdan Associates, a Principal Planner with that firm involved in special projects. He explained that he was assigned the suitability study by the interim City Manager Frank Aleshire who requested a study based on the interim Parks and Recreation Master Plan adopted by the City in April of 1990. He discussed the site identified in the report as number one. He outlined that this is in an industrial tract, and could provide adult recreational use. Mayor Parks indicated that the project in question has changed substantially since the input was given to Willdan and that the park land dedication is proposed in a very different form at this time. Mr. Davidson went on to outline the features, benefits and drawbacks of the sites identified as two through four. Mayor Parks asked if in the opinion of the consultant there are sites which are not good properties for a City to accept. Mr. Davidson said traditionally anything less than five acres does not fit into the acceptable size for neighborhood parks. He did qualify this by saying that although neighborhood parks are the smallest recommended parks in the master plan, under some circumstances the City may wish to consider Special Use facilities. He explained that in the case of the Pala Road site (Site No. 3) the land proposed for donation is only three plus acres but it would serve some recreational purposes in an area which is currently lacking in any park facilities. Case Tracking System Gary Thornhill provided the Councilmembers with examples of computer printouts of the newly developed case tracking system and explained what the system is designed to accomplish. He advised that this system is updated every Friday. Councilmember Lindemans asked if this system is on all the City's computers or on the Willdan computer system. Mr. Thornhill advised that it is on Willdan's Minutes\l \9\90 -2- 09/07/90 City Council Minutes Jenuar¥ 9, 1990 system but will be integrated into the City's system as soon as compatible software is o~3tained by Willdan. In response to a question from Mayor Parks Gary Thornhill reported that all misplaced files have been located and all are accounted for in the tracking system. Caseload Update Gary Thornhill presented the staff report indicating that 250 cases are in process at this time ranging from simple additions to commercial projects and industrial subdivisions. He stated that the department is presently processing 152 plot plans. He then turned the meeting over to Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer who provided the Council with a graph showing the status of the plan checks in the Engineering Department at this time. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ITEMS Traffic Safety Improvement Update Doug Stewart reported on the status of the projects which have been identified by the Council as in immediate need of attention. Nicolas Road at Winchester Road - Widen intersection to add a left turn lane and an acceleration lane. Status - completion is anticipated in the next 90 days. Moraga Road at Temecula Elementary School - Posting of "No stopping any time" signs along the east curb adjacent to the apartments, remove existing lane line on the east side of the road. Status - complete. Rancho California Road East of Moraga - Re-stripe Rancho California Road to provide left turn access into the Wood Creek apartments. Status- complete. Rancho California Road Westbound at Ynez - Provide a right turn only lane. Status - striping will be completed tonight by Orange County Striping Company. Rancho California Road westbound at Ynez and I-15 northbound on-ramp -Re-stripe the existing right turn only lane and extend further east to Mi nut.s\ 1 \9\90 -3- 09/O7/90 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 provide_better recognition of the lane. Status - striping will be completed tonight by Orange County Striping Company. Front Street northbound. south of Rancho California Road - Re-paint the existing right turn only lane and add additional signs and arrows to define the lane as "right turn only". Status - striping will be completed tonight by Orange County Striping Company. Rancho California Road Westbound between Front Street and I-15 - Re- stripe existing right turn lane in front of Chevron Station and add painted right turn arrows on the pavement. Add "Right Lane must turn right" signs as well as "No Stopping Any Time' signs from the freeway off- ramp to the intersection of Front Street. Status - Red curbs painted last week and remainder of the work to be completed tonight by Orange County Striping Company. Doug Stewart advised that the cost for items four, five and six would total $3,000, rather than the anticipated cost of $1,250. Councilmember Birdsall asked staff to look into posting "Right turn only" signs at the Chevron Station on the southeast corner of Front Street and Rancho California Road immediately. Doug Stewart advised that the signs are required as a condition of the new plot plan for that corner and the suggestion is one his staff will look into. Councilmember Lindemans asked staff to look into providing additional speed limit enforcement on Rancho California Road. Councilmember Moore suggested that at Rancho California Road and Front Street, the intersection should also be signed for no "U" turns. Rick Sayre, Chief of Police, reported on the additional hours suggested for the freeway overcrossing Traffic Directors. He explained that his report has been reviewed by City Manager Dixon who concurred with the recommendation to expand the hours on the overcrossings. He also advised the Council that the funds needed were available in the budget allocation. After a brief discussion City Council directed staff to proceed to implement the additional hours. Minutes\ 1 \9\90 -4- 09/07/90 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 Councilmember Birdsall suggested staff look at placing Traffic Directors on the freeway overcrossings for the full day on Fridays of a holiday weekend. Chief Sayre replied that he would be happy to monitor this and make any further recommendations as required. Councilmember Mu~oz said he would like to have the Traffic Committee look at soliciting further commitments from the business community to continue the Traffic Controllers on the I-15 bridges for an indefinite period of time. Doug Stewart advised Council that he has been negotiating with Bedford Properties to have Traffic Directors provided on the weekends during the time the two freeway intersections are under construction. Mayor Parks asked staff to address the lack of adequate lighting which will become a problem as the Fall season approaches. Chief Sayre responded that a number of options have been looked at including lighted cones, intersection spots, and lighted signs advising motorists that the intersections are being manually directed. Councilmember Birdsall questioned what is being done to address the traffic problems at the intersection of Highway 79 South and LaPaz. She asked staff to refer this intersection to the Traffic Committee. RECESS Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:13 PM, the meeting was reconvened at 8:23 PM with all members present. Detour/StriDing Policy Doug Stewart gave a staff report outlining the Detour Policy and the procedures which have been based on the WATCH Guidebook and the CalTrans Manual. He said that this has been prepared by staff for distribution to the public. Councilmember Mu~oz questioned if these policies will provide for mitigation during construction periods. He asked if any guidelines were being followed during the recent construction at Winchester and Ynez. Mr. Stewart responded that the guidelines contained in these policies were in effect at that time. Minutes\l \9\90 -5- 09/07/90 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 Councilmember Mu~oz stated that in his opinion these measures were not adequate. He said they should require traffic control performed by Traffic Directors, such as the City utilizes during peak rush hours on the freeway bridges. Councilmember Birdsall questioned what penalties can be assessed for non- compliance with these policies. Doug Stewart advised that staff has a number of options which range from issuing warnings to actual shutdown of a job. He also responded that citizens should report infractions of these rules to the Engineering Department during working hours and the Sheriff's Department after hours. Councilmember Lindemans stated he would like to see all construction on the widening and re-striping of the Rancho California Road overpass take place during the nighttime hours to alleviate traffic problems during the day. Mayor Parks asked staff to bring this policy before the Council for their approval at a later time. Grading Policy Doug Stewart explained that this policy is designed to be implemented when a plan is submitted for approval. Gary Thornhill explained the provisions which are required by the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Protection Program. Councilmember Lindemans asked if the 50 acres of habitat in the City can be shown on one of the maps being developed by the Lightfoot Group. Doug Stewart then explained the kinds of grading permits and inspections which are required by the City. In response to a question from Mayor Parks he stated that there are still a few projects being done under county issued permits but most now require a permit from the City. Mayor Parks requested that this item be placed on a future agenda in accordance with the work program. Minutes\l \9\90 -6- 09/07/90 City Council Minutes January 9.1990 8. Encroachment Permit Policy Doug Stewart gave a staff report defining what an encroachment is and what projects require this type of permit. He also outlined what constitutes a "blanket permit" issuance. He also pointed out the insurance requirements of which are designed to protect the City. 9. Update Ynez Corridor Mello-Roos District No. 88-12. Tim Serlet, City Engineer, advised the Council that the firm of J. F. Davidson has been selected and retained to complete the engineering work for the community facilities district. He said the completion dates anticipated for the two phases are September 1991 and March 1992. In response to a question by Mayor Parks, Mr. Serlet advised that the City should see plans by December of this year. 10. Items for Next Study Session Councilmember Lindemans expressed his dissatisfaction with the scheduling of study session every other Tuesday. He said he feels the Council is able to accomplish more by having a City Council meeting with a formal agenda every week. He asked that staff go back to the weekly schedule, Councilmember Mu~oz concurred with this request. Councilmember Birdsall said she would like to try to work out a schedule which allows for workshops because she finds them very useful. Councilmember Moore also said she finds the study sessions valuable and that this allows the members to exchange ideas on various projects prior to being asked to make a decision. Mayor Parks asked that this matter be placed on the agenda of September 18, 1990 as a discussion item. Minutes\ 1 \9\90 -7- 09/07/90 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 Councilmemb_er Lindemans asked that staff request the City Attorney give Council an opinion relative to whether Council can respond to statements made by the public during the Public Comments portion of the meeting. He asked if this constitutes a violation of the Brown Act because it represents discussion of matters not on the agenda. CITY MANAGER REPORTS No report given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS No report given as a result of the excused absence of the City Attorney. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Moore asked Council to select a date to interview the final candidates for the Traffic Commission. After discussion Council directed that the interviews be scheduled for Monday, September 24, 1990 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Conference Room. Councilmember Moore also asked staff to report on: The fire retardant properties of the roofing materials which have been approved in the City. The feasibility of appointing a citizens committee to make suggestions to the Planning Commission and the Traffic Commission on appropriate landscaping materials. Councilmember Birdsall gave a brief report on the activities of the City Seal Committee and advised the Council that along with five designs that are being developed, the Committee would also be bringing recommendations to the Council for a City flower and a City slogan· She also said she would like to present Certificates of Appreciation to the members of the committee at the meeting of the 18th of September. Mayor Parks announced that he and Councilmember Moore would be attending a Growth Management Seminar sponsored by WRAG on Thursday, September 6, 1990. Minutes\l \9\90 -8- 09107/90 City Council Minutes January 9, 1990 Councilmember Lindemans asked that Certificates of Appreciation by prepared and presente~l' to the Arts Council for their successful sponsorship of the Arts Festival '90. He also asked that staff look into methods for compelling the removal of the tethered balloon being used by Spa Guy on Front Street. Councilmember Lindemans also suggested that staff look into holding a ceremony to swear in the members of the Traffic, Parks and Recreation and Public Safety Commissions. He asked that this be placed on the agenda for September 18, 1990 for discussion. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 9:48 PM to a meeting to be held September 18, 1990 at 7:00 PM in 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 Minutes\l \9\90 -S- 09/O7190 ITEM NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $85,328.71. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 18th day of September, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 103 The attached two check registers are the September 18, 1990 List of Demands. $6,076.58 $85,328.71 Total List of Demands $91,405.29 I hereby certify that the following is true and corre~ ' ' /c o David F. Dixo~yCity ~anager / Prepared by & Account Clerk Adriana Hayes, Ac'cgun~/ Clerk 09/07, City o-+ leme a F'aOe: Fiscal. Year: ].Y~ Stat~.orl: I~S47 Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date F'/O Date Description Gross Discount Net - ()0Au5399 c~8/20/90 UNUM- UNUM 080590 08 / 05 / 90 08/o5/90 DISABILITY INSURANCE 454.89 0.0o 454.89 r~000540C~ 08/20/90 GREAT G.R.E.A.T. TRUST 08209 o 08 / 20 / 90 08 / 20 / 90 0rx)05401 08/21/90 LUSARDI LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION CO .......... 082090--- - 08/20/90 ..... 08/20/90 00005402 08 / 21 / 90- ~3RAYDANE -DANELLE- GRAY 082090 08/21/90 Check Total s: 454.89 o. 0o - 454.89 L I FE INSURANCE 154.5o r>. o0 154.50 Check Total s: 154.5o r . 00 154.50 REFUND DUF' F'LAN CK FEE ...... 445.88 o.oO .- 445.88 Check Total s: 445.88 0. oC~ 445.88 IN LIEU OF MILEAGE 44.71 0.00 44.71 08/20/90 HOTEL RM ................................... Check Total s: .. - 4.4.71 u. 0o 44.71 rx)005403 08/22/90 IMSTMS IMS/TMS 08209o 08 / 20 / 90 08 / 20 / 90 POST AGE 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 Check To t al s: 2, OOr~. 0 ) 0.00 2,000.00 0Cx)05404 08/23/90 TEMECULA TEMECULA CREEK INN ....... 0~290--- 08/22/90 -. 08/22/90 MAY &JUNE CHARGES -425.54 ..... 0.00 425.54 000054.05 08/~/90---PE-T-IYC .... F'ETIY CASH ..... 082190 08/21/90 08/21/90 Che,zk Totals: 425.54 0.1.)0 425.54. PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 238.47 C,.r)O 23~.47 ........... Check Total s: 238.47 O. iZ:,O 238.47 00005406 o8/24/90 ARROWHEA ARROWHEAD HILTON RESORT 082290 08/22/90 08/22/90 RM DEF'OS I T FOR MUNOZ FOR CONF 90.95 0 .. OC~ 9(,. 95 Che:zk Total s: 9(:!, 95 ~,, rx'i 9,:..~. $'5 C>0005407 0~/24/90 INLAND iNLAND EMF'IRE TOURISM COLINC[L 082290 0G,'22/90 08/22/90 REGIST FOR MLINOZ FOR CONF9/26 150.u0 t~..~.~<~ C;i]e,zt.: 7otai E= ] 51: . i_~<ZI ,.'i,, ,'>,:'1 15..'. ,.~,:, 00005408 0S/24/90 INSTITUT IN:STITUTE FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT 082290 08, 22/90 08 ,/22/90 RE [318TRA'T 101~ FOR L CC: WI:::SF'i 0-4 e:r~'~. O0 C' ,. ~ ',:' E'.':'. ~ '~ .... C;rieck 7oral s: 80. ()0 O, Cc~ ~J ...... 000C~5409 08/27/90 ARRON'S ARRON'S CAMERA & VIDEO 082790 OE'/'27/9r~ 08/27/90 CAMERA FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT I 17.3S 0~ O0 i ;. 7.39 00005~10 09/04/90 ARTS THE ARTS COUNCIL OF TEMECUL~: 090490 0S/'04,'9C: 09/04/90 REFLJND OF RECEIPT 1079 244.25 C,. ~,x; 1~4.25 C:rle:l: 7,Dta.].S: '95,!7,,:I rtrh:~05413 (ic,./!:~619i:~ HYAT'TOAi. FI'~ATT C)AI LAI4D ]!,~TL I'~ 9 / 07 Check ear: 1991 Date VenOor Name Invoice Date F'/O C;!-,E, zI F:ec_'~ Date Description Stat~ orl: Discount Net - 082890 08/28/90 -.- 08/28/90 RM DEPOSIT LCC(BtRDSALL)9/27 66.00 Crieck Totals: Report Totals: 66.00 6,076.58 0. O0 66.0(* 0.00 66.00 O. 00 6,076.5~ ()9/10/90 ' City o'f Temecuia Page: 1 Fiscal Year: ~91 [',neck Register Sta. tion: 1847 Check-- Date .... Vendor Name Invoice Date F'/O Date Description Gross Discount Net 00005416~)9/ljlgO-ALL-CI-TY---ALL-CI~Y MANAGEMENT ......................................................... 71A 08/A1190 072 08/O1190 1-15 OVER-PASS TRAFFIC F'ROJEC 5,869.85 0. o0 5,869.85 717 08/13/90 072 08/01/90 1-15 OVER-F'ASS TRAFFIC F'ROJEC 5,638.00 0.00 5,638.00 -7-1~- 08/-27~0- 072 ..... 4)8/01/90-t-15- OVER-F'ASS-TRAFFtC--PROJEC .... 5,586.0o .................. <LOo ........ 5,586-.-(~;~ 00(~)5417- 0~/q-1-/9[~ APPLEONE--APPLE~NE 1274531 08/29 / 9u 0077 Check Tot al s: 17,095.85 0.00 17,093.85 08/20/90 TEMF' CASHIER 8/20-8/31/9 ~~ 252.54 0.00 252.54 Check-totals: ...... 252.54 ........... <~.00 ......... 252.54 00005418 09/11/90 BURKE,WM BURKE, WILLIAM8 & SORENSEN 02351-001 08/21/90 08/21/90 JULY ATTORNEYS FEES/GENERAL 4,253.18 0.00 4,253.18 Check Totals: 4,253.18 0.00 4,253.18 00005419 09/11/90 CHURCHIL CHURCHILL TRANSF'ORTATION CO 44~8 08~/~-~0082 .... 08/08/90--MOVING OFF-ICE-FURIqlTURE ........... 490.88 ..... 0.00 ......... 490.88 00 00 54~ - Oez llY--9~--P_J3LU~I~F~CDUNI-Y-J3E--R IUERS LDE Check Total s: 490.88 0.00 490.88 117889 117867 117110 116231 11_7_97m 117488 08/28/90 40002 07/05/90 2 SHARP CALCULATORS 61.49- 0.00 61.49- 09/07/90 40002 07/05/90 2 SHARP CALCULATORS 61.49 0.A0 61.49 08/~0/~0-~010~ ...... 08/24/912L WASTE- BAS~CEIS, WAL~LOC~ 69_86 ........ O. 00 -- 69~ 86 08/18/90 90031 07/03/90 CALENDAR REFILLS, PAPER ETC 0.41 0.00 0.41 08/07/90 08107/90 MESSENGER STOF' LIST 23.30 0.00 23.30 E~EL~297~O- ~0032_ 0770~/90-STAMP-F-'ADS~ --F'ENSr---TABS JETC ............. 4. ].~ ...... (~)0 .......... 4.17 08/23/90 90082 o8/07/90 ENV. , STAPLE REMOVER, GLUE, F'EN 265.96 0.00 265.96 Check Iotal s: .................... ~63.70 -- - 0. Cu] - - - 363.70 00005421 09/11/90 DAVLIN DAVLIN 081690 08/16/90 0067 o7/12/90 VIDEO TAF'ING CITY COUNCIL MTG 600.00 .......... 080790_ 08/07/9[L0087---- 07J~2/90-VIDEO TAF'ING CITY COUNCIL NTG 661.01- Check Total s: 00005~ 09/11Z~0 EASTMAN--EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY r~83090 08/30/90 08/30/9A USE OF KODAK COPIER 235AF .............. Check Total. s: 00005423 09/11/90 FEDERALE FEDERAL EXPRESS 405801308 08/13/90 08/13/90 POSTAGE TO BWS ........... 40~452967 -08~0/90 .... 08/20/90 POSTAGE TO BWS 407094400 08/27/90 08/27/90 POSTAGE TO BWS ON 8/17 ................. Check Total s: 00005424 09/11/90 FINANCIA FINANCIAL INDEMNITY CO C396025700 08/28/90 09/07/90 CAR INSURANCE 7/16/90-1 / 16/91 Check Totals: 00005425 09/11/90 FREEMANO FREEMAN'S OFFICE PRODUCTS _ 108141-0 -08/24/90 90107 08/24/90 5 RING -BINDERS, LABEL HOLDER - Check Total s: 00005~26 09/11/90 GFOA GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC. - · 082890 08 /28 / 90 I] I'x'>05427 !)9/11/90 GLOB 10069749 GLOBAL )8 ' Z'v /ot~ 901 08/28/90 MEMBERSHIP APF'LICATION FEES Check Total s: OG /27 /9(, D ! S~ 2ETTE STCIRAGE 261.01 000.00 000.00 13.00 · 48.25 22.50 83.75 279.43 279.43 52.80 150.00 ] 50. 64 .. 5zl 0.00 600.00 0.00 --- - 661.01 0.00 1 , 261.01 0.00 1 , (~0(). 00 0.00 13.00 - 0.00 ....... 48.25 (~9/1(.I, City of Temt a Fiscal Year: 1991 Check Register Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Page: Station: 18~/ D1 SCOLtnt Net Check Totals: 64.54 · 00005428 09/11/90 GOLDENST GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO. ................ 10927 ....... 09~05/90 90097 08/21/90 COMF'. HARDWARE,SOFTWARE,F'ERIF t,423.75 10931 09/05/90 90097 08/21/90 COMF'. HAF~DWARE,SOFTWARE,F'ERIF 2,074.00 ~ 10930 09/05/90 90097 08/21/90 COMP. HARDWARE,SOFTWARE,PERIF 3~780.38 ................. 10941 ....... ~)9/06/90-9Cx)97 -08/21/9C~ COMP. HARDWARE,SOFTWARE,PERIF 6()5.63 0.00 64.54 - 0.00 -- t , 423.75 0.00 2,074.00 0.00 3,780.38 .... 0. C,0 - 605.63 ............................................... Check Total s: 00005430 09/11/90 HARRINGT MARRINGTON, KEVIN · 082090 08 / 20 / 90 08 / 20 / 90 M I L E AGE 7 / 30 / 90- 8 / 14 / 90 : Check Total s: 7 00005431 09/11/90 INLANDEM INLAND EMPIRE DIVISION 7 " Check Total s: 7 ~ 883.76 0.00 7,883.76 00005~29 09/11~90 -GTEBILL--- G~E- 197-5854 09/01/90 09/01/90 AUGUST TELEPHONE B ILL 6,470.70 0.00 6,470.70 ..... 6,470.70 - - 0.0(~ 6,47(). 70 i 4.5o -~. 0(i 1 ~. 5o 14.50 0.00 14.50 082290 ...... 08/22/90 ...... 08/22/90 MISSED RESERVATION-PEG MOORE 16.50 - - - 0.00 ..... 16.5() Check Totals: 16.50 000054.32 -09711/-9(~ -INMAC- - I NMAC ....... 70648300 08/17/90 80006 08/03/90 HI386: SOFTWARE 123.53 .................. Check Totals:- 123.53 -- 00005433 09/11/90 INTERNAT INTERNATE CONF OF BLG OFF. Bl1011 08/01/90 50005 08/20/90 AD FOR CHIEF BLDG OFFICIAL 45.00 Check Total s: 45.00 00005434 09/11/90 LEAGUE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES · - 15780 08/15/90 50004 08/16/90 FLSA HANDBOOK & SUF'PLEMEIqT 42.70 0. OC 16.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 · 00 0. O0 123.53 123.53 45.00 45.00 42.70 Check Totals: 00005435 09 / 11 / 90 MAR I LYNS MAR I LYN ' S COFFEE SERV ICE 1010 09/05/90 90124 09/05/9LI COFFEE~ CHOCOLATE, CREAMER 983 o8/22/90 90095 08/21/90 COFFEE, SUGAR, CMOCOLATE 42.70 25.20 54.. 70 0.00 0.00 0. O0 42.70 54.70 Check Total s: 00005436 09/11/90 MAUR1CE MAURICE F'RINTERS QUICK PRINT . __ 82390 08/2~/90 90120 09/04/90 COVERS & COMBS 0.00 0.00 79.90 63.52 Check Total s: 00005457 09/li790 MCCANN MCCANN PF~INTING SERVICES 4584 08/29/90 7()022 08/29/90 NEIGH WATCH NEWSLTR FOR 8/90 4.686 08/29/90 70021 08/29/90 PRINT I4E]:GM WATCH LTR 9/9(~ Check Total s: 00005438 09/11/90 MCTIGHEj JOHN MCTIGME & ASSOCIATES 900803 08/13/90 08/13/90 F'ROF' TAX &FEE ANALY FF'R JULY 63.52 421.67 517.73 939.40 1 , 646. o0 0. OU 0.00 0.00 42i. 67 517.73 939.40 1 . 64~. 00 Cnecl: 'Totals: 00005439_ 09/11/90 MORELAND MORELAND & ASSOC I ATES 090190 09/01/90 U078 08/20/90 ACCT SVCS FOR LEAVE G. R. 090290 09/01/9u (.>9/031~(> MO HENRY F]jNAL iNVOICE 64.6. 946.00 263. Orl 0.0{'~ C!. 00 t}. Orl I. , ~4-6. Cx I , 94~. O0 C~9/10/~0 City o-~ Temecula Fiscal Yeal .991 Check Register Check Date Vendor Name ' Invoice Date F'/O Date Description F'age: 3 Station: 1847 Gross Discount Net 0890 ..... 09103190.-0069 ....... r,9t05/90 CLEANIN SVC 8t90-- -337. CK~ - - 0. C~0 · 337.00 0.00 337. 0.00 185.00 Check Totals: ............. 185.00 ............ 0.00 ....... 185.00 HOOK-UF' L I NE FOR PLANN I NG 45.00 0.00 45.00 ~NSTALL LINES AT 43172 BS PK ........ 94.00 - -- -C~.00 ....... 94.00 L I NE CORD 88.21 0.00 88.21 Chec~otals: ............... 22'/-.-~t ....... 0.0C~ ..... 227.21 F'UBLIC HR PLANNING 7-31-90 I 1 I. 55 0.00 1 i 1.55 F'UB~tG HEARING NOTICE 8/28 .... t14.46 .......... 0.00 ....... 114.46 PUBLIC HR 8/14 ADVER 134.83 0.00 134.83 Check Totals: 337.00 00C~54~1-09/11/90 ~ESTMAST-PESTMASTER-SERVICES 082190 08/21/90 90096 08/21/90 PEST CONTROL 185.00 00005442 09/11/90 PHONEMAN THE PHONE MAN 5499 09/06/90 90122 5485 ..... 081~1190--90114 5454 08/20/90 90093 09/05/90 08/29/90 08/20/90 00005443 09/11/90 PRESSENT PRESS ENTERPRISE 7RI400602 08/14/9o 60007 08/14/9A ................ 80L100602 08/28/-90 ~0010 08/24/~0 8AL100702 08/21/90 60009 08/14/90 8FL300401 .................. 8~L.300501 8FL300701 8FL300601 08/18/90 20010 08/16/90 PUBLIC HR NOTICES 4 64.02 0.00 64.02 AS/18/~2(~-20010----~)8/-16~90-PUBLIC HR NOTICES 4 .............. 76.63 ........ 0.00 -~ -- 76.63 08/18/90 20010 08/16/90 PUBLIC HR NOTICES 4 60.14 0.0o 60.14 08/18/90 20010 08/16/90 F'UBLIC HR NOTICES 4 62.08 0.00 62.08 08/<;t/90 70014-- - 0~/27/90 AD-FOR DOG LICENCES 129.78 - ' 0.00 - 129.78 Check Totals: 753.49 0.00 753.49 00(~]5444 09/4-t/90-PRtCESEC- PRtCE~ECUR~TY SYSTEMS ............................................................. 1410 08/06190 08106/90 43180 BSN F'K DR SU I TE 200 90.00 0.00 90.00 ......................... Check Totals: -- 00005445 09/11/90 RIVERCO RIVERSIDE COUNTY F'URCHASING 117598 08/24/90 90008 06/18/90 MAAF'S, 3 HOLE F'UNCH, PHONE RE 90.00 - 0.00 - 84.42 0.00 Check Totals: 00005446 09/11/90 RIVERSID RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY .... 89589-0 ...... 08/28/90 40009- -- 08/22/9o FILE SAFE 89271-2 08/14/90 90o81 08/07/90 PRESS FILES, ERASER, FOLDER 89271-1 08/13/90 90081 08/07/90 PRESS FILES, ERASER, FOLDER ..... 89271-0 08/10/90 90081 08/07/90 F'RESS FILES, ERASER, FOLDER Check Totals: 00~7 09-/1-1~90 SCAEDISO SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 082390 08/23/90 08/23/90 43172 BS PK ST A 082391 08/23/90 08/23/90 43180 BUS PK DR SUITE 200 ....... 082392 08/25/90 08/23/90 43180 BSN F'K DR SUITE 201 H Check Totals: 000~-48 09/ll/90 SIRSPEED SIR SF'EEDY 2313 09/05/90 90105 08/24/90 WHITE LETTER ENVELOPES ........................ Check Totals: 00005449 09/11/90 SOUTHERN SOUTHERN CA TELEF'HONE CO 082490 08/08/90 08/08/90 CELLULAR PHONE SVC Check Total s: 00C~05450 09/11/90 STATENET STATE NET-LEGISLATIVE RF'T ....... 082990 --- 09/C~7/9C; C;9/07/9C~ 1 YR SUBSCR FOR CITY ELE MAIL 84.42 0.00 328.79 0.00 15.76 0.00 226.03 0.00 97.40 0.00 667.98 0.00 482.54 0.00 61 i. 86 0.00 119.70 <~. 00 1,2~4.10 187.69 0.00 t87.69 0.00 85.79 0.00 85.79 0.00 475.00 0.00 475.00 (~. 00 C:heck Total s: 90.00 84.42 84.42 328.79 15.76 226.03 97.40 187.69 t87.69 85.79 85.79 475. O0 475. (iO 667.98 482.54 611.86 119.70 0.00 i . 214.10 90 City of Temecuia Page: 4 Year: 1991 Check Register Station: 1847 ---J)ate ...... Vendor ............. Name ................................................. Invoice Date F'/O Date Description 8ross Discount Net e~]_SIRACHOT~TBL~CNO-TA--I NSURANCE 15151 09/07/9A _!)8/3.0/9A LIAB FOR 45180 BSN F'K -__ _Check. 2I~t s: 52 09/11/90 TELECOMM TELECOMMUNICATIONS MGMT CORF' 9503-2 08/01/90 0070 07/25/90 EVAL OF FRANCHISE APPLICATION Cf~eck Totals: 55 09/11/90 TEMCULAT TEMECULA TOWNE ASSOC ~-zL-__90 i~_9_/_047~0 O~D4/~O_ CLEAN~FJE~CDUN~ L~E~ N~ 1 , 858.00 0.00 1 , 658.00 5_zL i~E/11/BO__IEMEnULW--IEMECULLWEEK 90-100-823 08/23/9¢'~ 70017 90-090-802 08/02/90 70013 1-, 658. O0 0.00 1-, 658~00 2,8c)0.00 0.00 2,800.00 2,800.00 0.00 2,800.00 216 .~)0 {~ .-00 216~00 Check Totals: 216.00 0.00 216 .~ 00 08/16/90 DOG VACCINATION CLINIC 07/27/90 AD FOR DOG LICENCES i I 1.72 o. 00 111.72 111.72 0.0o 111.72 Check Totals: 55 09/11/90 TEMVALBU TEMECULA VALLEY BUSINESS JOUR 8.~9~.__ 08/2.~-90 700~5---- O~/~/-90-AD-~OR-~DOG-~ICENSES 223.44 0.00 223.44 1-25.~0---- 0.-0(~ 1-25~:~(~ 56_O!~_Z1 I7_eCL]ZGOMAS 51A485 Check Totals: T~OMAS_IEMF!ORARZ ES 08/12/90 20001 08/12/9o TEMP SVS FOR PLANNING 125.00 0.00 125.00 173.34 0.00 173.34 --- Cbeck-Jotals: 57 09/11/90 THORSBOR ALICIA THORSBORNE 091890 09118190 09/18/90 MILEAGE REIMB FOR AUG 90 Check Totals: 58 u9/11/90 TOWNCTR TOWN CENTER STATIONERS ........ !JL2'64 _ ___ 08Z08/~20 20009 -__ 08/DG/~gD-CQMP--DESKS,--PRTR-STAND HUTCH -- Check Totals: ._O~/1L/gCL V;~LLEY .---VALLEY- OFFICE F'RODUCTS 8216 08/28/90 90094 A8/20/90 NAME PLATES 85.40 A.00 821 i 08/28/90 90106 08/24/90 STORAGE TOTE 139. ~7 0. 8135 ..... 08/22/90_ 90099_ ---08722/90. HANG FLDRS, MANILLA FLDRS .......... 422.62 ......... O. 00 81 i0 o8/21/90 90092 08/16/90 KEY CABINET 77.81;~ 0.00 ......... Check-To:ais: ............... 725.19 -- --~ ~0 09/11/90 WHITECAP WHITE CAP F101178 08/27/90 70020 08/22/90 ELECT ENGRAVER PENCIL 87.40 0.00 87.40 E1-00~04___08/10/90 ~0090 ___ 08/08/90- WOODEN A_ADDER~ BROOM .................. 45.76 ........ 0.00 ....... 45.76 - F101287 08/30/90 70020 08/22/9A ELECT ENGRAVER F'ENCIL 43.69 0.00 43.69 Cneck~Iotais: ................ i~6.85 ........ 0.00 ....... 1-76.85-- 09/11/90 WINDSORF' WINDSOR F'ARTNER'S On2-51r~0 08/28/90 09/01/90 43172 RENT 9/90 CAM FOR 8/90 3,898.58 0.00 3,898.58 ......... 080i~0 ...... 08/-1j/90-9009~__ -j)8~15/90-T-&J~ DIR-STRIPS, DR PLAQUE .... 109.04 ........ 0.00 ..... 109.~.~ - Check Total s: 4,007.62 Reoort ~otais: ~4.391.82 08/24/90 PAYROLL 0.00 4,007.62 0.00 64.391. ~2 20,936.89 $85,328.71 85.40 139.37 422.62 -- - 77.80 17-5,-34 0.00 1~3, -34--- -- 10.00 0.00 10.00 10.0C~ 0.00 10.00 088.51 ........ ~3, O0 ......... 1 , 088.51 ......... ;' 088.51 0.00 1 , 088.51 ITEM NO. 4- ORDINANCE NO. 90-16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-01 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Temecula is a newly incorporated city failing with the scope of Government Code Section 65360 and thus not subject to the requirement that a Generai 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 Generai 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 studies 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 actuaily adopted. D. The Development Agreement and the development to be carried out hereunder otherwise complies with ail other applicable requirements of State law and City ordinances. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65867.5, Development Agreement No. 90-01 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 behaif of the City of Temecula after execution thereof by ail landowners listed therein, provided ail such landowners have executed said Development Agreement within 30 days after adoption of this Ordinance. 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 shail hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invaiid, such decision shail not affect the vaiidity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. 3/Ords90-16 -1- SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of September, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-16 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of August, 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 18th day of September, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor Jun S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 3/Ords90-16 -2- ITEM NO. 5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Deputy City Clerk September 18, 1990 Application for Beverage License - Harold's Restaurant RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file BACKGROUND: The enclosed copy of an application for ABC License is for the Harold's Restaurant located at 29000 "A" Front Street, south of Old Town Temecula. This is provided for Council's information and requires no formal action. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department September 18, 1990 Plot Plan No. 86 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER PREPARED BY: Steve Padovan RECOMMENDAT ION: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Inland Valley Cablevision REPRESENTATIVE: Inland Valley Cablevision PROPOSAL: Request for an exemption from Ordinance Nos. 90- 03 to construct a 60 foot receiving antenna tower and microwave dish. LOCAT ION: East side of La Serena Way, north of General Kearney Road. EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-1, Single Family R-l, Single Family R-4, Planned Residential R-1, Single Family PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Communications tower on the northern portion of property surrounded by a newly constructed park to the south and west of the existing equipment. STAFFRPT\PP86 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Newly Constructed Park Mobile Home Park Single Family Residential Number of Acres: 14.26 On January 9, 1990, the City Council approved a moratorium on the construction and use of television and radio transmittin9 antennas. This moratorium was enacted due to aesthetic and land use problems that have arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmittin9 antennas within the city. The moratorium was extended until January 8, 1991 by Ordinance No. 90-03. Plot Plan No. 86 was approved by the City of Temecula Plannin9 commission on August 20, 1990 with a recommendation that the City Council 9rant an exemption from Ordinance No. 90-3 based on the findings contained in the Staff Report. Plot Plan No. 86 involves a new 60 foot receivin9 antenna tower with a 10 foot microwave dish located on the upper portion. The existin9 tower will be removed. The applicant is requestin9 an exemption from Ordinance No. 90-3 to construct a receiving antenna. The applicant has requested the tower in order to upgrade the reception of several channels received in the service area. The height and size of the tower and dish are required in order to receive clearly the transmissions from a transfer station. In addition, existin9 receivin9 facilities are already located on site and two other utility corridors lie adjacent to the site, the Metropolitan Water District and Southern California Edison power lines. The City of Temecula Plannin9 Commission has reviewed and approved the plot plan and is recommendin9 that the City Council 9rant this exemption. The project is consistent with current site zoning and will comply with the future General Plan of the City of Temecula. The Planning Commission has adopted a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 86. STAFFRPT\PP86 2 FINDINGS: Site Approval STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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 findin9s 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. The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council GRANT an exemption to Ordinance No. 90-3 and allow construction of the approved Plot Plan No. 86 per the attached Conditions. SP:ks Attachments STAFFRPT\PP86 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan 86 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 60 foot antenna tower with a 10 foot microwave dish mounted to the upper portion. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or it agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concernin9 Plot Plan No. 86. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginnin9 of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginnin9 of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on plot plan marked Exhibit A, 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· Any outside Lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-d-way. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 11-08- 89, a copy of which is attached. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved Landscape, Irrigation, and Shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten ~10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty ~30) inches· STAFFRPT\PP86 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, four ~4) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants sb_all be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12. The irrigation plan shall be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12 and include a rain shut-off device. In addition, the plan will incorporate the use of in-line check valves, or sprinkler heads with incorporated check valves to prohibit low head drainage. Landscape plans shall incorporate species varieties that are present in the adjacent park and shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees throughout the project site. All existing debris on site shall be removed and excess soil either dispersed or removed after construction has been completed. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Environmental Health Building & Safety - Grading Fire Department Written evidence of compliance shall be presented to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety. If signage is proposed, a separate plot plan accompanied by the appropriate fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 348 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to sign installation. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a six foot high ornamental wrought iron fence shall be constructed around all communications equipment including all accessory buildings. The required fence shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety. Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of ten 110) feet at maturity. Dense screening will be required around the new tower and along the property lines with the exception of the area surrounding the ground mounted dishes north of the tower. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along the boundary with the newly constructed park, and such trees shall be of the same species and variety. STAFFRPT\PP86 2 !9. All outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. 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 planrings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved plan, the adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. 21. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 22. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. 23. Prior to any use allowed by this plot plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. 24. The tower shall be painted to blend with the surrounding natural environment. Colors shall be approved by the City of Temecula Planning Department. 25. The existing tower shall be removed once the new tower is operational. 26. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. STAFFRPT\PP86 3 Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August :20, 1990 Case No.: Plot Plan 86. Adoption of Negative Declaration Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Inland Valley Cablevision Inland Valley Cablevision For the construction of a 60 foot receiving antenna tower with a 10 foot microwave dish. East side of La Serena Way, north of General Kearney Road. Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village North: South: East: West: R-1, Single Family R-1, Single Family R-q, Planned Residential R-1, Single Family Not requested Communications tower on the northern portion of property surrounded by a newly constructed park to the south and west of the existing equipment. North: South: East: West: Single Family Residential Newly Constructed Park Mobile Home Park Single Family Residential Number of Acres: 1~.26 PLANNINC\PP86 1 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: The project site contains an existing 54 foot antenna tower, a small accessory building, and a man made depression which contains several ground mounted microwave dishes. The site is accessed by a small unimproved road that branches off from the Metropolitan Water District maintenance road for the San Diego Aqueduct which parallels the project site on its eastern boundary. The 1~4.26 acre parcel contains all the area bounded by La Serena Way, General Kearney Road and the MWD easement. The receiving equipment occupies only a small portion of the lot which is to be subdivided from the larger parcel into a .68 acre lot. The remainder of the land is currently being developed as a park for the community in conjunction with the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199, and will be dedicated to the city. On January 9, 1990, the City Council approved a moratorium on the construction and use of television and radio transmitting antennas. This moratorium was enacted due to aesthetic and land use problems that have arisen with respect to the construction of television and radio transmitting antennas within the city. The moratorium was extended until January 8, 1991 by Ordinance No. 90-03. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 60 foot tower which will have a 10 foot microwave dish mounted on its upper portion. This new tower will be larger in bulk than the existing antenna and the new foundation will be 6 feet lower on the ridge. The dish will be facing northeast, 52 degrees of true north. The tower will be used exclusively for receiving cable stations from the company~s main transmitting operations in Hemet. The applicant has requested the tower in order to upgrade the reception of several channels received in the service area. Once the new tower is operational the existing antenna will be removed. The proposal is consistent with Section 5.1 .c(6) of Ordinance No. 3L~8 which permits antennas with an approved plot plan. However, the applicant must obtain an exemption from the Planning Commission and the City Council due to the enactment of Ordinance 90-3. Staff feels that an exemption should be granted due to the immediate need for improved cable reception and the location of the existing facility on the parcel. In addition to this, 2 J GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: the applicant has shown an interest in relocating the receiving station to an industrial area in the future. A time frame has not been established for this relocation. The relative height of the proposed tower will be approximately equal to that of the existing tower because the foundation lies 6 feet lower. The visual impact of the new tower can be mitigated through the use of landscaping. The mobile home park to the east is located approximately 200 feet from the tower and is separated by a ridge which rises 25 feet above the new tower's foundation. With the addition of the landscaping along the eastern property line using dense evergreen trees, the visual impact will be minimized. The residences to the north and east will be impacted in a similar method. The addition of dense landscaping around the tower and accessory building should minimize the effect. In addition, all equipment and structures will be enclosed with an ornamental wrought iron fence. The project is consistent with the current site zoning and the Southwest Area Plan. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, an initial study was performed for this proposal. It was determined that possible negative impacts to the environment could occur as a result of project implementation. However, adherence to city conditions of approval, policies, and development standards would mitigate those concerns. As such, a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption· 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 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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. 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: ADOPT a Negative Declaration, APPROVE Plot Plan No. 86 and the attached Conditions of Approval, and RECOMMEND that the City Council grant an exemption from Ordinance No. 90-3 based on findings contained in the Staff Report. SP: ks Attachments: 1. Exhibits 2. Conditions of Approval Project Location Location Map_ SCALE: 1'= 4000' N~f'l d J.. O'l d a~o. ITEM NO. 7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER 3/ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Mana9er Planning Department September 18, 1990 Revised Parcel Map No. 19582 PREPARED BY: Steve Padovan RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File APPLICATION iNFORMATION APPLI CANT: Bedford Properties, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Webb, Hawkins F, Associates PROPOSAL: To revise phases 3, 4, and 5 ( Final ) of a commercial parcel map by increasing the total number of parcels from 8 large lots to 55 smaller lots. LOCATION: Southwest of Jefferson Avenue, north of Murrieta Creek. EXISTING ZONING: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: M-SC and A-1-20 ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) (Light Agricultural, 20 acre minimum) M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) PROPOSED ZONING: Not Applicable, EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant STAFFRPT\ PM19 5 8 2 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: North: South: East: West: Vacant Light Manufacturing Vacant Vacant No. of Acres: No. of Original Lots: No. of Proposed Lots: Minimum Parcel Size: 157.5 55 Commercial 55 Commercial 1.0 Acre BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: Tentative Parcel Map No. 19582 and Environmental Assessment No. 18031 were originally approved by the County Board of Supervisors on July 24, 1985 for 59 lots on 251 acres. A subsequent phasing map was approved and Phase 1 and 2 have been recorded and built. The final 3 phases of the map have not been recorded. The map has been granted three extensions of time, the final of which expired on June 11, 1990. A letter dated July 11, 1990from the City Attorney, Scott Field, and the City Engineer, Tim Setlet, states that the map has an additional 36 months, until June 11, 1993, before it officially expires due to reasons stated in the letter which is attached to this report. The revised parcel map was approved by the County Planning Commission on August 9, 1989. The final approval from the County Board of Supervisors was not grated until January 23, 1990. However, the City Council must issue the final approval after December 1, 1989 on all projects approved through the County. The applicant is proposing to revise phases 3, 4 and 5 (Final) of the approved tentative parcel map by increasing the total number of Commercial parcels from eight ~8) lots to fifty-five (55) lots. Zoninq/Land Use The revised parcel map does comply with the M-SC zoning standards of Ordinance No. 348 and 460. It is compatible with the intended use of the land and will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. The proposed density of 2.86 units per acre; and, the commercial subdivision are consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted, STAFFRPT\ PM19 5 8 2 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: FINDINGS: STAFFRPT\PM19582 As previously noted, an Environmental Assessment i No. 18031) was prepared by the County, and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors for this project. There is a reasonable probability that Revised Tract No. 19582 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· 10. 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. Revised Tentative Tract No. 19582 is compatible with surrounding land uses. 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. 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 3 11. 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 contro) 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: RECEIVE AND FILE Revised Parcel Map No. 19582 based on the analysis and findings contained in this report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SP:ks Attachments STAFFRPT\PM19582 4 DATE: January 23, 1990 RE: RiVE:[ iDE COUn;V PLAnnin DEPA:tCI'RErI REVISED INDUSTRIAL TENTATZVE PARCEL MAP 140. 19582, Amd. #2 E. A. NUMBER: 32837 REGIONAL TEAM NO. One Dear Applicant: The RIverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the following action on the above referenced tentative mad at tts regular meeting of January 23, 1990 . APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions. DENIED tentative map based on attached findings. APPROVED withdrawal of tentative map. The tentative map has b~mn 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 lg70. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted. A conditionally approved tentative map shal.1 expire 24months after the approval at the Board of Supervisors Hearing, the date of which is shown above, unless within that period of time a final map shall have been approved and filed with the County Recorder. Prior to the expiration date, the land divider may apply in writing for an extension of time. Application shall be made to the Planning Director thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the tentative map. The Board of Supervisors may extend the period for one year and upon further application a second and third year. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roemr $. $tr~ter, Planning Director DK:lgg FILE - WHITE Kim Jarr~t~[ Johnson, Senior Planner APPLICANT - CANARY ENGINEER - PINK 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 ~ i ~ : RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~.. ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL m REVISED INDUSTRIAL PARCEL NAP NO. 19582, AMENDED NO. 2 m The following conditions of approval are for amendment No. 2 of the third and final phase of Revised Industrial Parcel Map No. 19582, for the purpose of increasing the number of lots from 8 to 55. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of RIverside, tts agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or tts agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, votd, or annul, an approval of the County of Riverside, lts advtsory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Revised Industrial Parcel Map No. 19582, Amended No. 2, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Ca]iforn~a Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any Such c181m, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully tn the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subd~vider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside. The tentative parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, Schedule E, unless modified by the conditions listed below, This aDDroved tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Boar~ o{ Supervisors approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance No. 460. The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act, RIverside County Subdivision Ordinance No. 460. Prior to any grading, a grading plan in compliance with the Uniform Buildtn9 Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance No. 457, shall be submitted to the County Department of Butldtn9 end Safety or unless otherwise stipulated by the County's Htllslde Development Standards as outlined tn conditions of approval. All delinquent property taxes shell be paid prior to recordatlon of the ftnel map. The eubcllvtder ehall comply with the street improvement recommendations purltried in the County Road Department's letter dated Decmmber 30, 1984, a copy of vhtch is attached. Legal access as required by Ordinance460 shall be provtded from the parcel map boundary to 8 County maintained road. REVZSED ZNDUSTRI~L PARCEL MAP NO. 109582, AND. 12 Conditions of Approval Page 2 10. 11. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue tn force untl 1 the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the County Road Co~lsstoner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the flnal map If within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provtde for nonexclusive public road and utiltty access. All easements, offers of dedication, and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor. The subdivider shall comply with the Environmental Health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittel dated July 28, 1989, a copy of which is attached. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The subdivider shall comply with California Department of Transportation recommendations dated, February 29, 1984 and March 2, 1984, a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated March 17, 198g, a copy of which is attached. Zf the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside County Land Division Ordinance No. 460, appropriate fees for the Construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner prior to recordation of the final reap or waiver of parcel map. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations purltried in the County Fire Marshall's letter dated July 25, 1989, a copy of whtch ts attached. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Bulldtng and Safety Department - Land Use Dectton's transmittel dated June 30, 1989, · copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall coinply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department - Grading hctton's transmittel dated June 29, 1989, a copy of which ts attached. The subdlvtder shall comply with the recoweendattons outlined in the County Geologist transmtttals dated August 8, lg88, copies of which are attached, The applicant/owner shall show the County Regional Open Space trail along Murrteta Creek, with a mlntmum width of 14 feet, on the Ftnal Map and Grading Plans, The Plans are to be received end revlewed by County Parks Department, REVZSED INDUSTRZA=L PARCEL MAP NO. 19582, AND. 12 Conditions of Approval Page 3 19. The applicant/owner shall preserve rtDartan vegetation along Hurtiota Creek and along Santa Gertrudts Creek; and also preserve the eucalyptus tree grove, as Indicated tn the Btology report No. 293, on file at the RIverside County Planntn9 Department. 20. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the Planntng Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department that the total pro3ect wtll be developed and maintained tn accordance with the intent and purposes of the approval: a. The document to convey title b. Covenants, codes and restrictions to be recorded Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the project, including reciprocal easement agreements for driveway access for those parcels frontin9 Winchester. (Amended at BOS 6/11/85) The approved documents shall be recorded at the same time that the subdivision map is recorded. Said documents shall contain provisions for ownership or the irrevocable right to use the open space and amenities by the owners of the pro3ect. 21. A property owner's association with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the Individual units for reasonable maintenance costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the rtght to lien the property of the owners who default tn the payment of their assessments. Such lten shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed of trust Is made tn good faith and for value end ts of record prior to the lten of the association. DEVELOPNENT STANDARDS: 22. No building permits shall be issued by the County of RIverside for any residential lot/untt wtthtn the pro3ect boundary until the developer, or the developer's successors-In-Interest provide evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be depositedwtth the RtverstdeCountyDepartment of Butldtng end Safety as mitigation for publlc ltbrary development. 23. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the M-SC zone. 24. All lots created by this land division shall have a minimum area of 1.0 acre net. , -, REVISED INDUSTRIAL PARCEL NAP NO. 19582, AND. 12 Conditions of Approval Page 4 25. When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less than 3600 square feet, exclusive of the uttllty easement. PRIOR TO THE RECORDATZON OF THE FINAL NAP: 26. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the following conditions shall be complied with: A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The subdivider shall submit to the Planning Director an agreement with the CSA 143 Recreation and Parks District, which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County that the land divider has provided for the payment of parks and recreation fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No. 460. The agreement shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to the recordation of the final map. 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 Parks Department County Flood Control County Planning Department County Health Department Santa Aria Regional Water Quality Control Board ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS: 27. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final mapSod·linear· identified environmental concerns end shall be permanently f119~ with the office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordatlon of the ftnal map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planntng Department for review and approval, The m}proved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded ftnal map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building end Safety. The following note(s) shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. "County ArchaeologlcalReportNo. 1289 was prepared for this property on November 1986 by Christopher Drover, Ph,D., and is on ftle at the Riverside County Planntng Department." 'Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the delineated Wtldomar Fault constraint area. This constraint affects parcels 2, 3, 4 and 48 through 55." REVZSED ZNDUSTRZAL PARCEL NAP 19582, AMD. 12 Conditions ef Approval Page 5 'Structures for human occupancy shall delineated Murrteta Creek constraint area. parcels "E" through "L"." not be allowed in the This constraint affects he The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: 'County Geological Report No. 199 and No. 529 were prepared for this property by Pioneer Consultants, and are on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the reports are liquefaction hazard, earthquake hazard, and soil settlement." County Biological Report No. 293 was prepared for this property on September 1988 by Tierra Hadre Consultants, and is on f~le at the Riverside County Planning Department. County Paleontologlcal report No. 108 was prepared for this Droparty on December 13, 1985, by RMW Paleo Associates. and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. "This property is located within thirty (30) m~les of Mount Palomar Observatory. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the Observatory. Outdoor lighting shall be from low oressure sodium lamps that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination above the horizontal plane passing through the luminaire." Indicate the availability of domestic water services to the sub3ect property as of the date of recordation of the final map. 28. 30. 31. 32. 33. The following note shall be placed on the final map: "Constraints affecting this property are shown on the accompanying Environmental Constraints Sheet, the original of which is on file at the office of the Riverside County Surveyor· These constraints affect parcels 2, 3, 4, 48 through 55, and 'E" through 'L". Commercial and industrial plot Plans shall badesigned so as to facilitate publtc transportation access by providing for bus stopping and turning movements, Landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Trash bins, loading areas end incidental storage areas shall be located away end vtsually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping, Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded fromview of surrounding Droparty. Building elevations shall be submitted concurrently with plot plan applications end shall Include full roof treatments which may include REVISED INDUSTRIAL PARCEL NAP NO. 19582, AND. 12 Conditions of Appcoval Page 6 mansard roofs. 34. The Industrial and con~nercial areas shall be developed in a manner architecturally harmonious and compatible wtth uses In the area. 35. 36. Btke racks and btke lockers tn sufficient quantity shall be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bike access to the project area. Prior to the recordatton of the final maD, the landdivider shall submit master conceptual improvement plans for landscaping and irrigation on the subject property to the Planning Director for approval. Said plans shall be certified by a qualified landscape architect and shall be marked Exhibit "D". 37. Landscaping, irrigation and signage improvements plans shall be submitted concurrently with plot plan application for areas of development in process. Improvement plans shall conform to the standards and features presented on Exhibit "D" and shall be certified by a Qualified landscape architect. 38, All existing trees on the subject property with a trunk diameter greater than four (4} inches shall be preserved. Removal shall be at the discretion of the Planning Director. 39. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted concurrently with plot plan and grading permit applications. Landscaping plans shall provide for native grasses, herbs and shrubs to be planted on all cut and fill surfaces adjacent to open space areas as approved by the Planning Director. 40. Parking lot landscaping shall include a behead and landscaped setback from adjacent streets. An additional three percent (3%) of the parking area shall be landscaped (exclusive of the setback) with a minimum of one (1) specimen tree per eight (8) parking spaces, unless greater standards are applted by zoning. 41. 42. 43. Minimum landscape coverage shell be ten percent (10%) for each commercial parcel and each industrial parcel, unless greater standards are applie~ by zoning. The applicant and/or developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all $1opeplanttng, landscaped areas, irrigation systems, parking facilities until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the lenddivider for consultation and co~mnent on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontologtcal impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the REVZSED ZNDUSTRZAL PARCEL MAP NO. 19582, AND, t2- Conditions of Approval Page 7 excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. The paleontologist or authorized representative shall also be present during excavation and grading activities. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redtract or halt grading activtty to allow recovery of fossils. 44. Prior to the recordation of the final map, an overall conceptual grading plan for the phase tn process shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The grading plan shall be used as a guideline for subseauent detatled grading plans for individual stages of development and shall Include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas wnqch may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through Hatch. c. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 45. Grading plans shall conform to the following criteria: The applicant and/or developer shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all planting and irrigation systems untql such time as those operations are the responsibility of other parties. be Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terratn. Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual impacts to surrounding areas. The overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed tnconcertwlth the existing natural contours and scale of the natural terrain of a particular site. ee The toes and tops of 811 slopes in excess of eight feet in vertical height shall be rounded with curves with radii designed in proportion to the total height of the slopewhere drainage and stability permit euch rounding. Cut or fill slopes exceeding one hundred feet in horizontal length, she11 be graded to meander the toe and top of the slope. Natural feature shall be protected to the greatest extent feasible in the siting of Individual lots and butldtng pads. REVZSED ZNDUSTRIAL PARCEL NAP NO. 19582, AND. 12 Conditions of Appr_oval Page 8 46. 47. 48. Building shall be located a mtntmum of ten feet from the toes and tops of all slopes over etght feet tn vertical hetght. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in weed-free condition and planted wtth lnterlm landscaping, Prtor to the recordatton of the flnal map the landdivider shall sul~it Improvement plans for construction of Class ZI btke lanes In accordance vtth General Plan Standards. Satd plans shall be approved by the Planning Dtrector and shall be Included on associated road Improvement plans, Prior to the recordation of the final mad the landdivider shall obtain clearance from the Airports Department with respect to the establishment of any necessary clear zones on the subject property and with respect to the 9ranting of any necessary easements for overflight access. This condition shall not be applicable tf the new airport site is located an appropriate distance from the project site. The developer shall submit Annual Development Monitoring Reports to the Planning Department. The reports shall be submitted before August 1, for each fiscal year of development and shall include but shall not be limited to the following: ae A tracking report of development activity that summarizes unit and lot totals by phases. b$ A listing of the status of mitigation measures as required in the conditions of approval and identified in EZR No. 107 related to environmental, public services and facilities lmpacts. DK:199 8-2-89 - .. Zontng Area: Nurrleta m !Ftrst Supervtsortaq Dlstrtct o }E.A. Number 32837 5 tagtonal Team No. I Appl 1cant: Engl near/Rap.: Type of Request: 4, Location: Extsttng Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Site Characteristics: Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General Designation: REVISED INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 19582 AMENDED NO. 2 Plannlng Commission: 8-09-89 Agenda Item No.: 2-3 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Recommendations: 12. 13, Sphere of Influence: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT STAFF REPORT Plan Bedford Properties Inc. Webb, Hawkins &Assoc. Revise a commercial parcel map to add 47 lots. West of the I-15 and South of Jefferson along Nurrteta Creek N-SC N-SC, A-1-20, C-1/C-P and C-P-S Vacant sandy wash and floodway area, natural and disturbed grassland adjacent to Nurrieta Creek· Vacant natural terratn, light manufacturing service conmnerctal and light industrial· Land Use: Density: N/A Open Space/Cons: Areas Not Open Space Total Acreage: 163,6 Total Lots: 55 DU Per Acre: 2.9 Proposed Hln. Lot Stze: See letter~ dated: Road: 7-28-89 Health: 7-28-89 Flood: 3-17-89 Ftra: 7-25-89 8utldtng & Safety Land Use: Butldtng& Safety Gradtrig: County Geologist: 8-08-88 BLIND: 1-21-88 Opposing/Supporting: None Category II Industrial/Commercial Designated as 1.0 acre 6-30-89 6-29-89 ANALYSIS: Protect Descrlntton The eppllcettonfor a RevtsedPemtt for Industrial Parcel Map No, 19582, Amended No. 2 tnvolvea 163,6 acmgross tn the Nurrteta area, located west of Interstate 15 and south of Jefferson. The Revtmed Permit ta an application to increase the number of lots to 55, Parcel Map No, 19582 wee originally epproved July 24, 1985. It was aDDroved for 69 lOtS on 251 acres, Phase 1 and 2 of the parcel map were subsequently REVISED ZNDUSTRIAL PARCEL HAP NO. 19582, AND. 12 Staff Report - Page 2 recorded. The revised permit under consideration here is for the third and final phase of Parcel Nap 19582. The application ts to revise the map from 8 large lots, to 55 smaller lots. The original acreage of the project Is not increased. Land Use/Zonlnq The area surrounding the pro~ect stte Includes vacant land, some commercial and some ltght manufacturing uses. The project stte constats of vacant natural and degraded vegetation on a sandy floodway. There tsa grove of trees and scattered trees on the property, end Hurtlate Creek runs along the west property 1the and Santa Gertrudts Creek runs along the south stde. Znterstate 15 ts located to the East of the project, and Winchester Road (Hwy 79) dead-ends into the site. Zontn9 on the stte ts H-SC, and surrounding zontn9 tnclude H-SC, A-1-20, C-1/C- P and C-P-S. Project Consistency/Area Compatibility The project lies wtthtn the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Area, and withln the RanchoVtlla9es Cmwnunity Policy Area. Theatre Is designated as "H", also known as Employment Center West. The poltctes for thls area call for co~ercial land uses at major road Intersections and Industrial park developments on remaining lands. The land use designation yes determined by staff to be Category ZZ - Urban, which allows for a broad range of uses Including Industrial and commercial. The project is also located within the Southwest Area Community Plan which was tentatively mpproved at Planntng Cm~tsston on July 19, 1989. The tentative designation ts Ltght Zndustrtel (L.Z.). Adjacent to the site ts Nurrieta Creek, vhtch has been tentatively aDDroved as 8 Ragtonal Open Space area. Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with both the extsttng ~outh~st Territory end Rancho V111ages C~maunlty policies, and with the tentatively 8pproved Southwest Aria Commmntty Plan policies. Zn addition, the project ls compatible wtth surrouncllng land use, due to the transition of the area from rural uses to more urban uses. Fnvtronmentel AnAlysts An tntttal study for the Environmental Assessment No. 32837 yes done for the project and t8 attached to thts ripen,. Among the tseues of concern are: a fault hazard zone on the propen,y, potential lIQuefaction hazard, atr Qualtty, flooding, end v11dllfe, A geology report end en archaeological report were riclu~stedand received. Also a biology ripon,enda Stephens' kangarooRat Study ~re recluested and received. The SteDh~ns' Kangaroo Rat Study dtd not find any population of thts species on the site. The btology reDon, found no endangered or threatened antmals or sensitive plants on atte. Hobflyer, rlparlan plants and enlmala ~re found along Nurrteta and Santa Gen,rudts Creek, and m large tree grove end other mcatteredtre~s exist on the propen,y, The ercheologtcal report REVZSED ZNDUSTRZAL PARCEL NAP NO. 19582, AND. 12 Staff Report : Page 3 did not find any significant sites or cultural resources on the property. The geology report discussed methods to mittgate the fault hazard and potential liquefaction, All concerns ltsted in the E.A. wtll be mitigated at the time of develol~nent, and wtll be Incorporated Into the project design. FZNDZNGS 1. Revtsed mad for Parcel Na~ No. 19582-3, Amended No. 2 tsa proposed to revtse the map from 8 to 55 lots on m 163.6 acre site. 2. The pro3ect ts the third and ftnal phase of Parcel Nap No. 19582, which was originally approved July 24, 1985. 3. The project Is zoned N-SC and is vacant. 4. Surrounding zontn9 Includes M-SC, A-1-20, C-1/C-P and C-P-S. 5. The pro3ect 1tea wlthtn the Southwest Land Use Planntng Area, and wtthin the Rancho VIllages Community Poltcy Area. 6. The project site ts Category ZZ Industrial - coffeerctal. 7. The tentatively approved Southwest Area Community Plan asks for LZ (Light Zndustrtal) on the stte. 8. Environmental Assessment No. 32837 was done for thls project and the environmental tssues addressed theretn w111 be mitigated. CONCLUSZONS 1. Revised Zndustrial Parcel Nap No. 19582, Amended No. 2 Is consistent with the Rencho VIllages Coaeunltypollctes of the Comprehensive General Plan. 2. Revtsed Zndustrtel Parcel Nap No. 19582, Amended No. 2 ls consistent vlth the tentatively Loproved Soutlwest Area C~mmunity Plan land use designation. 3. Revtsed Znduatrlal Parcel Nap No. lg582, ~aended NO. 2 la ¢orKIlttonally ¢o.aattble wtth area develoment. 4. The environmental concerns can be atttgeted through the conditions of toprovalo RFCClI4FNDATZONS ADOPTZON of a Nagattve Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. , based on the conclusion that the Pro3ect wt11 not have · significant effect on the environment; and, REV]:SED :ZNDUSTRZAL PARCEL NAP NO. 19582, AND. 12- Staff Report ' Page 4 APPROVAL of the REV]:$ED PERN]:T FOR ]:NDUSTRTAL PARCEL NAP NO. lg582, AMENDED NO. 2, I~msed on the previous ftndlngs and conclusions, DK:lg9 8-01-89 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' ' ' '27, 1989 FROM: The Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: October SUBJECT: Notice of Decision of Tentative Parcel Map acted on by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1989. RECOMMENDED MOTION: RECEIVE AND FILE the Notice of Decision for the following tentative parcel map acted on by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1989. REVISED INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 19582, AMENDED NO. 2 - Bedford Properties - First Supervisorial District Murrieta Area - 157.5 Acres - 55 Lots - Schedule E - M-SC Zone: ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32837 and APPROVED the tentative map. The decision of the Planning Comission is considered final and no action by the Board of Supervisors is required unless, within 10 days after the Notice of Decision appears on the Board's agenda, the applicant or an interested person files an appeal accompanied by the fee set forth in Ordinance No. 460, unless the Board orders the matter set for public hearing before the appropriate appeal board. Roger S. Stree{er, Plann'ng' Z J I Di rector - ,L DK:csf 10/27/89 FORM 11-A (12/82) REVIEWED BY ADMINIS'rRATIV~ OFRCE r~ i r, tu i ~_~= uF I Hb, ~UAHU UF ~UPERV I SORS On motion of Supervisor Ceniceros, seconded by Supervisor Larson and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above report of approval is received and filed as recommended. Ayes: Noes: A~sent: Date: Prev. Agn. ref. Younglove, Ceniceros, Dunlap, None None January 83, 1990 Planning, Land Use, Applicant Larson and A yaham Ge ald A M ,,oney ~ eputyD Depts. Colaments Dist. AGENDANO 1.6 PINKS SUBMIllAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: The Planning Department SUBMITTALDATE: October 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Notice of Decision of Tentative Parcel Map acted on by the Planning Comission on August 9, 1989. ~. RECOMMENDED=MOTiON: ec RECEIVE AND FILE the Notice of Decision for the following tentative parcel map acted on by the Planning Con~ission on August 9, 1989. REVISED INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 19582, AMENDED NO. 2 - Bedford Properties - First Supervisorial District - Murrieta Area - 157.5 Acres - 55 Lots - Schedule E - M-SC Zone: ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32837 and APPROVED the tentative map. The decision of the Planning Connission is considered final and no action by the Board of Supervisors is required unless, within 10 days after the Notice of Decision appears on the Board's agenda, the applicant or an interested person files an appeal accompanied by the fee set forth in Ordinance No. 460, unless the Board orders the matter set for public hearing before the appropriate appeal board. ; CLL "'/ 1) ~g"6(rector Roger S. Streeter, n DK: csf 10/27/8g Deptm. Comments Dbt. AGENDA NC b ,e ..! L-' Mayor Ron Parks Mayor Pro Tem Karel F. Lindemans July 11, 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 (7 14) 694-1989 FAX (714) 694-1999 Councilmembers Patricia H. Birdsa2, Peg Moore J. Sal Mufioz Mr. Maury Alcheck Project Coordinator Bedford Properties P.O. Box 9016 Temecula, Ca 92390-073~ j u L 2 3 E~UStNESS PARKS DEV. RE: Tentative Parcel MaD 19582 Dear Mr. Alcheck: As requested, City Staff has reviewed the documents and information you provided in your June 5, 1990 letter as well as the information provided by Mr. Dennis O'Neil in his letter of June 4, 1990, regarding an extension for time for Parcel Map 19582. It is our conclusion that the filing of Final Map Nos. 19582-1 and 19582-2 extended the expiration of the Tentative Parcel Map 19582 by 36 months, through June 11, 1993. Our conclusion is based upon the fact that Bedford recorded Final Map No. 19582-1 on December 12, 1985, and Final Map No. 19582-2 on December 2, 1987, which were phased final maps for Parcel Map 19582. Pursuant to Subdivision Map Act Section 66452.6(a), the filing of phased final maps results in a 36-month extension of a Tentative Map, if the subdivider has made accompanying offsite improvements exceeding $125,000. Staff has concluded that the improvements made to both Murrieta Creek Channel and the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel are outside the property boundaries, and that the cost of these improvements would far exceed the $125,000 requirements of the Map Act in order to receive a 36-month extension of the Tentative Map. We have further concluded that a development moratorium has been imposed by a public agency pursuant to Section 66452.6(b) and (f) of the Subdivision Map Act. These Sections provide that the term of a tentative map shall not include any period of time during which a development moratorium, imposed after the approval of a map, is in existence, provided the moratorium does not exceed five years. It further provides that the development moratorium includes a moratorium resulting from the actions of public agencies, other than the City, which regulate land use, development, or the provision services to the land. Should any of the actions of these other agencies prevent, prohibit or delay the approval of the final map, these actions are deemed to be a development moratorium. It is recognized that because of the design restrictions placed on this property, as stated in the June 11, 1990 from Frank Pearits, Chief Planning Division for the Riverside County Flood Control District, a development moratorium does in fact exist. The Map Act further provides that "once a development moratorium is terminated, the Map shall be valid for the same amount of time as was left to run on the Map at the time the moratorium was imposed." Because the design restrictions imposed by the Riverside County Flood Control District still exist, the development moratorium is still in effect and Staff is unable to determine how many additional days of time extension will ultimately be allowed. At such time as the restriction is released, Bedford may request that the City calculate what additional time will be allowed. Finally, this letter is also intended to address the contention of John P. Yeager contained in his letter of June 13, 1990 concerning the validity of revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 19582. As you know, on August 9, 1989, the Riverside County Planning Commission approved a revised map for TPM 19582. Pursuant to Section 6.7(A) of the Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance, the time for appealing this decision does not begin to run until the matter appeared on the Board of Supervisors Agenda. Unfortunately, this Map never appeared on the Board of Supervisors Agenda until after City incorporation. However, once the City incorporated, the Board lacked any jurisdiction to approve this map. Consequently, it is our view that the revised Map still must appear on the City Council Agenda. We appreciate the concerns Mr. Yeager raised concerning consistency at Section 6.7 with this Subdivision Map Act. However, as Mr. Field explained to Mr. O'Neil previously, we are not in a position to grant any waiver from the terms of the Ordinance. Consequently, we support Bedford's decision reflected in Mr. O'Neil's letter of July 3, 1990 to the Council, that Bedford will work with City Planning Staff to have this matter placed upon the earliest City Council Agenda as is practical. Please feel free to call either one of us if you should have an questions. Sincerely, Tim D. Serlet City Engineer Scott Field City Attorney (714) 253-2431 July 3, 1990 1990 12221-00045 Honorable Mayor Ron Parks and Members of the City Council P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Re: Revised Tentative Parcel MaD No. 19582 Dear Mayor Parks and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents Bedford Development Company on certain land use matters involving a parcel of unimproved property located west of Interstate 15 and west of Jefferson Avenue adjacent to the Murrieta Creek channel. The property consists of approximately 158 acres and has been subdivided by revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 19582 ("TPM 19582"). When the City of Temecula incorporated on December 1, 1989, the City Council adopted by reference certain portions of the Riverside County Code as the governing ordinances in the City on an interim basis (City Council Ordinance No. 89-1 and City Council Ordinance No. 90-04). The County's subdivision ordinance (Ordinance No. 460) requires a notice of the Planning Commission's decision on a subdivision map to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. In the case of TPM 19582, the August 9, 1989 notice of the decision of the County Planning Commission approving the map did not appear on the Board's agenda until January 23, 1990, subsequent to the December 1, 1989 date of Temecula's municipal incorporation. Because of the timing of the aforementioned events, the City staff has advised Bedford that TPM 19582 should be approved by the City Council to be in compliance with Ordinance No. 460. 07-03-90 I~"~1 -(X)04,5 F:%/XL-.%15Z%(::INUt\__ge~M,~___17. LTi "- m s PETTIS. TESTER. KRUSE ~ KRINSKY Honorable Mayor Ron Parks and Members o~ the City Council July 3, 1990 Page 2 By letter dated June 13, 1990 from this firm to the City Attorney (copy attached), the City was put on notice that to the extent Ordinance No. 460 is inconsistent with the state Subdivision Map Act, the map act has occupied the field and preempts local ordinances governing the procedures for processing subdivisions. Accordingly, under state law and for the reasons stated in our June 13th letter, TPM 19582 is deemed to be approved by the County Planning Commission without any further action required by the City of Temecula. Even though it is Bedford's legal position that TPM 19582 has been approved in accordance with all of the applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, Bedford has agreed to submit TPM 19582 to the City Council for ratification by the City. This submittal does not subject TPM 19582 to the discretionary jurisdiction of the City nor constitute a waiver of any of Bedford's rights or remedies to assert the validity of TPM 19582 before any public agency or judicial body, should that become necessary. Accordingly, on behalf of Bedford Development Company, I am respectfully requesting the City Council to ratify the County of Riverside approval of TPM 19582. Dennis D. O 'Neil DDO/dlg Eric. CC: Li~a Peterson Maurey Alcheck Scott Field Dave Dixon OT-O[3-~) 12221 -OI)O&5 F:%IX)~152%(:~II\9006OO17.LT! June 13, 1990 12221-00045 Scott Fields, Esq. Burke, Williams & Sorensen 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 640 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: Tentative Parcel Map 19582-2 (Temecula] Dear Mr. Fields: As previously set forth in Dennis O'Neil's letter to you dated June 4, 1990, our client, Bedford Development Company ("Bedford"), is the owner of unimproved industrial property being subdivided by Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 19582 ("TPM 19582"). On August 9, 1989, the Riverside County Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") approved TPM 19582 for subdivision of one phase of the project. The City of Temecula (the "City") has taken the position that TPM 19582 was not approved by the County prior to the effective date of the City's incorporation and, therefore, the map must be approved by the City. In fact, TPM 19582 was approved by the County Planning Commission, was not appealed, and, therefore, became effective well before the City's incorporation date. In an attempt to determine the validity of the City's position we reviewed County Ordinance No. 460 (the "Ordinance") and the California Subdivision Map Act (the "Map Act"). Section 6.7A of the Ordinance purports to establish a process for appealing final Planning Commission approval of tentative maps. It provides in relevant part as follows: If the land divider or any interested party believes they may be adversely affected by the decision of the Planning Commission or 2ETTIS. TESTER. P~RUSE & P~RI.N'SKY Scott Fields, Esq. June 13v 1990 Page 2 East Area Planning Council, the land divider or any interested party may appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors. Any such appeal shall be filed with the Clerk of the Board within 10 days after the no=ice of decision of the Advisory Agency appears on the Board's agenda. We assume that the City claims that =he Coun=y's failure to file a notice of its August 9, 1989 decision approving TPM 19582 with the Board of Supervisors prior to December 1, 1989 renders the Board's approval of the map on January 23, 1990 ineffective. The City's claim is unsupported by the law, however. The Planning Commission's decision was not appealed within the ten-day appeal period established by the Map Act. That 10-day period is the only applicable appeal period because the appeal provisions of the Ordinance have been preempted by =he Map Act. Government Code Section 66452.5(d) provides that any interested party affected by a decision of the advisory agency may file a complaint with =he governing body concerning any decision of the advisory agency within 10 dave after the action of the advisory a~encv which is the subject of the complaint. Contrary to the Ordinance, the Map Act does not require the advisory agency to file a notice of decision with the governing body to commence the time period within which an appeal may be taken. Second, unless the interested party is the subdivider or a tenant of the subject property in the case of a conversion of residential real property to a condominium project, community apartment project or stock cooperative project, the Map Act requires the interested party to file a complaint with the governing body concerning the decision of the advisory agency or appeal board (Government Code §66452.5(d)) rather than the filing of an appeal as set forth in the Ordinance. Since the law is well established that a local ordinance will be preempted and therefore invalidated if it conflicts with a state statute, the Ordinance is invalid to the extent it contradicts or enters into an area occupied by the Map Act. In Fr{ends of T~ke Arrowhead v. Board of Sumerv{~ors, 38 Cal. App. 3d 497, 505 (1974), the Court, in a discussion of Business and Professions Code §11552, the predecessor to Government Code §66452.5, held the following: PETTIS. TESTER. KRUSE & KRI.',rSKY Scott Fields, .Esq. June 13, 1990 Page 3 The language of that section indicates the Legislature intended to preempt the subject matter of appeals from advisory agency decisions on tentative tract maps. It contains comprehensive provisions governing such appeals; it prescribes who may appeal and sets forth in detail the procedure to be followed, including the time within which such appeals must be taken and the period within which decisions on appeal must be rendered. (Emphasis added.) Based on our review of the Ordinance, which clearly contradicts the provisions of the Map Act concerning the tentative map appeal process, it is Bedford's conclusion that the Ordinance is invalid and the Map Act controls such procedure. Since the County complied with the requirements of the Map Act, TPM 19582 was validly and finally approved on August 9, 1989 and became effective ten days later. As a follow-up to Mr. O'Neil's previous letter to you regarding the extension of TPM 19582, I understand that you have received a copy of a letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to Steve Silla of Bedford Properties, dated June 11, 1990. That letter clearly substantiates our assertion that TPM 19582 has been extended by virtue of the District's willingness to process improvement plans. In addition, I understand that Bedford has also submitted additional information to the City substantiating our assertion that the map has also been extended by virtue of the conditions of TMP 19582 relating to offsite improvements. Bedford intends to file a final map for TPM 19582 in the future and anticipates that the City will approve such map in accordance with Government Code §§66474.1 and 66413.5. Please contact me with any questions or comments you may have regarding the foregoing. JPY/tlg Very truly yours, John P.~~Yeag~e~ cc: Lisa Peterson Maurey Alcheck Dennis O'Neil ITEM NO. 8 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Pianning Department September 18, 1990 Plot Plan 11604 PREPARED BY: Deborah Parks RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Coastline Equity, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Markham and Associates PROPOSAL: Construction of a 93,735 square foot industrial business park on an approximate 6 acres site. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive EXISTING ZONING: M-SC I Manufacturing Service Commercial ) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: M-SC ( Manufacturing Service Commercial ) M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial) M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial ) M-SC ~ Manufacturing Service Commercial ) SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant STAFFRPT\PP11604 1 BACKGROUND: AREA SETTING: ANALYSIS: The application for Plot P~an 11604 was originally submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on November 16, 1989, and reviewed by the Land Division Committee on December 12, 1989. Revisions and additional information were requested and Plot Plan 11604 was continued to the March 19, 1990 Land Division Committee meeting. Minor revisions were once again requested. In April, 1990, the file was transferred to the City of Temecula. The project site is located where the abandoned Rancho California Airport existed. The site is currently being graded according to a mass grading plan for the extension of Business Park Drive. The topography of the site is relatively level, located at the base of hillside terrain. The surrounding properties are all vacant. Circulation/Traffic A Traffic Study was prepared for the project and was transmitted to the City with the County file. The City's Transportation Engineering Staff reviewed the study and requested additional traffic related information. Staff reviewed the additional information which clarified all of the items of concern in the original report. City Staff agrees with the findings of the report. Conditions of Approval have been incorporated which will mitigate the projectts traffic impacts. Parkinq/Internal Circulation Based on 26,502 square feet of office space and 59,501 square feet of manufacturing, the project will require 225 parking spaces. The site plan proposes 258 spaces. Access to the project site is provided by two driveways, one on Business Park Drive and one on Rancho Way. Both driveways are 30 feet wide. The internal site circulation plan provides adequate space for users to comfortably drive through the project and park. Traffic conflicts may occur in the center of the project in the loading area of Buildings J - T i see Exhibit A). The automobiles parked in this area may be blocked from exiting while a truck is unloading. However, due to the low traffic volume nature of light industrial uses and associated STAFFRPT\PP11604 2 infrequent deliveries, it is not anticipated that this potential traffic conflict will occur very often. In addition, the hammer-head loading area satisfies the requirements of the Fire Department for turn- around space. GENERAL PLAN] SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DET ERMI NAT ION: Architectural Compatibility The proposed exterior elevations are consistent in materials and style with the buildings that currently exist in the surroundin9 area.The business parks on Business Park Drive are well designed and landscaped. The concrete tilt-up exterior will be painted an off-white color with dark turquoise accents on the linear metal softits. The project site is designated L1 (General Light Industry) 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 forthcomin9 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. STAFFRPT\PP1160/4. 3 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· R ECOMME N DAT ION: Staff recommends that the City Council: RECEIVE AND FILE Plot Plan 11604. DP:ks Attachments: 1. Exhibits 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Initial Study 4. Resolution STAFFRPT\PP11604 4 | II CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No. 11604 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department This project shall comply with the provisions of State law and the City Development Code. This conditional approval shall expire in two 12 ) 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 Buildin9 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 I DEHS ) H. CATV Franchise. This project must comply with all Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 19580. Parcel Map 19580 shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits for PP 11604. 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 16, 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\PP11604 1 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 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. 10. 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. 11. 12. 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. 13. 14. 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to pay applicable Quimby fees in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance 460. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise the landscape and plot plans to illustrate landscaping along the eastern side of Buildings A-E for screening. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise the plot plan to illustrate the extension of the existing block wall to continue along the eastern property boundary. Enqineerinq Department PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMIT: 16. 17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide clearance from all applicable agencies and pay all fees prior to the approval of plans. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards. STAFF R PT\PP 11604 2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit four 14) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 19. The develofi~r shall submit four 14) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Buildin9 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. 2O. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 21. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 22. No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans bein9 substantially complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer. 23. 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. 24. The developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based on the recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District. 25. The developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e. , concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities and by securing a drainage easement. 26. The developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowin9 onto or through the site. 27. 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 need to be paid. 28. All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. 29. 30. 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. For a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not subject to: Drainage Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. STAFFRPT\PP11604 3 31. Prior to oCcUpancy, construct full half street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on Business Park Drive and on Rancho Way. 32. All street i~provements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 33. All driveways shall be constructed perpendicular (90 degrees) to street. 34. Dedication shall be made or shown to exist to provide the following right-of- way on the following streets: Dedicate Business Park Drive to 39 feet from street centerline Dedicate Rancho Way to 39 feet from street centerline. 35. All existing and new utilities, adjacent to and on site, shall be placed underground in accordance with City Standards, prior to occupancy. 36. Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated l assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such i n crease. 3'7. Prior to occupancy, a signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered traffic engineer, and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the City Engineer, for all streets 66/qJ4 or wider and shall be included in the street improvement plans. All signing and striping shall be installed per the City standards and the approved signing and striping plan. Fire District 38. The above referenced project is protected by the Riverside County Fire District. Prior to construction occurring on any parcel, the owner shall contact the Fire Department for verification of current fire protection development requirements. 39. A minimum fire flow for all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 5~6 shall apply. 40. Provide a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. STAFFRPT\PP11604 4 A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2 112 x 2 1/2), will be located not less that 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildin9 as measured alon9 approved vehicular travelways._ The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) '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 spacin9, 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 followin9 certification: "l certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 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. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requirin9 a fire flow of 1500 CPM 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 building1 s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install a supervised water-flow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as required by the Uniform Building Code. In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, buildingl s) must be area separated into square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section 5051e) of the Uniform Building Code. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. ~8. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BD. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. STAFFRPT\PP1160q 5 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 53. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailin9 Area DralnacJe Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The new developF~ent in this case includes a total of 6.09 acres. At the current fee rate of $932.00 per acre, the mitigation charge equals $5,676.00. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If Area Drainage Plan fees or mitigation charges have already been paid on this property in conjunction with an earlier land division or land use case, the developer should contact the District to ascertain what charges are actually due. The proposed storm drain should be designed for 100 year capacity. Emergency escape should be provided which will require a redesign of the parking lot grading shown on the conceptual grading plan. 55. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements. Drainage easements shall be kept free o buildings and obstructions. 56. A copy of the improvement plans and grading plans along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Buildinq and Safety 57. Prior to commencing any grading in excess of 50 cubic yards, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. 58. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner shall obtain a grading permit and approval to construct tom the Buildin9 and Safety Department. Temecula Union School District 59. This project is subject to State law requirements for school impact mitigation. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services 60. Water purveyor shall be the Rancho California Water District. Submit evidence of service availability to the City Department of Building and Safety concurrent with application for building permits. 61. 62. Sewage disposal shall be by Eastern Municipal Water District. Submit evidence of service to the City Department of Building and Safety concurrent with application for building permits. A clearance letter from the Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (Jon Mohoroski I71LI) 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: STAFFRPT\PP1160q. 6 a. Underground storage tanks. b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services. c. 'Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185) d. Waste reduction management. 63. 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. Eastern Municipal Water District 64. Any and all necessary regionally sized on-site and off-site gravity sewers and appurtenant works that might include monitoring manholes, 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. Rancho California Water District 65. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service will be available to the site upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability will be contingent upon the property owner signing and Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. STAFFRPT\PP11604 7 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Backqround 1. Name o~ Pz~ponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Date of Environmental Assessment: 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: Name of Proposal, if applicable: Location of Proposal: Coastline Equity, Inc. 24564 Hawthorne Blvd. Ste. 1 Torrance, California 90505 (213) 373-0602 6-12-90 CITY OF TEMECULA Plot Plan 11604 Southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive II Environmental ImOacts (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? be Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? Ce Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? 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? BLANKIESIFORMS Changes in deposition or er-osion 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? 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? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Yes Maybe No X Change in the quantity of ground waters, either throu9h 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 (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 BLANKIES/FORMS -3- 10. 11. 12. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Clare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? be Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset· Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances {including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 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 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? 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? Yes Maybe No X X X B LA N K I ES/FORMS -5- 17. 18. 19. Communications systems? Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ae Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health ) ? 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. Wilt 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? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe X No X X X X X X X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. 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 projectis 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 III. Earth Environmental Evaluation No. Althou9h the proposed project will result in cut and fill slopes there will not be chan9es in the base 9eologic substructures· The slopes shall be manufactured and compacted per the engineer's requirements and as a result, should not result in unstable earth conditions· Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-coy·tin9. Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are required. Yes. Development of the proposed project will require substantial grading and as a result will alter the existing topography. On the northwestern portion of the site is a small hill that will have to be graded. No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant but will be mitigated through minimal gradin9, retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after grading. No. There is no body of water near the project site which could be affected by the proposed project. Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault hazard zone area according to the Riverside County General Plan Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project should address these potential issues. Air 2. ae b-c. Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particular· emissions will occur· This impact is not considered significant since the air emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the area~s air quality. No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable odors or alter the area's climate. STAFFRPT\PP11604 8 Water 3. a,d-e. b-c,g. No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The __closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is approximately one-half mile away. No. The proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site wl~ich will reduce the amount of water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the site will be off-set the water absorption rate. Draina9e patterns will continue to flow to the streets and channels. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of ground waters. No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply o system. Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area. To help mitigate the project's impact, a flood mitigation charge shall be paid. No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or endangered species should be affected. New species of plants will be introduced to the site as par of the landscape requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact. It is not clear by the plot plan if the existing Eucalyptus trees on the site will remain. Due to their maturity, as many should be retained as possible. The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes. Animal Life 5. a-c. No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. It is anticipated that the only animal life on or in the vicinity of the site includes squirrels, rabbits, lizards, and other animals common to the area. It is highly unlikely that an endangered specie habitates the site. Noise 6. a. Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise sensitive. STAFFRPT\PP11604 9 No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project. Liqht and Glare 7. Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mr. Palomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor ~LPSV) lights to help avoid interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow". The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced by the proposed project. Land Use 8. No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for General Light Industrial, The surrounding land uses are also office and light manufacturing. Natural Resources 9. a-b. No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural resource, Risk of Upset 10. a. Maybe· If the manufacturing tenant uses any hazardous materials in their operation, a list of hazardous substances and disposal plan shall be submitted to the City. No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and Police Department. Population 11. No. The proposed office/industrial building will generate some jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area's population. Housinq 12. No. The proposed office/industrial building will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing. STAFFRPT\PP11604 10 T ran sportati on / C i rcu I ation 13. a,c. Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the project may add an incremental impact to the Rancho California Road/I-15 Interchange which is currently operatin9 at capacity durin9 peak hours. This potential impact may be mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee. Yes. The proposed project will require parkin9 to support the use. Based on 31,122 square feet of office space and 59,220 square feet of manufacturing. The project will need 244 parkin9 spaces. The proposed plan illustrates spaces. Maybe. The proposed project will improve a portion of Business Park Drive which will ultimately loop around and connect to Rancho California Road. Completion of Business Park Drive will divert some traffic from the northern intersection of Business Park Drive and Rancho California Road. No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic. Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Public Services 14. a,b,e. c,d,f. Yes. The proposed industrial/office use will require public services in the areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and continuing need for services over the long term. No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these public services. Enerqy 15. a-b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. Utilities 16. a-f. No. The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems. STAFFRPT\PP11604 11 'o I n Human Health 17 a-b. Maybe. If hazardous substances are stored in the warehouse, _then that may create a potential health hazard. If hazardous 'materials will be warehoused at the site, a plan for their use and disposal should be submitted to the City. Aesthetics 18. No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are consistent in architectural materials as the surrounding buildings. Recreation 19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses. Cultural Resources 20. a-d. No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict sacred uses. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 21. a-c. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural environment, have long term environmental impacts or have considerable cumulative impacts. Maybe. If the proposed use warehouses hazardous materials, the project may cause a health hazard to human beings and wildlife. If hazardous materials are to be warehoused at the project, a plan for their use and disposal should be developed and approved by the City. The project may also have a substantial impact on the existing transportation system. To mitigate the potential impact at the Rancho California Road/1-15 Interchange, a traffic mitigation fee should be paid. STAFFRPT\PP11604 12 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. XX Date 24 July 1990 For CITY OF TEMECULA -13- RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11604 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 93,735 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO WAY AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE. WHEREAS, Coastline Equity, Inc. filed Plot Plan No. 11604 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on September 10, 1990, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved said Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECT ION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Plannin9 Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: ~1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. 12) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: la) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future STAFFRPT\PP11604 1 (c) adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 11604 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. Ib) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (C) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: ( 1 ) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. (2) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; STAFF R PT\PP11604 2 conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and ,s compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. project will Declaration, An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative therefore, is hereby granted. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the city of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot Plan No. 1160~ for the operation and construction of a 93,735 square foot industrial business park on an approximate 6 acres site located at the Southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 1990. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10th day of September , 1990 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP11604 APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT I have read, understand and accept the conditions for approval set forth herein above in this Resolution of approval for Plot Plan No. 1160L~. DATED: By Name Title STAFF R PT\PP1160q q ITEM NO. 9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: -APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Plannin9 Department September 18, 1990 Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036 PREPARED BY: Oliver Mujica RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Won Sang Yoo and I nsook Yoo REPRESENTATIVE: Ranpac Engineering PROPOSAL: Subdivide a 1.79 acre industrial parcel into 2 lots of · 89 and . 90 acres. LOCATION: On the west side of Enterprise Circle West, near the terminus of Rider Way. EXISTING ZONING: MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: North: MSC South: MSC East: MSC West: MSC SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Man ufactu ring / Office Man ufact u ring / Office Manufacturing/Commercial Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Acreage: No. of Proposed Parcels: 1.79 acres 2 STAFFRPT\TPM26036 BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project was submitted to the City of Temecula on April 6, 1990. It was reviewed at the Preliminary Development Review Committee meeting on May 17, 1990. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036 was approved by the City's Planning Commission at their meeting held on August 20, 1990. At that time a Negative Declaration was adopted and the project was found to be consistent with applicable policies and zoning requirements. This project involves the re-establishment of two {2) parcels which were merged under Certificate of Parcel Merger No. 585, under Riverside County jurisdiction. Prior to the merger, the parcels were identified as parcels 10 and 11 of Tract 16178. When Plot Plans 9474 and 10923 were constructed, the parcels were merged. Staff perceives no technical problems in subdividing the existing 1.79 acre parcels as long as appropriate restrictions and reciprocal access agreements are in place at the time of map recordation. Improvements and Infrastructure No construction is authorized under this approval; buildings exist on the site at this time. No site improvements of off-site installations are required to approve the project. The land use currently in place on-site is consistent with zoning regulations and the SWAP designation. Staff finds it highly probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act IC.E.Q.A.), an Initial Study was performed for this project. Staff found no possibility of a significant impact on the environment. Thus, a Negative Declaration was recommended and adopted by the Planning Commission. STAFFRPT\TPM26036 2 FINDINGS: 10. 11. There is a reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 26036 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 subdivision 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 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. 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. That said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. STAFF R PT\T PM26036 3 · 0 I n STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: RECEIVE AND FILE Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. STAFF R PT\T PM26036 ~ STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 20, 1990 Case No.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036 Recommendation: Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Won Sang Yoo and I nsook Yoo Ranpac Engineering Subdivide a 1.79 acre industrial parcel into 2 lots of · 89 and . 90 acres. On the west side of Enterprise Circle West, near the terminus of Rider Way. MSC - Manufacturing Service Commercial North: MSC South: MSC East: MSC West: MS C North: South: East: West: Manufacturing/Office Manufacturing/Office Manufacturing/Commercial Vacant Total Acreage: No. of Proposed Parcels: 1.79 acres 2 STAFFR PT\TPM26036 ANALYSIS BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project was submitted to the City of Temecula on April 6, 1990. It was reviewed at the Preliminary Development Review Committee meeting on May 17, 1990. Background information was requested by the Engineering Department at that time and all pertinent information was received. An Initial Study was completed on April 16, 1990 which concluded that no significant impacts would affect the environment as a result of project implementation, given that full buildout of the site has already occurred. This project involves the re-establishment of two J2) parcels which were merged under Certificate of Parcel Merger No. 585, under Riverside County jurisdiction. Prior to the merger, the parcels were identified as parcels 10 and 11 of Tract 16178. When Plot Plans 9~7~ and 10923 were constructed, the parcels were merged. At this time a covered glass breezeway connects two separate buildings, each on one of the two proposed parcels. J See attached Parcel Merger Exhibit and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036. ) Staff perceives no technical problems in subdividing the existing 1.79 acre parcels as long as appropriate restrictions and reciprocal access agreements are in place at the time of map recordation. Improvements and Infrastructure No construction is authorized under this approval; buildings exist on the site at this time. No site improvements of off-site installations are required to approve the project. The land use currently in place on-site is consistent with zoning regulations and the SWAP designation. Staff finds it highly probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.), an Initial Study was performed for this project. Staff found no possibility of a significant impact on the environment. That Initial Study is attached for review. A Negative Declaration has been FINDINGS: recommended for adoption. There is a reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 26036 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 Ceneral 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 subdivision 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 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 her·in incorporated by reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Plannin9 Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 26036. 2. APPROVE Parcel Map No. 26036. based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. SR:ks Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Initial Environmental Study 3. Letter from Fire Dept. ~. Cert. of Parcel Map Merger 5. Exhibits CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of P~oponent: 2. liddress and Phone )hwher of Proponent: Date of Environmental Assessment: Agency Requiring Assessment: Name of Proposal, if applicable: Location of Proposal: Environmental Impacts Ranpac Engineering Corporation 27447 Enterprise 0 W Temecula, California 92390 5-16-90 CITY OF TEMECULA T.P.M. 26036 Rn w~t ~id~ nf Fnt~rprise Circle ~nllth nf Rider Waj/ I Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets. ) 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? Yes Maybe 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? No X X 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, mudslid·s, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: 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? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ee Discharge into surface waters, or in any aReration 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? Y~s Maybe No X BLANKIES/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 ) ? be 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 I 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 Maybe No X BLANKIES/FORMS 10. 11. 13. Noise· Will the proposal result 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 additional housing? Transportation/Circulation· Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Yes Maybe No X B LA N K I ES/FORMS -~- 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? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, b/cyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? 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? 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 Maybe No X X BLA N K I ES/FORMS 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? de Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No X X X BLANKIES/FORMS -6- Yes .Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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? BLANKIESIFORMS -7- Project Description The applicant seeks to subdivide property, previously merged, into 2 lots, .9 and ,89 acres in size. Two buildings have been constructed on the site, (PP 10923 and 9L~7~ processed through Riverside County files not transmitted to Temecula as of this date) Photos of the site indicate that the buildings are joined by a glass breezeway or atrium. Landscaping is marginal and the construction on the site appears relatively recent. A review of the M-SC Zoning Section of Ordinance No. 348 indicates that the proposal lots exceed minimum lot size I10,000 sq.ft. ). M-SC zoning is on all four sides. Ordinance 3L~8, Section 11 .q.b. {2) states no minimum building setback, except that {3 ) says 25 feet from street right-of-ways. The existing building on proposed Parcel No. 1 is 10 fee back from the right-of-way, in conflict with the code provision cited above. Applicant will be requested to provide information relative to this seeming inconsistency. I A P.I.D. application may not have the same provision. ) III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth 1.8. No. This application will not physically alter the site in any way. Earth conditions, soil, topography, and erosion potentials were presumably assessed and impacts mitigated under Plot Plan Application Numbers 10923 and 9474. 1.9. The project is in an area recognized with extreme liquefaction potential during episodes of ground shaking. It is not likely that any additional people would use the site as a result of the proposed parcel split. It is presumed that the grading and building design incorporates features to minimuze damage related to ground shaking. Air No. This application will not alter air emissions, increase odors or alter the local climate in any fashion. Water 3.a-i. No. No change in water movement, absorption, flow of floodwaters, water quality, groundwater supplies in a qualitative or quantitative sense, water supplies or exposure of people to floodwaters will occur as a result of project implementation. No new construction is proposed. These impacts were presumably addressed in previous County- processed proposals. Plant Life 4.a-d. No. The site has been graded and buildings constructed under previous approvals. No additional impact can result from a 2 lot parcel split. Animal Life 5.a-c. No. The site has been graded and buildings constructed under previous approvals. No additional impact can result from a 2 lot parcel split. Noise 6.a,b. No. Noise levels will not increase as a result of project implementation. No new noise generating features are proposed. Liqht and Glare No. Previously addressed under earlier plot plan approvals. No new lighting is proposed. Land Use 8. The land use remains constant. Natural Resources-' 9.a. No. 9.b. No. Risk of Upset 10.a,b. Population 11. Housinq 12. No land use changes are proposed. No increase in use of any natural resources. No increase in use of any natural resources. No. The risks should have been evaluated by County Staff - Planning, Fire, and Health Departments at the time the plot plans were reviewed. The 2 lot subdivision will not increase the risk inherent in operations occurring in manufacturing zones such as this. No alterations in any form will occur as a result from this subdivision. No demand for additional housing will result from project implementation. Existing housing reserves will not be affected. Transportation/Circulation 13.a-f. No. no additional impacts to parking and transportation systems will OCCUr, Public Services l~.a-f. Enerqy 15.a,b. No. Utilities 16.a-f. No. Human Health 17.a,b. No. Aesthetics 18. No impact to public services. Project already constructed. No construction or site alteration will occur, therefore, no aesthetic impact can occur. 10 Recreation 19. No impact. Cultural Resources- 20. See 21 - Mandatory Findings of Significance and the Environmental Determination. 11 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- ticant 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. XXX Date 5-16-90 muel Reed, Senior Planner For CITY OF TEMECULA BLANKIES/FORMS PLANNING & ENGINEERING 46-209 OASIS STREET. SUrFE 405 INDIO, CA 92201 {619} 342-8886 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN J. NExNMAN FIRE CtllEF May 15, 1990 PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3760 12TH STREET RIVERSIDE. CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PM 26306 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: The Riverside County Fire Department has no comments or conditions. 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 ljl '~" Recording Requested By Riverside County When Recorded, Return TO: Riverside County Planning Department Will Clll No Fee, 6103 Government Code Bet'refit of Riverside County I~ Deplrtmenl CERTIFICATE OF PARCEL MERGER NO. Rec, ofdOwne~ Won Sang Yoo and Znsook Yoo Won Sang Yoo and Insook Yoo Ex~ing Percels Illor Psmel Numbers 921-480-010 921-480-011 LegslDescrimion of Me~edPemel Lot 10 and Lot 11 of Tract 16178 as recorded in Book 160 at pages 102 through 104 in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, State of California, described as follows: Beqlnnlng at the most westerly corner of said Lot 10 thence north 45a 22' 10" east, 241.53 along the north easterly line of said Lot i0; Thence south 58° 47' 06" east, ]2] .08 feet, along the north westerl} line of said Lot 10, to the beglnz~lng of a curve, concave south weste} having a radius of 1417.00 feet; Thence continuing south easterly along the north westerly line of sa~: Lot 10 and Lot 11, through a central angle of 8° 50' 35", an arc lengt~i of 218.69 feet to the most easterly corner of said Lot 11 from which a radial bears south 40° 03' 29" west; Thence in a non-tangent direction south 45° 22' 10" west, 206.89 feet along the south easterly line of said Lot 11, to the most southerly. corner of said Lot 11, said corner ~ing a point on a non-tangent curve, concave south westerly, having a radius of ]130.74 feet, from which a radxal bea~s north 31° 51' 27" east; Thence noth westerly along the south westerly line of said Lot ll through a central anqle 3" 49' 00", an arc length of 75.32 feet; Thence continuing alonq the snuth westerly line of said Lot 10 and Lot .oth 61~~est, 272.49 feet, to the point of beginning. ; THIS LENA; ~'.l: :7," '. :f, "E ";:'.'~:a ,., ~-~ ......... ~ ,., .., ...,..~: "t~;;,. ~' ~UkqY~:.,'....':':;. ' ' ~..~ /%~;c.¢ ......= .......... · EXHIBIT A F 585 CERTIFICATE 0 PARCEL MERGER NO. SEC. 35 I: TS., R. 3 W. 15'{:RAINAGE \ \ N45'"' 22'10"E 241.53 LOT/0 O. ~O AC ZSO RIDER WAY .: SITE PLAN CERTIFICATE OF PARCEL MERGER NO. 585 SEC. 35 r. 7,~, R. 3 ~ N45e22'IO"E 1i \/ RI[:F..R WAY I,IIl|| !1Ill|lit S46.e.,t'lO"E IOIkBl' Fleec~l Owne¥ WON SANG YO0 ~ IN,,$OOK YO0 Addme8 27447 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST TE.It~CI.I.,A, CA, 923,10 Me Pmcemd By RANPAC ENGINEERING CCR'P. Ad=lmea 27447 ENTERPRISE CIRQLE WEST TEMEC~LRrA, CA. 92390 8c~e I" · IOO Aeleeeefs P'wvet N~ 921 - 460-010~011 The Survey Department hereby approves the legal description for the above application. Attached is the original legal description and plat and the case file. Also attached is a check for $482 for the processing fee. UL, A RANCHO 20 - 12 094 - 089 094- 095 09a - 092 \ \ \ II BM // ,er~Oir 'k~, k',\ ,o,e .....],., O (, Airport 4re (TEMECULA) 483 ~550 I N W SCALE 1:24000 0 0 100O 2000 3000 4000 SGO0 6000 7000 FEET 5 0 CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET DASHED LINES REPRESENT HALF' INTERVAL CONTOURS NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF' 3.929 I KILOMETER I M~LE 'HIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. DENVER. COLORADO 80225. OR RESTON. VIRGINIA 22092 R DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST "~' R FALLB /~,C .-j; ' : ' 9909 .F-f i,:en:? c ',': "7 ~";~ DieZc, ~" ' Secon: (619,} 502'52 :,'~C; hard QUADRANGLE LOCATION CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Parcel Map No. 260:36 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Tentative Parcel Map No. 26036, or as amended by these conditions. FiRE DEPARTMENT No conditions· HEALTH DEPARTMENT No conditions. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. ~60 unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally-approved tentative map will expire two years after City Council approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance No. ~60. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning. City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R's shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CCF, R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CCSR's shall be prepared at the developePs sole cost and expense. b. The CCSR's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director ST A FF R PT\ T PM26036 of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interests of the City and its residents. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Departments and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. e. In addition to the above, the CC&R's shall include the following: Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CCSR's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit, where no map is involved· The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; and Riverside County Health Department. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. 2 ITEM NO. 10 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER cITY MANAGER / CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department September 18, 1990 Tentative Tract No. 23990 PREPARED BY: Oliver Mujica RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Dean Alstrup REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates PROPOSAL: Subdivide 6.32 acres into 30 residential R-2 Dots. LOCAT I ON: Generally between La Serena Way and Margarita Road; on the south side of Via La Vida EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Multiple Family Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: R-2 South: R-I-IO,O00 East: R-1 West: R-2 Multiple Family Residential Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot lots Single Family Residential Multiple Family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: No change proposed. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Family Residential on all sides. PROJECT STATISTICS: Site Size: 6.32 acres No. of Lots: 30 STAFFRPT\TT23990 1 Minimum Permitted Lot Size: Maximum Permitted Density: Proposed Average Lot Size: Proposed Density: Minimum Allowed Front Setback: No minimum No maximum 7,524 sq.ft. 4.75 units per acre 18 feet BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: This project was originally submitted to the County of Riverside on October 4, 1989. An incomplete file was transmitted to the City of Temecula in May of 1990, and the application was deemed complete on July 6, 1990, after receipt of buildin9 elevations and the Traffic Study. Tentative Tract Map No. 23990 was approved by the City's Plannin9 Commission at their meetin9 held on August 20, 1990. At that time a Negative Declaration was adopted and the project was found to be consistent with applicable policies and zonin9 requirements. The project consists of a 30 lot residential subdivision on a 5.76 acre site. The existing zoning on the site is R-2, Multiple Family Residential. This zoning classification encourages the creative utilization of street designs and lot areas and allows a high degree of flexibility in terms of lot size and dimensions. Cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets are strongly encouraged, and those design features are primary design features of this project. Lot Size The lots vary in gross size from 4,950 square feet to 11,954 square feet. The average lot size is 7,524 square feet. Architecture The project contains 3 different floor plans with differing elevations. The architecture is contemporary, and reminiscent of California Craftsman bulking and massing techniques. Rooflines are more gradual than normal, and STAFFRPT\TT2 3 9 9 0 2 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: STAFFRPT\TT23990 porches and verandas are utilized freely. Gradinq and Drainaqe Approximately one-third of the lots will be graded to drain to the back of the project in order to intercept the existing 30" storm drain which has been constructed in the southwest corner of the project. Staff noted an additional 18" storm drain located southerly of the project on Lot 31 of Tract No. 20153, which currently drains onto the subject property. This project has been conditioned to complete that previously planned connection. The grading plan proposes to move approximately 31, cubic yards of earth, most of which will be removed from the central and westerly high spots on the tract and filled into the low area at the southern end of the project site. Earth Export Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of earth are planned for removal from the site. Traffic Impacts A Traffic Study was performed for the project by Wilbur Smith Associates in February, 1990. The report was accepted as adequate by the Traffic Engineering Section. Conditions relative to roadway improvements have been attached to the project. The proposed density of 4.75 units per acre is inconsistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan Designation of 2-4 units per acre. However, the proposed average lot size of 7, 52L~ square feet is consistent with the minimum lot size required by the development code, which is 7,200 square feet. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. An Environmental Assessment (Initial Study), was prepared for this project and it was determined that Tentative Tract Map No. 23990 will not have a significant effect upon the environment. Thus, a Negative Declaration was recommended and adopted by the Planning Commission. FINDINGS: The site plan and subdivision for Tentative Tract No. 23990 provides for the placement of dwellings on individual lots and creates a variety in the street scene, balancing the distribution of height and bulk of individual dwellings relative to other dwellings throughout the subdivision. Short, curvilinear cul-de-sacs are utilized in favor of straight, grid-like interior street patterns. A basic level of useable and total open space has been provided on individual lots to meet the needs of future residents. The project will result in a variety of housing opportunities and provide for diversity in design· There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 23990 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· Tentative Tract No. 23990 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship STAFFRPT\TT23990 4 10. 11. 12. 13. with adjoining properties. 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. Units have significant southern exposure which allows for passive heatin9 opportunities· Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow solar penetration in winter and shadin9 in summer. 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 City Council: RECEIVE AND FILE Tentative Tract No. 23990, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. STAFFRPT\TT23990 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23990 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below· This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the City Council approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the 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· Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a 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 City Engineer· Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequete vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. STAFFRPT\TT23990 1 10. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: 11. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3,88 of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and throu9h lots. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-2 (Restricted Single Family) zone. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscapin9 or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Buildin9 and Safety· Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the followin9 documents to the Plannin9 Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the City Attorney: a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and be A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference, The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, I b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the common area by either the property owners' association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the followin9 provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the followin9 provisions shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common areat, or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the City of Temecula. The property owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintainin9 the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of the maintenance assessment, An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creatin.q the assessment lien, STAFFRPT\TT23990 2 12. 13. This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended or property aleannexed there from absent the prior written consent of the Plannin9 Direct. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or ~naintenance of the 'common area'. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners' association Rules and Requlations, if 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 is recorded. In the event that no property owners' association is formed, the developer may request annexation into the local landscape assessment district for the care and maintenance of Lot 31. If the request for annexation is denied, a property owners' association shall be formed. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: I1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits ~ or buildinq permits as Ionq as appropriate bonds have been issued) detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following (Amended by Planning Commission on August 20, 1990): Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requirin9 irrigation. be Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. Ce All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. STAFFRPT\TT23990 14. 15. Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter, except for the easterly boundary, and along Via La Vida. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All Jots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. I Amended by Planning Commission on August 20, 1990)· Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project's grad/n9 plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. All trees shall be minimum double staked· Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grad/n9 with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meetin9 between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grad/n9 activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development, Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. STAFFRPT\TT23990 4 16. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of buildin9 permits, composite landscapin9 and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Plannin9 Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requirin9 landscapin9 and irrigation to be installed includin9, but not limited to, parkway plantin9, street trees, slope plantin9, and individual front yard landscapin9. ee All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy sayin9 devices shall be permitted with Plannin9 Department approval. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten 110) feet. i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten I10) feet. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ae Wall and fence locations shall conform to Condition 15. e., and shall not block views of existin9 residences. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. STAFFRPT\TT23990 5 All street and landscape improvements on Via La Vida shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. (Added by Plannin9 Commission on August 20, 1990). Health Department' The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tract Map No. 23990 and recommends that: 17. 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 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 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: "1 certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map No. 23990, 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 map at any specific quantities, slows 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 Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. 18. This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. 19. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the STAFFRPT\TT23990 6 size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existin9 system. A sin9le plat indicatin9 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: "1 certify that'the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 23990, 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 map." 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. )t will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. Fire Department With respect to the Conditions of Approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the followin9 fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: 20. Fire Protection Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, ( 6"x4"x2 1/4" ) 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: "~ 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 buildin9 material bein9 placed on an individual lot. Hazardous 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 5~6. STAFFRPT\TT23990 7 All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materia) 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. Mitiqation Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County defertin9 said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Plannin9 and Engineering Staff. Flood Control District This is a proposal to subdivide 5.76 acres for residential use in the Ranch, California area. The site is located on Via La Vida about 450 feet south of Solana Way. The site is subject to only local off-site runoff via a drainage easement from the existing Tract 20153 to the south. The developer proposes to collect these flows and along with a portion of the on-site flows discharge them to a drainage easement in the development to the west. The remainder of the tract would drain via Street "A" to Via La Vida. Following are the District's recommendations: 21. This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988: At the option of the land divider, upon filing a required affidavit requesting aleferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grading permit. 22. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape shall also be provided. Enqineerinq Department PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 23. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: STAFFRPT\TT23990 8 25. Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planrd_ng Department; Engineering Department; and Riverside County Health Department. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into the landscape maintenance district: Lot 31. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Dedication shall be made of the following right-d-way on the following streets: 60 total feet on Street A 60 total feet on Street B 33 total feet half street on Via La Vida Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards and drawings. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. The subdivider shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate. b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping {street and parks). STAFFRPT\TT2 3 9 9 0 9 32. 33. d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. Unergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. 35. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. L~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum established per lot as mitigation for a traffic signal impact. 36. 37. 38. 39. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering Department. The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Prior to occupancy, all fill slopes greater than 3' and all cut slopes greater than 5~ in vertical height shall be planted with grass or ground cover and irrigated. A hydrology study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-of-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." It is understood that the Tentative Map correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways and drainage courses, and that their omission may require the map to be resubmittad for further consideration. All lots shall be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate drainage facility. Lots shall not be allowed to drain onto adjacent tracts without a grading and/or drainage permit. (Amended by Planning Commission on August 20, 1990). STAFFRPT\TT23990 10 The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, o7 use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. 45. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e. , concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 46. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 47. All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. All driveways shall be located a minimum of two 12) feet from the property line. 49. All driveways shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance with City Standard No. 's 400 and 401 {curb sidewalk). 50. The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 51. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. 52. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 53. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer. 55. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all STAFFRPT\TT23990 11 56. 57. 58. times with adequate detours durin9 construction. Aspbaltic emulsion (fo9 seal) shall be applied not less than 14 days followin9 placement of the asphalt surfacin9 and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 9allon per square ~rd. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section No. 's 37, 39, and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Corner cutbacks, in conformance with City Standard No. 805, shall be offered for dedication and shown on the final map. The following are the Engineering Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government agency. All questions regardin9 the true meanin9 of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineerin9 Department. STAFFRPT\TT23990 12 Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 20, 1990 Case No.: Tentative Tract No. 23990 Adoption of Negative Declaration Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS: Dean Alstrup Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates Subdivide 5.76 acres into 30 residential R-2 lots. Generally between La Serena Way and Margarita Road; on the south side of Via La Vida R-2 Restricted Single Family Residential North: R-2 South: R - 1 - 10,000 East: R - 1 West: R-2 Restricted Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot lots Single Family Residential Restricted Single Family Residential No change proposed. Single Family Residential on all sides. Site Size: No. of Lots: Minimum Permitted Lot Size: Maximum Permitted Density: Proposed Average Lot Size: Proposed Density: Minimum Allowed Front Setback: 5.76 acres 30 No minimum No maximum 7,52~ sq. ft. 5.2 units per acre 18 feet STAFF R PT\TT23990 '° · I r BACKGROUND:- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ANALYSIS: This project was originally submitted to the County of Riverside on October 4, 1989. It was initially reviewed at the County Land Development Committee (LDC) on November 2, 1989, February 22, 1990, and April 26, 1990. An incomplete file was transmitted to the City of Temecula in May of 1990, and the application was deemed complete on July 6, 1990, after receipt of buildin9 elevations and the Traffic Study. Zoninq Requirements The project consists of a 30 lot residential subdivision on a 5.76 acre site. The existin9 zoning on the site is R-2, Restricted Single Family Residential. This zoning classification encourages the creative utilization of street designs and lot areas and allows a high degree of flexibility in terms of lot size and dimensions. Cul-de-sacs and curvii(near streets are strongly encouraged, and those design features are primary design features of this project. The project is somewhat limited in terms of size and so is limited in terms of design alternatives. All thirty (30) proposed lots extend from one double headed cu-de-sac which connects to Via La Vida, a sixty-six (66) foot wide residential col lector street. Lot Size The lots vary in gross size from 4,950 square feet to 11,95L1 square feet. The average lot size is 7,52Ll square feet. A table has been attached as an exhibit which shows the mix of unit types, percent of lot coverage, total lot area, setbacks, and total useable area per lot. Architecture The project contains 3 different floor plans with differing elevations. The architecture is contemporary, and reminiscent of California Craftsman bulking and massing techniques. Rooflines are more gradual than normal, buildings are box-like, and porches and verandas are utilized freely. Staff considered the design unique, but was concerned that side elevations may need more windows or articulation. No redesign, however, has been requested of the applicant. 2 The architecture is substantially different from adjoining properties which Staff considers an asset to the neighborhood. Grading and Drainaqe Approximately one-third of the lots will be graded to drain to the back of the project in order to intercept the existing 30" storm drain which has been constructed in the southwest corner of the project. Staff noted an additional 18" storm drain located southerly of the project on Lot 31 of Tract No. 20153, which currently drains onto the subject property. This project has been conditioned to complete that previously planned connection. At this time a small, immature riparian area is developing between the two existing drains. This area exists now as a result of the focused runoff and nuisance water flowing between the two drains. Vegetation consists primarily of willow-like large shrubs. This low area's elevation is approximately 1,109 feet above sea level and is the lowest area on- site. The grading plan proposes to move approximately 31,000 cubic yards of earth, most of which will be removed from the central and westerly high spots on the tract and filled into the low area at the southern end of the project site. Adjacent Properties and Gradincl Alternatives The project is not substantially altering the existing slopes on the east side of the project. Easterly lot lines have previously been adjusted to put the property line at the top of slope, which is considered the best situation. The slope on the west side of the property will be cut approximately in half, which is considered beneficial, although property lines located at toes of slopes can be troublesome in terms of maintenance, privacy, and flow of nuisance water. More extensive earth excavation and removal could reduce that slope, but the bendits are not particularly significant. The situation at the southern end of the project could affect adjoining properties in that the low area, previously discussed, will be filled with approximately twelve (12) feet of fill, which will spill over onto the north-facing slope of Tract 20153. Concern from at least one property owner has been expressed. No filling or grading may 3 SWAP AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: ENV I R ONMENTA L DETERMI NAT ION: occur on adjacent properties without expressed authorization from affected property owners. Other design options on this property line could include a retaining wall or downslope. The project has been conditioned to resolve the situation prior to the issuance of grading permits or map recordation. Earth Export Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of earth are planned for removal from the site. The Land Use Designation exhibit from the Southwest Area Community Plan targets this area for residential development at 2-~ units per acre. This map proposes a density of 5.2 units per acre. The SWAP has been adopted as a policy guide by the City of Temecula. The Land Use Designation suggested by SWAP is less intense than proposed by Tentative Tract No. 23990. Staff has reviewed and attached lot sizes and dimensions on all four sides of the project ( see attached Assessor Parcel Maps ) and generally found that the project has lots of equal size to tracts located to the west and north. and somewhat smaller than found to the immediate south and east. The project is consistent with development standards of the existing zone. Probability of consistency with the City's future General Plan is considered likely by the Staff. The Planning Commission and the City Council maintain the authority to determine whether projects are likely to be consistent with the future General Plan, and each project considered by these bodies must be considered on their own merit until a new General Plan is adopted. A preliminary environmental assessment was performed by the County of Riverside Planning Department prior to transmittal of the case to the City of Temecula. That assessment was completed by the City Planning Staff. The following areas of potential impact were reviewed in detail. Traffic Impacts A Traffic Study was performed for the project by Wilbur Smith Associates in February, 1990. The principle findings of the report found that 1992 cumulative traffic volumes would be affected by a very small increment. The closest intersection (Via La Vida/Solana Way) would generate a 4.7% increase in existin9 peak-hour volumes. Other nearby intersections (Margarita Road/Via La Vida and Margarita Road/Solana Way) would result in a 3.6% increase in existin9 peak-hour volumes. Projected 1992 levels of service with or without the project were projected to be LOS B or better at intersections in the study area. The report was accepted as adequate by the Traffic Engineering Section. Conditions relative to roadway improvements have been attached to the project. Archeoloqy The County of Riverside requested that an Archeology Study be performed. The study was performed and has been deemed acceptable. No resources are contained on-site. Paleontoloqy The fossiliferous Pauba Formation is found throughout the area and contains valuable paleo- resources which should be recovered if encountered during grading operations. Conditions have been attached to mitigate potential impact. Bioloqy A focused Stephen"s Kangaroo Rat walk over was performed by Tierra Madre Consultants. The SKR was found to be absent from the subject site. The site is in the historic range of the SKR; however, and impact fees will be collected on a per acre basis. The small, immature riparian habitat is not believed to be a significant or natural feature. It appears to be an outgrowth of focused runoff and nuisance water resulting from development patterns to the south and east. No significant impact to native biota is expected. Environmental Conclusion Staff has concluded that no significant impact to the environment will occur as a result of site FINDINGS: development. and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption· The site plan and subdivision for Tentative Tract No. 23990 provides for the placement of dwellings on individual lots and creates a variety in the street scene, balancing the distribution of height and bulk of individual dwellings relative to other dwellings throughout the subdivision. Short, curvilinear cul-de-sacs are utilized in favor of straight, grid-like interior street patterns. A basic level of useable and total open space has been provided on individual lots to meet the needs of future residents. The project will result in a variety of housing opportunities and provide for diversity in design. There is a reasonable probability that Tentative Tract No. 23990 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. Tentative Tract No. 23990 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, density, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship 6 10. 11. 12. 13. with adjoining properties. 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. Units have significant southern exposure which allows for passive heating opportunities. Deciduous landscaping can be utilized to allow solar penetration in winter and shading in summer. 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: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 23990, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Initial Study and Staff Report. APPROVE Tentative Tract No. 23990, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Tentative Tract Map No. 23990 / // \ \ "\ ,, \\ /'/IX/// aa /'~ / / \ / ,' ze / z,s \ SITE PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23990 \\ ,, i //, ,/'-,,. / e / /,/ ':>":"":,::' / / i / ,~, \\ z~ · 1 oao · T!ll~el I~e, et leclleell ml>ewc, edlle. ...... T /,,"_--~~, '~--""""""'" / / \Z 0 I \\ i ALBTRUFa ~ DEBK3N GROUIo ~ /<~ / ~ ~T\ d e ! ' ' 114.14' i F- February 28, 1990 ROBT, BEIN, WM. FROST Riverside County Service Area 443 JEANINE R OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Roaa, Suite 105 - Temecula, CA 92390 [714] 699-0235 Ms. Holly Weatherby AssistanE Planner RBF and .~ssociates 28763 Single Oak Drive. Suite 250 Temecula, CA 92390 RE: Tract 23990 Weatherby: As pet' >'our request th[5 leo.for is to elaborate on Riverside County Service Area 143's pc,li,:y on ncceptance of internal s]opes for maintenance. As a customary rule, tile C'9A w_ill not ;{cc'ept internal slopes due to the fact the}' may nor be of u~e :~nd/o: b,,mefir te t~e entire prldect and/o~ general public, The sjape of conc,~rn s~ems ~o benefit mly a fe~ home ,.,WlleL'S. therefore, a reque.;t for the C~.\ to a{,dept this slope must cone fr~m Riverside County Counsel. Should you hav.e ;my qu,.~-tL.;::_~ please feel free to ,:all this office direct. .=rv truly youl'~. JRO/rls :IiVE:t>iDE coilnov Pl. nnin6 DEPA:ICrnEnC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEFNT (E.A.) NUMBER: ----' "~ .... PROJECT CASE TYPE(S)AND NUMBERS(S): "'7"f~ ,,~ APPLICANT'S NAME: /- )~-': j,-- '; NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING E.A.: >, ~ :< >-:/(:' ~.~P:_~'~,,~ ,/ STANDARD EVALUATION MODULE NUMBER(s): / I. PROJECT INFORMATION B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES '7 ~/~' ; or SQUARE FEET n ~ , j ' '-' :~ - "' .? i, ' '~ ~'~' ~ ;'~ _'~-- C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(S): ~.-'- ' ~ ,',. /,/ ,, '- -G- D. EXISTING ZONING: E. PROPOSED ZO. NING: F. STREET REFERENCES: IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? i / , ,) .~ / / > " '/'.'~ ; ~" '~.,.1 SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A, LEGAL.DESCRIPTION: ., .-~,~ .~- /; ;-~ .::L/ ..~'..::, =_.:~.,.- , II. COMPREHENSNE GENERAL PLAN OPEN 8PACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed 8ccordingly. r"i All or part of the project site is in "Adopted Specific Plans," '*REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community POlicy Areas". Complete Sections III, IV (B and C only), V and VI. JAIl or part of the project site is in "ArMs Not Designated Is Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV (A, B and D only), V and VI. [] All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned above. Complete Sections Iil, IV (A, B, and E only), V and VI. 295-/0 INew 12/871 III. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZ---%RDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Indicate the nature of the proposed land use as determined from the descriptions as found in Comprehensive General Plan Figure VI.3 (Circle One). This infonq~tion is necessary to determine the appropriate land use suitability ratings in Section III.B. NA - Not Applicable Critical Essential Normal-High Risk Normal-Low Risk Indicate with a yes (Y) or no (N) whether any environmental hlz. ird and/or resource issues may ignificantly affect or be affectec~ by the proposal. NI rwferenced figures are contained in the Comprehen~ve Gene~l Plan. For any issue marked yes (Y) wnte additional data sources, agencies consulted, finclings of f~ct and any mitigltion rne~sures under Section V. Also, where indicated circje the appropriate land use ~uilability or noise acceptability rating(a). (See definitions at bottom of this page). HAZARDS 1 ~ Alquist-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault 12. Hazard Zones (Fig. VI.1 ) NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3) Liquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. VI.1 ) NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.4) Groundshaking Zone (Fig VI.1 ) NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5) Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slo¢~e MaDs)?Cr../~ 15. / Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) 16. NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.6) ..~ Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) 17. Expansive Soils (U.S.D~. Soil 18. Conservation Service Soil Surveys) 19. Erosion (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation 20. Service Soil Surveys) 21...~ Wind Ersosion & Blowand (Fig. VI.1, 22. Ord. 460, Sac. 14.2 & Ord. 484) 23. Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) 24. Floodplains (Fig. VI.7) 25. NA U R (Fig. Vl.8) Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5, 11.18.11 & V!.12 & 1984 AICUZ Relx)rt, M.A.F.B.) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 ) Railroad Noise (Fig. VI.13 - VI.16) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 Highway Noise (Fig. VI.17 - VI.29) NA A B C D (Fig, VI.11 ) Other Noise 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 31-!"j RESOURCES Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35) In or Near mn Agricultural Preserve (Riv. Co. Agricultural LInd Conversation Contract Maps) Wildlife (Fig. VI.36 - %/!.37) Vegetltion (Fig. VI.38 - VI.40) Mineral Resources (Fig. VI.41 - VI.42) Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VI.44) 35.& 36. 37. Scenic Highways (Fig. VI.45) Historic Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33) Archaeological Resources t~,~,Z,!., ~ (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33 & %/I.46- VI.48) Ptleontological Resources (l:~leontoiogical Resources Map) Other Other Definitions for Land Use Suitability 8nd NoIse Acceptability Ratings NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Restricted A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Accel~table C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged LAND USE DETERMINATION Cornplete this part unless the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas." 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION(s): 4. COMMUNI~ POLICY AR~ IF ANY: ~ ~ COMMuN P N, ,F ANY: 6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(s), IF ANY: 7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL: B, For all projects, in idcate 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. PUBUC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1 ._.Y._ Circulation (Fig. IV.1-IV.11. Discuss in  Sec. V Existing, Planned &Required Roads) ~ 12~ 2 Bike Trails (Fig. IV.12 - IV,13) 3. h~t water (Agency Letters) 4. h'-) Sewer (Agency Letters) 13. 5. ~ Fire Services (Fig. IV. 16 - IV. 18) 14. : SherfffServices(FiglV.17-1V. 18) sc x a rv.17- N.181 ;..,~ Solid Waste (F~g. W. 17 - W. 18) 16,___ Parks and Fiecreation (Fig. IV.19 - N20) 17, Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV.19 - IV.24/ Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps) Utilities (Fig. W.25 - W.26) Libraries (Fig. IV.17- W. 18) Health Sent~,,J~___ (Fig. IV.17 - IV.18) Airpods (Fig. 11.18.2 - 11.18.4, 11.18.8 - 11.18.10 & W27 - W.36) City Sphere of Influence Other Ce 295-10 (New 12/87) ff all or part of the project is located in "Adopted Specific Plans", "FIEMAP" or "Rmncho Villages Community Policy Areas", review in detail the ~oecific policies Ipplying to the propoe411, and coml:)lete the following: 1. State the relevant land use designation(s): 2. Based on this initial study, is the prolx~al consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate document, 3 N. LAND USE DETERMINATION (continued) D. !f all or part of the project site is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", and is not in a Community Plan, complete Questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete cluestions 4, 5, 6 and 7 if it is in a CommuniW Plan. (i.e. residential, comn'[ercial, etc.) r,~{~ Current land use category(ies) for the site based on existing conditions. Also indicate land use tyDe ff D.1 differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the t ge? Explain: 4. Community Plan designation(s): ,~'----~' L/(,- f. f'- , ""' ,~'{/%j ~ 5. Is the proposed project cofqsistent with the policies and designations of the Community Plan? 6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses? If noL explain: ~/{, ~ n ~ i 7. Based on this initial study, is the proposal siste t with the. Coml)re ~ensive General Plan? If not, reference by Section and Issue Number those issues ' ' ' istencies: If 811 or pad of the project site is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following: 1. State the designation(s): j%j//~ 2. Is the prop(sal consistent with the designation(s)? If 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: 2i5-10 (N/w 12/87} V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED. SECTION/ ISSUE NO. DATE INFORMATION INFORMATION REQUIRED REQUESTED 6roc , l: DATE ADEQUACY INFORMATION Dt"TrcRMINATION RECEIVED (YES/NO.DATE) " For each issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B end IV.B, identify the Section and issue number and do the fOllowing, 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 iml~act repod (E.I.R) 4. If additional information is required before the environmental assessment can be completed, refer to Subsection A. 5. If additional sheets are needed to complete this section, 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: 295-70 (New 12/87) V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued) SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: rn See attached pages. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION: !'1 The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be prel~red. (or) The project could have 8 significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant effect in this rJse becJu~e the mitigation measures described in Section V have been applied to the project and a Negative Declaration my be prepared. (or) I"} The project may have s significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report iS required. b~/y}q~~4e~, Name: ~., hate: "~/'/7" ~ ~) Prepared 2~5-70 (New 12/87) CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23990 Council Approval Date: Expiration Date: Planninq Department The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~60, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the City Council approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~60. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance ~460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the 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. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a 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 City Engineer. Street names shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer· Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. STAFF R PT\TT23990 10. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a® Corner lots and through lots. if any. shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.88 of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less ~et area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and through lots. Ce Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the R-2 I Restricted Single Family) zone. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.. 11. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the City Attorney: a. A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall I a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, { b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the common area by either the property owners' association or the owners of each individual lot or unit as tenants in common and (d) contain the following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding an provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area', more particularly described and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the City of Temecula. The property owners~ association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit 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 the maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all other liens recorded subsecluent to the notice of assessment or other document creatinq the assessment lien. This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially amended or property deannexed there from absent the prior written 13. consent of the Planning Direct. A proposed amendment shall be considered 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area'. '-in the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws of the property owners' association Rules and Requlations, if 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 is recorded. In the event that no property owners' association is formed, the developer may request annexation into the local landscape assessment district for the care and maintenance of Lot 31. If the request for annexation is denied, a property owners' association shall be formed. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ('i) Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: a. Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all landscaped areas requiring irrigation. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six 16) feet at maturity. Ce All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees planted. ee Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along Via La Vida. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for maintenance access. 3 15. Landscapin9 plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of '~nterior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of- way. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project~s grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developer's successor's- in-interest provides evidence of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars 15100) per lot/unit shall be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library development. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwelling units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to ~5 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required elements from the subdivision~s approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front yard landscaping· All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and cc[nstructed with fire retardant I Class A ) rods as approved by the Fire Marshal. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. i. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten ~10) feet. j. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. 16. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Wall and fence locations shall conform to Condition 15.e., and shall not block views of existing residences. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection. Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where applicable. Health Department The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tract Map No. 23990 and recommends that: 17. 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 5 diameter, Ic:ation 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 comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map No. 23990, 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 map at any specific quantities, slows 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 5urveyor's Office to review at least two weeks prior to the request for the recordation of the final map. 18. This Department has a statement from Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. 19. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "1 certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 23990, 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 map." 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 financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. 6 Fire Department With respect to the Conditions of Approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with-Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: 20. Fire Protection Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, 16"x4"x2 1/4" ) 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: "1 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. Hazardous 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. Mitiqation Prior to the recordat/on of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $~00.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. Flood Control District This is a proposal to subdivide 5.76 acres for residential use in the Rancho California area· The site is located on Via La Vida about 450 feet south of Solana Way. The site is subject to only local off-site runoff via a drainage easement from the existing Tract 20153 to the south. The developer proposes to collect these flows and along with a portion of the on-site flows discharge them to a drainage easement in the development to the west. The remainder of the tract would drain via Street "A" to Via La Vida. Following are the District's recommendations: 21. This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988: At the option of the land divider, upon filing a required affidavit requesting deferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grading permit. 22. Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency escape shall also be provided. Enqineerincl Department PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 23. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; and Riverside County Health Department. 24. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460. 25. The following perimeter landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into the landscape maintenance district: Lot 31. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Dedication shall be made of the following right-of-way on the followin9 streets: 60 total feet on Street A 60 total feet on Street B 33 total feet half street on Via La Vida Corner property line radius will be required per City Standards and drawings. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the City Engineer. The subdivider shall construct or post security guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate· b. Storm drain facilities. c. Landscaping (street and parks). d. Sewer and domestic water systems. e. Unergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining developments. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen ( 15 ) percent grade. 35. Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the City Engineer. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum established per lot as mitigation for a traffic signal impact. 36. 37. 38. 39. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Street names shall be subject to the approval Department. of the City Engineering The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. Prior to occupancy, all fill slopes greater than 3' and all cut slopes greater than 5' in vertical height shall be planted with grass or ground cover and irrigated. A hydrology study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-d-way, shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." It is understood that the Tentative Map correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways and drainage courses, and that their omission may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. All lots shall be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate drainage facility. Lots shall not be allowed to drain onto adjacent tracts without a recorded drainage easement. The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. ~60 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Engineering Department. The subdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. All driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. 10 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. All drivewavs shall be located a minimum of two {2) feet from the property line. All driveways shall be constructed along all public street frontages in accordance ~ith City Standard No. 's ~00 and ~01 l curb sidewalk). The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter ?0. and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of- way. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per requirements of the City Traffic Engineer. Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Asphaltic emulsion {fog seal ) shall be applied not less than 1~ days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section No. ~s 37, :39, and 9~ of the State Standard Specifications. Corner cutbacks, in conformance with City Standard No. 805, shall be offered for dedication and shown on the final map. The following are the Engineering 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. 11 ITEM NO. 11 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: ' APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Engineering Department September 18, 1990 Finai Tract Map Nos. 22916-1, -2, -3, & F PREPARED BY: Robert Righetti R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: That the City Council approve Final Tract Map Nos. 22916- 1, -2, -3, and Final, subject to the conditions of approval, as amended. DISCUSSION: Final Tract Map No. 22916 was originally submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on February 25, 1988. The tract was tentatively approved by the County Planning Commission on September 28, 1988, and by the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. Division of tract into 4 units ~ or phases) was approved on January 11, 1989 by the County Planning Department. Tract 22916 is one of several tracts comprising the Vintage Hills Residential Community and consists of four units (or phases) providing minimum 7,200 square foot lots for the development of single family detached homes, as follows: TRACT LOTS ACRES 22916-1 76 41.46 22916-2 35 11.56 22916-3 76 24.91 22916 74 24.49 261 102.4~ The Tracts are located along the north side of Pauba Road between Kaiser Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This project is a portion of Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) which was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1990 and was covered under Development Agreement No. 5. The developer is Tayco, a joint venture of Taylor Woodrow Homes and Costain Homes, STAFF R PT\FTM22916 1 inc. To date, three tracts consisting of twelve development units (or phases) have recorded within the Vintage Hills Community including the provisions for two recreational areas, an area park, and upgraded landscaping treatments. These include Tracts 22715, 22716, and 22915. The following fees are required for development of each unit as follows: Tract 22916-1 Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee Fire Mitigation Fee** Area Drainage Fee** $11,400.00 30,400.00 81,676.00 Tract 22916-2 Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee Fire Mitigation Fee** Area Drainage Fee** $ 5,250.00 14,000.00 22,773.20 Tract Tract 22916-3 Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee Fire Mitigation Fee** Area Drainage Fee** 22916 Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee Fire Mitigation Fee** Area Drainage Fee** $11,400.00 30,400.00 49,072.00 $11,100.00 29,600.00 48,245.00 (** Deferred to Buildin9 or Grading Permits) The following bonds have been posted for each unit as follows: Faithful Performance Tract22916-1 Street and Drainage $1,105,500 Water $ 148,000 Sewer $ 138,500 Survey Monuments Taxes Tract 22916'2 Street and Drainage $ 372,000 Water $ 50,500 Sewer $ 56,500 $ 26,676 187,900 Survey Monuments Taxes $ 10,944 98,500 Labor and Material $553,000 $ 74,000 $ 69,000 $186,000 $ 25,250 $ 28,000 STAFFRPT\FTM22916 Faithful Labor Performance and Material Tract 22916-3 -- Street and Drainage $1,194,000 $597,000 Water $ 102,000 $ 51,000 Sewer $ 141,500 $ 70,750 Survey Monuments $ 23,940 Taxes 173,100 Tract 22916 Street and Drainage $1,095,000 $547,500 Water $ 86,500 $ 43,500 Sewer $ 115,500 $ 57,500 Survey Monuments $ 22,686 Taxes 62, 100 The developer has requested that item No. 34 of the Conditions of Approval for Final Tract Map No. 22916 as approved by the County Board of Supervisors be deleted. This condition states as follows: "Prior to the recordation of the final map, the land divider shall obtain off-site right-of-way for Green Tree Road for the purpose of creating a standard cul-de-sac as approved by the Road Commissioner." The developer has attempted to acquire the necessary off-site right-of-way for this purpose, but the adjoining property owner has refused to cooperate. Staff has reviewed this condition and is recommending that it be deleted per Subdivision Map Act Section No. 66462.5 which states: "A city, county, or city and county shall not postpone or refuse approval of a final map because the subdivider has failed to meet a tentative map condition which requires the subdivider to construct or install off-site improvements on land in which neither the subdivider nor the local agency has sufficient title or interest, including an easement or license, at the time the tentative or final map is filed with the local agency, to permit the improvements to be made." In addition, Parcel Map 19553, which joins Tract 22916 along its westerly property line, has been submitted to Staff and shows Green Tree Lane turning northerly into the subdivision, thus negating the need for a cul-de-sac. Fiscal Impact Not determined. STAFFRPT\FTM22916 3 Summary Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Tract Map Nos. 22916-1, -2, -3, and Final subje__ct to the Conditions of Approval'as amended. RR:ks Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval 3. Copy of Map 4. Location Map STAFF R PT\FTM2 2 9 16 4 DATE TO: November 23, 1988 Surveyor Road Building & Safety Flood Control Heal th Fi re Protection - RiVERSiDE COU Eu, PLanninc DEPAR GIEn RE: TENTATIVE TRACT/PA!IGE-I= MAP NO. 22916 REGIONAL TEAM NO. Specific Plans Team The Riverside County ~'l Planning Director/[~Board of Supervisors has taken the following action on the above referenced tentative map: ./ RG:mp __AP~ROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions (no waiver request submitted). / /~A~ENIED tentative map based on the attached findings. , PPROVED tentative map subject to attached conditions and DENIED request for waiver of the final map. APPROVED tentative map and APPROVED request for waiver of .the final map. APPROVED t Extens~° ' Time to , subject to all previously app ,, '_~'.~- "~,,a :,to · ~: subject to DENIED Extension of :: or ~-- ~ .~ ' APPROVED withdrawal of tatire m~. ' :~ ' APP~VED H~nor 1 ly app~ved' conditions · , .:., as sh~ (attached)... APP~VEDMinor Change ~ ~vise ori3inally ~.. SURVEYOR - WHITE 295-27 (Bey. 10/83) Very truly yours,niVF. g~:DE 'RIVERSIDE COUNTY ~_q~N.N.ING DEPAR314EIIT'tECK Roger S~r ,~__~Di rector · Ron Goldman, :Principal Planner HEALTH - PINK BUILDING & SAFETY - GREEN FIRE PROTECTION - GOLDENROD FLOOD ' CANARY 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 1NDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 RSSt:KG:ncb R R SUB~IT'TAL TO THE ~OA~!~ OF ~UI>E VISO S COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: November 8, 1988 SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE and TENTATIVE TRACTS located in the "~" Hargarita Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1) - First an~Third Supervisorial Districts - Rancho California Zoning Area. RECOMMENDED MOllON: Receive and File the Planning Con~nission action of g-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. Roll Streeter, Planning Director Pm'ev. Agn. DeptL Comments Dimt. AGENDA NC RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 5-2, 3-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE I - TAPE 6, SIDE 1) VESTING TRACT MAP 23373 AMENDED NO. 1 - 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 HAP 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 lg9 Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT 23372 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32547 - Hergarita 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 RECOlttENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32548, EA _ 32546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesting Tract Heps 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. I to the specific plan. Jim Resney, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the development, advising they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement conmnunity 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 Hap 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 Haster 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 aes{~etic 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 end "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. Hr. 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. Hr. Johnson advised the condition would not alter the width of the sidewalk in any way. Comtsstoner Beadling referred to Nr. Resney's request that front yard land- scaping and irrigation not be required for the larger ldts, 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 Haps 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended No. 1 and 23373 Amended No. I are located within Village A of the Margartta 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 condtttoned 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. S; 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 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 studies for these tracI maps, and no significant impadts 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 Conlnissioner 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 ~ps 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 and the recommendations of staff. Tract No. 23371 9 - Amend to reflect the September 30, lgB8 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. I 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 shall be pemitted 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 RIVERSIOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Village Specific PT~n; 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 19g 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 Iconsistent with the Comprehensive General Plan {as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. I and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract maps conform 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. I 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). 3e 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. 4e 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. 8e The development of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. I shall coeply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Hap 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). 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 ~th 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. 38. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development Agreement 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 Tract Map 23103 Amended No. 1 21. Amend to conform to Condition 22 (to provide for maintenance of the common o~n space area by either a County Service' Area or a Homeowners Association. 22. Replace ~th the standard alternative condition providing for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or Hoeemmers ~sociation. 34(a) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Ftgure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. I 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 KND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE I - 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 lone 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. Gtfford's recommend)tion for deletion of the conditions for Tract llps 23470, 22915 and 22916 requiring landscaping and irrigation. Its. Gtfford explained these three tentative maps roposed minimum 7200 square foot lots and the County did not normally require Vandscaping 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 sulxnitted 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. Ptpher's subdivision which was next to Rancho Vista Road. They for t s were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan hi 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 dens~y 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 h what this density was, and was informed t ere 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 designed this channel for their underlying map with 4:1 slopes. Mr. Lotz agreed to the deletion of this condition. Mr. Kimble then requested that Road Department Condition 26 for Tract 22915 and Condition 2B 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 park prior to the issuance of occupancy for the 25gth lot. Providing the fully 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 pro ram at the present time, and he wanted to know whether they would be charg2~ 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 wa:{s. Mr. ~otz explained ~e Bo had ard 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 atainst the ultimate mitigation fee. This explanation satisfied Mr. Dudonay s concerns. Mr. Ktmble 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 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 compliance with thedevelopment agreement would be null and void. Mr. ~ otz advised this was explicitly provided within the development agreement. OPPONENTS: 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 Margari ta Village Specific Plan dated March 30, 1986, which showed the density in this area to be approximately half of the density currently proposed. 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 fell 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 parks be required on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, to benefit residents in that area. Mr. Pipher requested a solid wall along the boundary between their development and the subject project. The people residing in this area were requesting a buffer, and would appreciate anything the Commissioners could do to help them. In answer to a question by Commissioner Bresson, Mr. Pi~her advised there was no street between the area he was representing and t e subject site; the lots from the subject tract map were backing up against the lots in his subdivision. When Mr. Pipher again requested equestrian trails, Ms. Gtfford briefly reviewed the proposed trail system, which included a trail along Rancho California Road, going up the Kaiser Parkway and WIlD 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 schoo 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 alon Green Tree Lane. Thi was a regional trail system, established under the d~rection of the Parks s Department. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Commissioner Bress6~ 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 on (Transportati 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. Nr. 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 bocause it would not encourage through traffic along the school site. Hr. Johnson pointed out that there would be less opportunity to eventually obtain signalizatton for a 3-way intersection than for a 4-way intersection. m'I RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Mr. Kimble advised l:hey 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 ~ps 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. I and Change of Zone Case 4 5107; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 3 B and 460. MOTION: Upon motion b Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Con~nissioner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative 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 Vestin 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 Con~issioner". 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 (balanc) to remain the same) 32 - The development of Tentative Tract Hap 23916 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1 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 ~rea: Rancho California Supervisorial District: First EA Nos.: 32517, 32518, 32504, 32505 Spectfic Plan Section Vesting Tract No.: 23470 & 23471 Tentative Tracts: 22915 & 22916 P]anning Commission: 9-28-88 Agenda Ztem No.: 1-3, 1-4 0 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer: 3. Type of Request: Locati on: Existing Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Site Characteristics: Area Characteristics: Comprehensive General HEn Oestgnattee: RIVERSIDE COlJRTY PLAI~IMG DEPARIMENT STAFF REPORT Kaiser Development Co. Rencho California Development Co. Robert Bein, Nilliam Frost and Associates. Four tracts divtdtng 345 acres into 1020 residential lots and 8 open space/park lots. South of Rancho Califomia Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road. R-R (Change of Zone 5107 heard by Board of Supervisors and 9-13-88 proposes Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. I zoning) Zontn to the north and west in R-R zoning but ~e property ts also part of the Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1 and will be rezoned to the Specific Plan Zone. To the east is R-R, R-A-2~ and A-1-10 zoning. To the south is R-R zoning. Vacant land traversed with low hills Located on eastern edge of Rancho California Community. Agricultural and rural land uses are located east of Butterfield Stage Road. Not designated as Open Space and Rancho VIllages. (GPA No. 150 proposes a general 1an designation of Specific Pla 199 ~e dmentNo. 1), n n Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. 23470 and 23471 Tentative Tract Nos. 22915 and 22916 Page 2 10. Land D~vtston Data: Tract Acreage Residential Lots Open Space Lots 0ensity 23470 106 321 4 3.0 23471 44 153 2 3.5 22915 92 287 - 3.1 22916 .103 259 2 2.5 345 1020 'g' 11. Agency Recommendations: See letters dated: 23470 23471 22915 22916 Road 9- 8-88 6- 8-88 6-20-88 7-22-88 Health - 5-11-88 5-11-88 6-13-88 6-13-88 Flood 8-19-88 6-17-88 6-17-88 6-17-88 Ftre 5- 3-88 9-20-88 6-23-88 6-22-88 Er4k~ 5-13-88 5-13-88 5-13-88 5-13-88 Rancho ~ater 6-16-88 6-20-88 5- 3-88 6-16-88 Sheriff 5- 3-88 5- 3-88 6-16-88 5- 3-88 12. Letters: 0ppos~ng/Supporting: None received as of this vrtting. 13. Sphere: ANALYSIS: Not within a City Sphere of Znfiuence Tract Nos. 23470, 23471, 22915 and 22916 Implement Vtllage C of the Hargartta Vtlla S ctftc Plan (SP Amendment No. 1). Spectfic Plon No. 199 Amendment No. ~,, ~ange of Zone No. 5101, General Plan Amendment No. 150 and Develo ant T reement No. S were bead by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, [~;8. TA~ese tracts have been destgned to be consistent wtth these documents. The tsble below- sumadzes the tracts relationship and consistency wtth the spectflc pian's planntng areas. As shown none of the tracts exceed the pemttted number of restdenUal unit. 'T 'oN luawpuauN 66'[ 'oN ugLd :}!..4.1.:};dS .;o 3 ;BgLLI, A ul. pa:l, eooL aJg 91;6~Z pug ST6ZT, · son q, ogJ.L aAi.~.glUaL pug T/..t~Z pug O/-tI~Z 'SON lOlJ/. ;AI.q-,,g'.I.U~I 5Ul, lSaA 'T SgMIQMIJ · sluHmJ~nboj lumlmajBg lumadoLgA;p pug ugLd o;,~lo;ds paldope pug sIjodkl Lgol4snooe ql~ .('Ldmoo sg LIma sg 'sl:}edmj. Looq3s 'ilolgAJasqO JgmoLgd 'IH aq~. ol sl:}gdml. aleBp,~m ol p;uo~l~puo3 uakl ;Aeq Sl:~IJ1 dno.~ LLV no- saoj,,o$ aa- on- puma.4- ,{dAnes- ao.mes ma- 4.ea Rt4.;m.-V--· S-TGH-tee-J~,- te- t~t~- st- m,~ls ade-qded- Me-de, is- ,~ooqas-¥--~a;,+sue- sue4m,4t;ue-,mdois-ea.-mq~ qtlFt.~- e-.- Me, Suet-dej c't":"';,.' (66-8Z-6 uolsslu~o] 6uluueLd X'q palaLaa) '.Pe. oH--el.'u-Jo'~-l,-t otl'u,q~-.Eu~!..e--.q.~-.u.e4.Jq.sanl:h~-T(N:-.e...,J,o..u.oi. eumlx; (Ii8-'8Z-6 uol. ssl. umo3 6ul. uueLd X'q papuau~f) 'u61. sap Sli. O'~Ul. Sq, Ot 10q, O~.q. saleJodJooul. ,,3ejq. aq.L 'pI. OA pug Ltnu aq pLno~ S./.aTZ 'oN q,....oeJl aA!leq. uaJ. 'LeAo,,iddg sq.l 4q.l..M lo41 pauop,,puoo uaaq se4 age.A; aq. Lpa]Xe 'jo q. uampuaurV 66I 'oN uel. d DU. 13adS q~,liw luaq, sl. suo3 sl qo!.tl~ 33e J:,, aq; JoJ. da uaa<l seq Lenu~u~ uS~sap luauiloLaAap V 'a14s-a4R-aQ~-Pa,ki~~t~-ryetw-4t-:)-~4~ 0ZOT nznT 69l 8T *LT '9I Jod 6SZ gT6ZZ lBZ 91 Jod '91 ZEl 916/Z £Sl ~Z °TZ £St TZ£ IZ 'SZ '~Z '£Z 'ZZ TZ£ sl ~ull .4,o · oH Pall I. uu ad eaJV ueLd o~oadS sliufl ~o 'oH pasodoJd 'Old 13gJi SIIMO llllT13~] MV'kl3IJl3]dS I)IVI.WalJ0 MO$1WdH03 ( abed 916ZZ pug 9TGZZ rsoN loeJl a^l. leluai TZ~£Z pug OIV£Z 'son loeJl 5u}lsaA Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. 23470 and 23471 Tentative Tract Nos. 22915 and 22916 Page 4 The four tracts will divide 345 acres tnto 1020 residential lots and provide · 10 acre school stte, 5 acre park site and 3 tot lots. Design manuals have been prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. and 23471. 23470 The tracts have been condtttoned to comply with Spectftc Plan No. 199, Change of Zone No. 5107 and Development Agreement No. 5. A watver for length to width ratto will be needed for Tracts 22915 and 22916. CONCLUSZONS: All environmental concerns have been addressed tn EIRs 107, 202 and the tntttal studies for these tracts and no significant impacts have been found. The tracts are consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 150, Change of Zone No. 5107, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1. The tracts conform to the requirements of Ordinance 340 and 460. RECOHNENDATIONS: ADOPTION of a Ne attve Declaration for EA Nos. 32517, 32518, 32504, and 32505 basea on · ftn~tng that the pro3ect wil not have a significant effect on the 1 end ronment. APPROVAL of Vestin Tentative Tract Nos. 23470 and 23471 and Tentative Tract No·. zz915 end 229~6 sub3ect to the attached conditions of approval. e e O CL RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22916 DATE: September 28, 1988 STANDARD CONDITIONS The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,.action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract No. 22916, which action is brought about within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will coo erate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify t~e 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. 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below except for lot length to width ratio. (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and ad ress the Safety. The report shall d sotls stability and geological conditions oft he stte. 6. If any grading ts proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of comprehensive redin plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall compt~wtt~ the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as mended by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No, 22916 Page 2 -_ 10. 1. 12. 4e A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to coanencement 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 7-22-8Ba copy of which is attached. Legal access as required by Ordinance 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 sha41 continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, utilities, within the conveyances Surveyor. when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located land division boundary. All offers of dedication and shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Oepartment's letter dated 6-13-88 a copy of which is attached. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control reco~nendattons outltned by the Riverside County Flood Control Dtstrtct's letter dated 6-17-88 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 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 outltned in the County Fire Harshal's letter dated 6-23-88 a copy of whtch ts attached. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement phastn , if applicable, shall be subject to Planntng 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. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 22916 Page 3 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 7,200 square feet. b. 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. c. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in confonnance with the development standards of the Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 zone. d. 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. e. 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 vtsually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. 18. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: ao 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 outlined in the attached approval t met. letters from the following agenc es have been County Fire Department County Flood Control County Parks Department Eastern Municipal Water Dtst.. County Health Department County Planning Department Rancho Water District Prior to the recordatton of the final map, General Plan Amendment No. 150, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1, Development Agreement No. 5, and Change of Zone No. 5107 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conromance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 22916 Page 4 - c. All existing structures on the subject property shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map. de The common open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the final map and shall be managed by a master property owners association, Impacts to the Temecula Elementary and Elstnore Union High School District shall be mitigated at the development application stage in accordance with the dtstrtct's policies. 20. Prior to the issuance of bu4qd4eg occupancy permits for 150 units in Tentative Tract No. 22916, the park shall be fully improved and developed. {Amended by Planning Con~ntssion 9-28-BB) 21. Prior to recordatton of the final subdivision map, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department 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 declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provide for a minimum term of 60 years, (b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each tndhtdual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the camnon and (d) contain to following provisions verbatim: "Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: The property owners' association established her·in shall manage and conttnuouslymtntatn the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhtblt 'III-40 of the specific plan', attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area', or any pert thereof, absent the prior witten 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 unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining the 'common rea' and shall have the right to 1ten the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment, An assessment 1ten, once created, shall be · jo'),oaj~O 5u~uue d aql Xq paAoJdde e s ~lJed Jaqlo Jo $all|t~q~suodsaj aql aje suolleJa~o S a asoql se ;m~l qons Ll~un suelsXs UO~lgE~Jd& pU9 $gOJ9 pedeospueL 'sadots LLe ~o daaldn pue ;oueualukea Joj aLqisuodsea ;q LLeqs J;doLaAap ;ILL · 13&Jls~p aq~ ~q JaAO Ug~O1 S~ aoueualu~etll $e tlf~l qons L~un ;oueu;~ulmu 6u~deospueL ~eJqJed LLe Joj aLqisuodsaj eq LLeqs 'saauG~sse Jo lS;JalU~-U&-$J0SSa3OGS s,JkloLa^ap aql *JN:!OLgAap (tr · 13&Jls~p ;ql Xq Xl~L~q~suodsaj ;oueualu~eul aql jo uoildmnsse aql ol Jo&Jd peLLelsu~ ;q LL~ qolq~ 6u~deospueL LLe jo XliLlqet^ NIl 6u&k,-luejenb 'spuoq ;2ueujo~J;d U0~S~A~pqnS ~0 ;soaLaJ ;q~ q~lJ~ ~L~u;JJnouo3 P;seaLaJ aq tLeqs qO~Lpt pUOq 03uetuJo~Jad adeospueL e 1sod tteqs J;dotaAaP atLL (( · ~ueurljedaa peon Xluno0 aql qli~ 6uiL~} luaueujad Jo~ aLqe~ns ~emjo~ aLqionpoJdaj e u~ paJedajd ;q LLe s suoileoUloads pue sueLd uo~ef~jj~ pue 6u~deospueL LLV '~uaurNe~k] 6uluueLd pue peon ~uno0 ;ql mojj sueLd UO~eS~JJ~ pue 6u~deospueL pasod0Jd Jo LgAoJdde ;JnOaS LLeqs J;dOLaAap ;q; 'Sl~LlUad 6u~pL~nq ~o ;ouenssi aql ol Jo~jd (Z (T :suop,~puoo 6u!,NoLLo:~ aq~, qll~ XLdmo3 LLRqs JadoLaAap a~ 'ZZ · papjo3aj s~ dem leu~ aql ~eql awl1 ;tees aql ~e papjooaj aq LLeqs pug SUO~pUO~ eS~U~U;AO~ ~0 uo~edeLoap aq~ 'paAoJdde a3uO .'LoJ~uo3 LLeqs uo~eJeL3aO s~ql 'Xue ~ 'suolleLnBaa pue saLn'd uo~;e~oosse ,sjau~o X;jadojd a41 Jo sNeLX8 a41 *uO~;eJOdJOouz ~0 saL3~JV aq~ pue uo~ejeL3;(l s~q~ uaa~aq ~L:l, uo3 ~ue ~o IUaA; ;q~ uI · ,eaje uomeoo, aq~ ~o ;oueualu~em Jo aGesn '~ualx; ;q~ sloa~je lI ~i ,Lelluelsqns, pajap~suo3 aq LLeqs ~umupu~e pasododd V '~$;J;~u~-u~-doSSa33n$ S,X~U~OO ;q~ JO ;p~SJ8A~S ~0 X~u~O'J ;ql JO JO}3iJ~O 6u&uueLd aq~ ~o luasuoo ualli.m Jo~dd ;ql luasqe iuoJ~ajJ141 paxauueap XIJadoJd Jo papuaum ,XLLetlue~sqns, 'paleu~m.a;1 ;q ~ou LLeqs uol~ejeL3k) sltU. · ue~t luaessasse aql 5u~eaj3 lu~un3op Jaqlo Jo lueessasse ~o a3~ou aql ol ~uanbasqns papdO3iJ sui~t aiqlo LLe o~ Jo~dd 9T6ZZ 'oN loeJ1 aA~le;u;~ LeAoJddV ~o suo~l~puo3 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 22916 Page 6 24. Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: 1) Road )~r)nt, e o rs 1 secure approval of the proposed street light la~ut first fr~ the Road Depar)ent's traffic engineer and then fr~ the app~prtate utility ~ne~r. 2) Following approval of the street lighting layout by the Road Departnent'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 secuce conditional approval of the street lighting application from LAFCO, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. 4) All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. 25. Prior to the issuance of gred4eg building permits, detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Departgent 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 up to a mtnimueheight of six (6) feet atmaturtty. 3) All utfltty service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approve by the Planning Otrector. Utilities shall be placed underground. 4) Parkways and landscaped butldtng 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 sldewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where appropriate as approved by the Planntng Department and Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 22916 Page 7 26. 27. 5) 6) Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of spedmen accent trees at key visual focal potnts withtn the project. Mhere streets trees cannot be planted ~thtn right-of-way of tntertor 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 extsttng specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the proJect's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. 9) All trees shall be minimum double staked. t4eaker and/or slow growtrig trees shall be steel staked. All extsttng native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. klhere they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced wtth specimen trees as approved by the Planning DIrector. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. Zf the project ts to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits, an overall conceptual gradtny plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval, The p an shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall tnclude the following: Techniques whtch wtll be uttltzed to prevent eroston and sedtmentatton during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate ttme frames for grading and Identification of areas which my be graded during the htgher probability rain mnths of January through Parch, 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. Grading plan shall confom to Board adopted HtllsIde I)evelopment Standards: All cut and/or ftll slopes, or individual combinations appropriate combination of Increase slope ratto (I.e., 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with Irrigation. All drheways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. ZZ916 Page 8 29, de All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10 feet tn verttcal hetght shall be contour-graded incorporating the follw~ng 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 vrith curves with radii destgned tn proportion to the total height of the slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding. 4) ~here cut or ftli slopes exceed 300 feet In horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved tn a continuous; undulattng fashion. Prtor to the Issuance of BUZLDING PERHITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prior to the Issuance of grading permtts, a qualified paleontologist shall be retatned by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading ~th respect to potential paleontologtcal tmpacts. Should the paleontologist ftnd the potent1 al ts high for tmpact to significant resources, a pre-grade meettng between the paqeontologtst and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the In accordance with the written request of the developer to the County of RIverside, a copy of which ts on ftle, and tn furtherance of the agreement between the developer and the County of RIverside, no buildtrig permits shall be tssued by the County of RIverside for any b parcels withtn the su 4ect tract unttl the developer, or the t developer's successors-In-Interest provtded evtdence of compl ance ~th the terms of satd Development Agreement No. 5 for the flnanctng of publlc facilities. c. Mtth the submittal of butldtng plans to the Department of Butldtn and Safety appropriate mitigation measures shall be applied to individual dwell(rig untts vrlthtn the subdivision to reduce ambtent tntertor notse levels to 45 Ldn and extertor noise below 65 Ldn. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted vrithtn the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devtces shall be pemttted wtth Planning Department approval. Condttlons of Approval Tentathe Tract No. 2Z916 Page g ~ e. Building separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. f. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. g. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and aetema~e manually operated permanent underground irrigation. (Amended by Planning Co~mnission 9-28-88} Prior to issuance of OCCUPANCY PERNITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, a decorative block wall shall be constructed along Butterfield Stage Road, Kaiser Parkway and Rancho Vista Road per Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 and the acoustical study. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning Director. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. c. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 d. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460 Development of Tentative Tract No. 22916 shall comply with the provisions of Specific Plan 199, Amendment No. I and Development Agreement No. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, tepacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat shall be mitigated per the Specific Plan conditions of approval. (Added by Planntng Coemtsston 9-28-88) ' KG:mcb RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD FIRE CHIEF 6-22-88 PLANNING DEPARTI~NT TF.J~ SP, KATHY GIFFORD TR 22916 Planning tit EnginccrinI Office 4080 I-room Street. S4~itc ! I Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 With respect to the conditions of approval for the ·hove referenced l·nd division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in ·ccord·nce with Riverside County Ordinances ··d/or recognized fire protection st·nd·rds: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule' "An fire protection ·pproved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4t'x2t") located one at e·ch street intersection ·nd sp·ced no more than 330 feet ·part in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more th·n 165 feet from · hydrant. )(inimum fire flow shall be 1000Gl~ for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the vater system pl·ns to the Fire Department for reviev. Plans sh·ll conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system sh·ll meet the fire flay requirements. Pl·ns sh·ll be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer ·nd the loc·l water camp·my with the fallsvia2 certification: .'I certify chat the design of the racer system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Dept.~ - The applicant/developer shall provide stritten certification from the appropri·te water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or'th·t financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 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 retardation of the final map, the ·pplic·nt/developer sh·ll provide alternate or secondary access as approved by the County Ro·d Department. MITIGATION FEES Prior to the record·rio· 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 protectiou impacCs. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Re: TR 22916 Page 2 All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred co the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. ILs, YPION1) H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By George Tatum, Deputy Fire ~arshal LeRoy D. Smoot lOAD CC)*U~:SS~ONER & COVNT'r ~A/IYEYOt OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR July 22, lg88 COUNTT ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER MAllwING ADORESIS P.O. IO.l 10t0 "lVl'"llC lr, CAlwlKOIINI · ,at02 Riverside County Planning Con~nisston 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 9250! Re: Tract Nap 22916 Schedule A - Team SP 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 4~). It is -understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage ~ourses with appropriate O's, and that their mission or unacceptabiltty may require the map to be resubmttted 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 cmplete design of the Improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Comissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, I.e., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by both. All drainage easements shall be shom 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 landdhtder shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage ~ovtng onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permtts the use of streets for drainage pu oses, the provisions of Article X! of Ordinance No. 460 wtlr~ apply. Should the quantities exceed the street cap.city or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. Tract Flap 22916 July 22, 1988 Page .2 ' 3. Najor dFainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 19 29 "C", "D", "F" and %1" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 105, Section A. (36'/60'). Kaiser Parkway shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101, (38'/50', 76'/100'). Pauba Road shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, (32'/44'). Butterfield Stage Road be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 100, (43'/55'). "A", "B" and "I" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. (44'/66'). ' "E", "G', "H", "K" and "0" Streets shall be improved within the dedicate right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60'). The landdivider will provide left turn lanes on Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif. Water District prior to the recordatton of the final map. The maxtmum centerltne gradient shall not exceed 15%. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the Road Department. 14. The BinImam lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet or as approved by the Road Commissioner, Tract Nap 22916 July 22, 1988 Page 3 6. 9. 21, 3, All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. When blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road Commissioner. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). Primary and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road main- rained by the County shall be constructed within the public right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B, (32'/60') at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Commissioner. - This is necessary for circulation purposes. Prior to the recordatton of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of Issuance of a building permit. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not Imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Asphaltic mulsfon (fog seal) shall be applied not less than d fourteen ays following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles aM off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. Corner cuttacks t~conformnce with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and off, Fed for dedication. Lot access shall be restricted on Kaiser Parkway, Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road and so noted on the final map. Tract Nap 22916 July 22, 1988 Pag~ 4 7e 81 9 · 0e 2· 3e 41 Landdiyisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall p~ovide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50' tangent measure from flow line .or as approved by the Road Con~nissioner. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 21675, 11 22915, PH 120/81, PH 37/3, PH 145/80- 85 and SP 199. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment 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 street improvement plans· A striping plan is required for Kaiser Parkway Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. The landdivider shall comply with the recommendations for SP 199 as outlined in the Road Department letter dated June 2, 1988. Prior to the recordatton of the final map, the landdivider shall obtain offsite right of way for'Green Tree Road for the purpose of creating a standard cul-de-sac as approved by the Road Co,~issioner. GH:lh Very truly yours, 6us Hughes Road Division Engineer KENNETH I_- IrDWARDS C:Nil3r 2N~INEDI 1Ill MANKIT I'TIIEL'T P. 0. BOX 1033 TZJ, EPHONE (714) 717-Z015 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVEIIIID!:. GAa!FOI~NIA June 17, 1988 R/verside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Specific Plan Kathy Gifford Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Tract 22916 This is a proposal to divide about 103 acres in the Temecula Valley area. The site is along the north side of Pauba Road - between Kaiser Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This project is a portion of Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village). The area consists of well defined ridges and natural watercourses which traverse the property. Offsite flows are tributary to the site from the north, east and south. These flows traverse the property and join together at the site's southwest corner. The applicant proposes to accept the flows from the east with storm drains. Offsite flows from the north would be collected in streets and conveyed with another storm drain system proposed by Tract 22915 to the north. No indication is shown on the tenta- tive map how the offsite flows from the south would be collected at Pauba Road whose fill is higher than the natural grade. On- site flows would be conveyed with streets and storm drains. All the proposed storm drains Join into a large storm drain that out- lets at the site's southwest corner. Following are f, he District's recommendations: This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the 'Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Planse, amended February 16, 1988: ae 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 Re: Tract 22916 -2- June 17, 1988 be At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting deferment 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. 2. Offsite flows from the north must be safely collected and conveyed through this project. 3. Offsite flows from the south should be accepted and con- veyed within Pauba Road. If the road fill is higher than natural grade, adequate drainage facilities should be provided. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions". 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. Riverside County Planning Department Re= Tract 22916 -3- June 17, 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 own·re 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. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemente~ immediately following rough grading to prevent depositic 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 no' diverted from one watershed to another. This may requi: the construction of temporary drainage facilities or of. fsite construction and grading· A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and fina. 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 record tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approve prior to issuance of grading permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chia of this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, KENNETH L. EDWARDS (~i~-.~ EngineeF ~ OHN B · ' KASHUBA ~'~eOnKtor Civil Engineer cc z Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates RC t beb ,, 'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION · 'o6'm'~q' I. P.o. Iox 231 SAN I!I:NAIDM',K). CA f2.402 Nay q, 1988 .i.a.y 6 1988 RIVE~,jIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GiO~G{ OEUr~d/JIAN. Cxxe.~x Development Review 08-Riv-79-15 -35/17-37 Your Reference: TT 22915, TT 22916, VT 23,q70, VT 23q71 Planning Department Attention Kathy Gifrord County or Riverside q080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Ms. Gifford: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative ' Tracts 22915, 22916, and Vesting Tracts 23q70 and 23q71 located north or Highway 79, south of Rancho California Road between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road near 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 Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M. Connally at (71q) 383-q38q- Very truly yours, Dlstrlct Permits Engineer cc: Lee Johnson, Biverside County Road Department DEVELOPI~NT RE'~IL~ / &1though the ~rarric and drainage generated by this proposal do not appear to have a significant erreet on the state hig~ay system, consideration mat be given to the cumlative effect or continued developmpnt in this ares. Any measures neceuary to mitigate the ~lative impact or traffic and drainage should be provided prior to or with development or the area that necessitates them. .It appears that the traffic .... a: ~3a generated by this proposal could have a significant-~rrect on ~he state highway system or the ares. Any measures necessary to mitigate the trafrlc-meseSNeiee impacts should be included wlth the development. This portion or state highway is included in the California Master Plan of State Highways Eligible-for Official Scenic HtgrNay De~l~natlon, and in the future your agency ,my. wish to have this route officially designated an a state scenic highway. This portion of state highway has been officially designated as a state scenlc highway, and development in this corridor should be canpattble with the scenic highway concept. It ls recognized that there is considerable public cavern about noise levels adjacent to heavily traveled higlm~aya. Land development, in order to be compatible with this concern, may require speclal noise attenuation measure~. Development of property should include any necessary noise attenuation. Ncrmdl rlght or ~ay dedication to provide Normal street lmprovemente to provide half-width on the state ht~Tday. half-w{dth on the state highway. Curb and gutter, State Standard along the state hi~ay. Parking be prohibited slong the state htgrssy by painting the curb red and/or by the proper placement of wno parklngw slgns. radius curb rettrns be provided st intersections with the state higtaday. ~dard ~heelcbslr ramp _-;~-t be provided in the returns. A positive vehicular barrier miens the property frontage be provided to ltmlt i~rsiesl access to the state higtNmy. Vebleulmr meeess mot be developed dlrectly *to the state MStamy. Veht~alar sects to ~ state MgrNay be provldad by existing public road Vehicular sccess to the state h~bNsy be provided by drt vekmys. stsnderd Vehicular access stmI1 not be provided within or the intersection st Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by s road-type connection. Form 8-PD19 (Rev. 5/87) (Continued on reverse) Vehicular access connections be paved at least wlthln the state highway right Access points to the state highway be developed in a manner that will provide sight distance for _ . mph along the state highway. Landscaping along the state highway be low and forgiving in nature. A left-turn highway at . Consideration be given to the provt on, or ut e pro s , si aliza i n and A traffic study in~tcatin8 on- and off-site flow patterns and vol~nes, probable impacts, and proposed mitiSatlon measures be prepared. Adequate off-street parking, kttich does not require backing onto the state highway, be provided. Parking lot be developed In a manner that will not cause any vehicular movement conflicts, Including parking stall entrance. and exlt, withln of the entrance from the state highway. Handicap parking not be developed in the busy driveway entrance area. Care be taken when developing this property to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration should be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure that a highway drainage problem Is not created. Any necessary noise attenuation he provided as part of the development of this property. Please refer t~ attached additional ecmnents. WIELD LIKE TO RECEIVE= copy of any conditions of approval or revised approval. & copy of any doeaents providing sddlttaml state !ttgh~ay right of way upon ' reeordatlon of the map. - Any proposals to further develop this property. A copy of the traffic or e~vlrormental study, if required. A check print of the Parcel or Tract Nap, if required. I check print of the Plans for any improvements within the state highway right of way, if required. A check print of the Gradlng and Drainage Plans for this property ~hen available. Hay 13, 1988 RIverside County Planntng Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, Caltfoimia 92501 R!VERS! DE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TRACT 22916 (Kathy Gtfford) The Dtstrtct ts responding to your request for coments on the subject proJect(s) relathe to the provision of water and sewer servtce. The 1tams checked below apply to this project revtew. _ The subject project: not vithtn EffiiD's: X water .servtce area sewer servtce area X Iqust be annexed to thts Dtstrtct's Improvement Otstrtct No. tn order to be eltgtble to recetve domestic water/sanitary sewer serv'E~, Vtll be requtred to construct the following factltttes;,~4o/~rS~r~h Ek't~ a. ) Vater Service b.) Sewer $ervtce Any and 811 necessary regionally sized onstte and offsite graytry sewers and appurtenant works that mtght-.tnclude monitoring mnholes, lift stations, force matns, and effluent dtsposal/use. Sewers wt11.' not be allowed along lot lines/private land. Fee participation tn regtonal sewers, treatment, and effluent dtsposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EHND regulations ~11 be a11owad. A I1." C~b ~pij,,7 ~c,.,,,,kr-~, , ' . Ci, t~4* 24550 San ,lociam Street · Foet Office Box 858 · Hemet, California 92343 · Telephone (~14) 925-7676 Flust provtde adequate rt ghts-of-way. The proponent should contact ENk/O' s Rtght-'of-llay Department. Flust provt~Te a stte for the construction of: sewer 11ft starton water pumptng starton water storage reservoir kit11 be requ(red to use reclaimed water tn the greenbelt areas. Zs wtthtn the Assessment DIstrict. Conditions must be lncluded that the tract cannot be recorded until the assessment has been patd tn full or an anrnended assessment dtstrtct has been recorded. Requtres major master planning and the Dtstrtct cannot comment until the master plan ts completed. Can be provtded wtth water servtce stnce the District has extsttng water facilities tn the area. (does not constder ftre flow) Can be provtded wlth sewer servtce stnce the Dtstrtct has adequate sewer -fac11 tttes. All above comments are sub3ect' to revtston durtng submittal of tracts for approval. Should you have questions on any of the above comments, please call me. Very Truly Yours, EASTERN HUN/C]:PAL IIItTER DZSTRZCT · Plannfng Department COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT ~e 13, 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 Attn: Kathy Gifford JUN 1 t 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTy PLANNING DEPARTMENT ells~tl Slltllll I&llllll BANmUG. C~ IJZZO ~O~TN IIIlOaOlAt e&l& ItAliC& tl/o MAII~J!ItlTA SOlOil& I.O$ IOUTI4 14,J~N& W!II'A Illlit IlO leOntee rrAlE fl'. IlllET, C& ~l &ill ILlJill lOllS Ireill OIl l'ltl IPlllll r,,us:, :"-' ': fill LIIOWJI ~ ~11 MilllOll RE; TRACT NAP 22916: Parcel 4 and S and a portion of Parcels 3 and 6 of Parcel Nap 22514 as shown on a map thereof._ filed in Book 145, Pages 80 through 85 of Parcel Naps in the Office of the County Recorders of Riverside County, Califonia (259 Lots) Gent I emen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Nap No. 22916 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 equall;:~00 feet, along with the..original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, 'locationofivalves 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 comply in all]:respects'with Div. 5, Part 1, Chapter 7 of the. California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, rTitle.22, ChaPter 16, and General Order.No.' 103 of the.'Public 0tilities Commission of the State of California,'.'vhen applicable. Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: Kathy Gifford June 13, 1~88 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 22916 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 viII 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. _Th_~_~lans must be submitted to the County_ Surveyor's Office to review at least two weeks ~[lor to the request for the recordation of the final maR. 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. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Hunicipal Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the' sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed acco. rding to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department.. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of. manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the 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 s&ver district with the '- 'following certification: "I certify that the design of. the sever system in Tract .Map 22916 is in accordance with the - sever' system expansion plans of the Eastern Hunicipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed ,[' ' tract. '" Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Three ATTN: Kathy oirrord June 13, 1988 The .plans must be submitted to the to review at least two weekS_REACt to th~_E~guest for the recordation of the final maR. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely, am~~Ma~t~n~i'tarian Environmenta~ Health Services SM:tac DATE: April 19, 1988 TO: Assessor ~' Butldtng and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Heal th - Ralph Luchs FIre Protection Flood Control Dtstrtct Fish & Game LAFCO, S Pats]ey U.S. Postal Servtce- Ruth E. Davtdson Shertff's Department AIrports Department UCR, Life Setante Dept , W.W. Kayhew Eastern Nunfcfpal I~ater Dist. Rancho California Ikter Dtst. Elsieore Union School Dtst. Temecula Union School Dfst.. SIerra Club, San Gorgonto Chapter CALTRAXS 18 --:IiVE:DiDE COUrlC,u PLA~ninG DEPA ClaERC M. AY 4 1988 ~ RIVERSIDE COUNTy PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRACT 22916 - (Sp P1 ) - E.A. 32505 - Rancho Ca1 tforntaDevelopment Co. - Robert Beth, 1dilltam Frost & Assoc. - Rancho California Area - First Supervtsortal DIstrict - N. of Pauba Road, kL of Butterflld Stage Road along Kaiser Parkway - R-R Zone - 103.03 Acres into 259 lots - Schedule A- (Concurrent Case TR 22915) - (RELATED CASES VTR 23470, TR 23471s TR 21674, TR 21675 and SP 199 Hargartt8 VIllage) - Hod 119 - A.P. 923-780-007,010 Please revted the case described above, along ~th the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for June 20. 1988. Zf tt clears It ~tll then go to pubTfc heartng. · Your cements and recommendations are requested prtor to Key 20, 1988 tn order that we my tnclude them In the staff report for thts particular use. Should ainu .ha~e any questions .regarding thts 1tea, *please'* do ' not hesttate to contact Kathy Gffford at 787-63H Planner ~ DATE: SIGNATURE /LEASE print name and tttle -4~cfiaeoloOical Research Unll ' Unlversiify o! California · .eiverfld~. CA 92511 *' 4080 LEMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501., (7!4) 1874181 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304' INDiO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 '~RSIDE COUNTY BYRD. SHERIFF Sheriff LAKE ELSINORE SHERIFF'S STATION · O14) 674-3131 117 S. LANGSTAFF ST. LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92330 May 3, 1988 Ms. Kathy Gifford Riverside County Planning Department ~080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Regarding: Tract 22916 Dear Ms. Gifford: MAY 4 Lc,68 ~' RIVE8$1DE PLANNING Di~pARTiGTNT We are in receipt of your letter and tract map dated April 19, 1988, received by this office on April 29, 1988. St. Deputy Snijders has- reviewed'the information and we offer the following for your upcoming PepoPt. Upon completion of this project, the approximate population growth will be 1,036. The desirable deputy/resident ratio is 1.5 deputies per 1,000 persons. 1.5 deputies will be needed upon build out of this project. This projected population figure was arrived at by using the formula of all single family residences being three bed- room. Currently, one deputy is assigned to this beat area, with an already existing q3,000 persons. Prior to completion of this project, it is suggested to the developer, to contact this office and speak with our Crime Prevention Deputy and set up an active Neighborhood Watch Program, in an effort to promote self-help programs fop protection of property and persons. If you desire any further.::information, please do not hesitate to con- tact this office. ':' Sincere/y · "" ' William D. R~ptain Lake Elsinore Station '// ~ /I I I ~Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 22916 - 1, -2, -3 & -Final TRACT 22916-1 TRACT 22916-2 TRACT 22916-3 TRACT 22916 F 76 LOTS 41.46 ACRES 35 LOTS 11.56 ACRES 76 LOTS 24.91 ACRES 74 LOTS 24.49 ACRES PROJECT SITE JN 24871 Regional Location Map ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City CouncilJCity Manager Engineering Department September 18, 1990 Final Tract Map No. 23101-2 PREPARED BY: Robert Righetti RECOMMENDAT ION: That the City Council approve Final Tract Map No. 23101-2 subject to the conditions of approval. DISCUSSION: Tract No. 23101 was originally submitted to Riverside County Planning Department on December 9, 1987. The Tentative Tract Map was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988. Minor Change No. 1 was approved May 1, 1989. Tract No. 23101-2 contains 108 residential lots within 32.63 gross acres. The tract is located south of La Serena Way and East of Meadows Parkway J Kaiser Parkway). This tract is part of Margarita Village Specific Plan JSP 199 Amendment No. 1 ) and Development Agreement No. S, Change of Zone No. 5107 and General Plan Amendment No. 150. The applicant is Marlborough Development Corporation. The following fees have been paid for Tract Map No. 23101-2: Signal Mitigation Fee Area Drainage Fee Fire Mitigation Fee (Deferred) Stephen's K-Rat Fee (For all lots within TT 23101 ) $ 16,200.00 27,428.76 43,200.00 169,650.00 The following bonds have been posted for Final Tract Map No. 23101-2: Faithful Performance Labor and Material Street and Drainage $1,007,000 Water 289,000 Sewer 255,000 Survey Monuments Taxes $51,480 25,200 $503,500 144,500 127,500 STAFFRPT\ FTM2 3 101. - 2 1 ;iscal Impact Not Determined. Summary Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Tract Map No. subject to the Conditions of Approval, 23101-2 RR:ks Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Fees & Securities Report 3. Copy of Map Location Map STAFFRPT\FTM23101.-2 2 :IiVE:DiDE county L nnin DE : CmEnC DATE: I.~ov~mDer 23, iJ~6 RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23101 E. A. NLMBER: 32533 REGIONAL TEAM NO. Specific Pla:~s Dear Applicant: The Riverside County Board of ~upervisors has taken the foll~ving action on the above referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of ~,'ove:~ber 6, 19~t3 . 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 qf the. Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environmental Qjality Act of 1970. ,-tie pruj~,t will not have a significant effect on the environment · . ~clara'~ion has Se - v d°Ptiied' .. .l~-. _. . -~ and a Negative ~ ~,~/---- ~ A conditionally appr tenta;iq;~'{ract map shall expire onths after the approval at the Board of Superviso He~~ ~te of which is s ' unless within that period of time a fina ' ~- 'TT" "?ll~ttlLapproved a~.nd.~cf th the County Recorder. Prior to the expiration d ."" '~ 'v~l)ff]lVYirall)p~]~" ng for an extension of one )ear and upon further ap ati on'a sc ond and a third :)~rSP~Ty Very truly yours RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S, Streeter, Planning Director .<un Goloman, Pri,cipal Planner FILE - WHITE APPLICANT - CANARY ENGINEER- PINK 10153) 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 30~ INDIO, CALIFORNIA 9220: (619) 342-8277 lame, RI "ERSIDE COUNTY COIS BYRD, SHERIFF Sheriff LAKE ELSINORE SHER.[FF'S STATION · (714) 674-313I 117 S. LANGSTAFF ST. LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92330 April 4, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 APR 0 7 1988 Attention: Regarding: Ms. Kathy Gifford, Planner Vesting Tract 23101 Marlborough Village RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEpARTMc_.NT Dear Ms. Gifford: We are in receipt of your request dated March 16, 1988, received ' by this office on April 0~, 1988. St. Deputy Snijders has reviewed the information contained within this case, and we offer the follow- ing for your upcoming report. According to the information you sent, upon completion of this pro- ject, there will be 263 residences. Assuming that each residence will have a minimum of three bedrooms, the approximate population growth of this project will be 1,052 persons. The desirable resident/deputy ratio is 1.5 deputies per 1,000 per- sons, so upon completion of this project, 1.5 deputies will be needed. This project will negatively impact the Lake Elsinore Station, unless provisions are made for the additional services needed. It is also important, that prior to the opening of this project, to attempt to incorporate a Neighborhood Watch organization, by contacting Deputy Snijders at this station, to set up a meeting for the residents, in an effort to keep criminal activity down. Sincerely, iIS.BYR, SHERIF Captain William~, Lake Elsinore Station RSS:~G:KG:mcb · ~ "IBMrlIAL TO~IE~OARD OF SUPERV' ' '~RS dNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CAU[ .NIA 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 Conmission action of g-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. Streeter, Planning Director Prey. Agn. reL Deptm. Commen~s · , i t3 Dbt. AGENDA NO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 5-2,'~-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE i - TAPE 6, SIDE 1) VESTING TRACT MAP 23373 AMENDED NO. 1 - 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. 1 - 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. 1 - 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 - 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 Maps 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. i 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 Map 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 ae~(hetic 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 end "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 16ts, 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 Aftended 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 Comissioner Donahoe, seconded by Commissioner Bresson and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted t.le negative declarations for EA 32546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 23371 Amended No. 1 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 and 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. 19~ Amended No. I 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 shall 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 - 16.4± acres - SP/R-1 Zones. Schedule A TRACT MAP 23103 AMENDED NO. I - EA 32535 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisorial Districts - west of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 18 lots - 29± 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 ~rgarita 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. ~tr. Klotz suggested modifying' the last condition for each tract map by beginning with the phrase "Development 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 2 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, EI~ 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. I and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract maps conform 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. I 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. I 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 Hap 23101 17(h) Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average flat area of 2000 square feet. 22. A~end 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-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 38. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement 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. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract Map 23103 Amended No. 1 21. Amend to conform to Condition 22 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners Association. 22. 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-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 35. The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. I shall comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEMS 1-3 A~D 1-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE I - 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 Tour 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 Kimble, 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 {here 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 with 4:1 slopes. Mr. Lotz agree~ the to deletion of this condition. Mr. Kimble then requested that Road Department 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 park prior to the issuance of occupancy for the 259th lot. Providing the fully 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 wae{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 onl a security be deposited aVainst the ultimate ultimate fee, but was explanation satit° mitigation fee. This sfied 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 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 compliance ~dth the_development agreement would be null and void. Mr. Klotz advised this was explicitly provided within the development agreement. OPPONENTS: Bob Pipher, 41825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advised the development in which he lived {known as Green Tree} contained approxi;.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 proposed. 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 parks be required on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, to benefit residents in that area. Mr. Pipher requested a solid wall along the boundary between their development and the subject project. The people residing in this area were requesting a buffer, and would appreciate anything the Commissioners could do to help them. In answer to a question by Commissioner Bresson, Mr. Pi~her advised there was no street between the area he was representing and t e subject site; 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 ~D easement; no trails w~re 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. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 Mr. Kimble advised {~ey had met with the school district and showed them the tentative map; they were pleased with the conf-iguration 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. I and Change of Zone Case 5107; and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. Beadling and unani~u ed, the Commission adopted the negative 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 squ~re 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. lgg Amendment No. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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 ~p 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 Supervisorial District: First and Third EA No.: 32318° 32533° 32534, 32535 Specific Plan Sectio~ Tract Nos.: 23100 Amendment No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amendment rio. 1 Planning Commission: 9-28-BB Agenda Item No.: 1-2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNIRG DEPARTI~ STAFF REIN)~ ). C) 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer: 3. Type of Request: Locati on: Existing Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Site Characteri sties: Area Characteri sties: Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: Marlborough Development Corp. Community Engineering Services, Inc. The four tracts will subdivide 254 acres into 605 residential lots and 1B open space lots. West of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Rancho California Road and east of Kaiser Parkway. R-R (Change of Zone 5107 heard by the Board of' Supervisors on 9-13-BB proposes Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 zoning}. To the west and south the tracts adjoin other portions of Specific Plan 19g. To the east and north, the zoning is A-1-10, A-2-20 and R-T. The N-A-P property located in the southwest corner of the tracts is zoned R-1. Vacant land traversed with low hills. Located on eastern edge of Rancho California cormunity. Agricultural and rural land uses are located east of Butterfield Stage Road. Not designated as Open Space and Rancho Villages (General Plan Amendment No. 150 proposes a general plan designation of Specific Plan lgg, Amendment No. 1). Tract Acreage Residential Lots Open Space Lots Density 23100 Amd. I 1~23 287 5 2.4 23101 87 263 8 3.0 23102 16 37 S 2.3 23103 Amd. I 29 18 .6 Tot., 2. ~ ~ ~" Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 ~nended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Am_ended No. 1 Page 2 - 11. Agency Reconmnendations: See letters dated: Tract 23100 Amd. I 23101 23102 23103 Amd. 1 Road: 7-25-88 7-22-88 Heal th: 4-19-88 4-19-88 F1 ood: 6-17-88 6-17-88 Fire: 6-14-88 6-15-88 EHWD 4-15-88 4-15-88 Rancho Water Di st. 6-20-88 6-16-88 Caltrans 3-30-88 Sheriff 4- 5-88 4- 4-88 7-22-88 .7-22-88 4-19-88 6-23-88 6-17-88 6-17-88 5- 3-88 4-28-88 4-19-88 4-15-88 4-18-88 6-16-88 3-30-88 4-5-88 4- 5-88 12. Letters: Opposing/supporting: None received as of this wri ti ng. - 13. Sphere of Influence: Not within a City Sphere. ANALYSIS: Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102 and 23103 Amended No. I implement Village B of the Margarita Village Specific Plan {SP 199 Amendment No. 1). Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5107, General Plan Amendment 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 sumarize the tracts' relationship and consistency with the Specific Plan's planninq areas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the permitted number of residential units. CONPARIS(IN OF TRACT AMD SPECIFIC PLAN DWELLING UNITS Tract No. Proposed Specific Plan Pemitted No. of Units Area No. of Units 23100 Amd. I 287 8, 10-12 291 23101 263 4, 6 263 23102 37 2, 3 37 23103 Amd. I 18 7, 9 19 60~ 610 Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amended No. 1 Page 3 ~_ Tract 23100 Amended No. 1 proposes a minimum 7200 square feet lot size and the development of the southern portion of Planning Area 5, the proposed park. The tract has been conditioned to comply with the Stephens Kangaroo rat mitigation included in Specific Plan No. 199. In confonnance with the specific plan's conditions of approval, prior to issuance of grading permits for 160 units on Tracts 23100 and 23101, the park shall be developed to assure compatibility in grading and to meet neighborhood recreational needs. A lot line adjustment with the Rancho California Water District is also required prior to recordation of the final map. Tract No. 23101 proposes a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet but ensures a usable rear yard area per the specific plan conditions of approval. Tract 23101 will also comply with the specific plan's conditions of approval to mitigate Stephen's Kangaroo Rat impacts. Tract No. 23102 proposes a minimum 7200 square foot lot size. Tract 23103 Amended No. I proposes one acre minimum lot sizes along Butterfield Stage Road so as to provide a buffer and transition to wineries located to the east. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the County's required length to width ratio for lot 18 due to the difficult configuration of this parcel of land and restricted access on Butterfield Stage Road. All four tracts have been conditioned to mitigate impacts to the Mt. Pal o mar Observatory, school impacts, as well as comply with acoustical reports and the adopted specific plan and development agreement requirements. Environmental Assessments have been prepared on all four tracts. Environmental impacts were assessed in EIR 107 and EIR 202 prepared for the Rancho Village Specific Plan and the Hargarita Village Specific Plan. Additional environmental evaluation has been provided by the reports prepared for the specific plan amendment and the acoustical studies prepared for three tracts. No significant environmental impacts have been found. FINDINGS: 1. Tentative Tract No.s 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I are located in Village B of the ~rgarita Village Specific Plan. 2. The four tracts will divide 254 acres into 605 residential lots. 3. The tracts have been conditioned per the Specific Plan's condition of approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. Staff Report Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1 23101, 23102 23103 Amended No. 1 Page 4 The tracts have been condtttoned to comply with Specific Plan 199, Change of Zone No. 5107 and Development Agreement No. 5. A waiver for length to width ratio wil 1 be needed for Tract 23103 Amended No. 1. CONCLUSIONS: 1.' All environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202 and the initial studies for these tracts and no significant impacts have been found. The tracts are consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 150, Change of Zone No. 5107, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1. 3. The' tracts confom to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTION of a Nelative Declaration for EA Nos. 32318, 32533, 32534, 32535 based on a tinding hat the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. APPROVAL of Tentative Tract Nos. 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. I subject to the attached conditions of approval. KG :mp RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23101 DATE: 9-28-88 STANDARI) CONDITIONS S_ n~ 3e 0 (1} 4. C) $_ The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees fran any claim; action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract 23101, which action is brought about within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cOoperate fully in the defense,' the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold hamless the County of Riverside. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision ~p Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally apptoved 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 ~p Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The ~eport shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any grading ls 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. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 2 7. A grading pen~it shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. 8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordatlon of the final map. 9. The subdivider shall comply with the street Improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 7-22-88 a copy of which is attached. 10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. 11. 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. A11 dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of_ the Road Commissioner. 12. 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. A11 offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County Surveyor. 13. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 4-19-88 a copy of which is attached. 14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 6-17-88 a copy of which is attached. If the land division lies within an adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Section 10.25 of Ordinance 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. 15. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Harshal's letter dated 6-15-BB a copy of which is attached. 16. Subdivision phasing, including any proposed connon open space area improvement phasing, if appllcable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehlcular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 3 17. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a All lots shall have a minimum size of 6,000 square feet net b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.BC of Ordinance 460. c. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.BB 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 Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 zone. e. 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. f. 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. g. 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. h. Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average minimum flat area of 2000 square feet. {Amended by Planning Commission 9-2B-BB) 1B. Prior to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. 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 outlined in the attached approval letters fro~ the following agencies have been met. County Fi re Department County Flood Control County Parks Department Eastern Huntcipal Water Dtst. County Heal th Department County Planning Department Rancho Water District b. Prior to the recordatton of the final map, General Plan Amendment No. 150, Specific Plan No. 199, Amendment No. 1, Development Agreement No. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 4 19. 20. 21. 5, and Change of Zone No. 5107 shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective. Lots created by this land division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property. All existing structures on the subject property shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map. Impacts to the Temecula Elementary and Elstnore Union High School District shall be mitigated at the development application stage in accordance with the dtstrict's policies in effect at the time of tract submittal. Prior to issuance of grading permits for 160 units, the developer shall provide mitigation for removal of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat as follows: llemorandum of understanding between the developer and the California -Department of Fish and Game or b. Compliance with an adopted County program for the mitigation of removal of Stephen's Kangaroo Rat habitat. 22. The common open space area shall be shown as a numbered lot on the final map and shall be managed by a master miU~aU~n-has-~ee~rred association or CSA. (Amended by Planning Commission g-28-BB} 23. Prior to issuance of grading permits, for 250 units on Tracts 23100 and 23101, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 24,__prier_te-reee~daUeR-ef-the-ftRal-subdivis(en'maP~"the"subd~v~der"she)~' submlt--the--fe~ew~ng--deeuments--te--the'P~ann~ng'BePartment'f°r'rev~ewl whieh-deeuments-sha11-be-sub~ee{-te-~he'aPPrevat'ef"tha~"dePartment"and the--eff4ee--ef--~he--GeuntY--Eeunset~- (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) l~_,A,de;larattem-ef-sevemaRtsm-eeRditieRs-amd-~es~PhUe~s1'and (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) 2),_A, sample-decument-;eRveYed-title-te-the'Pu~ehase~'e~aa'~nd~v4duat'tet o;,un~t_whSeh-p~evtles-~hat-~heHlee~aPa~ten-ef-'eevenan~s;;'eond+~+°ns and,,~estwi;t$oRs--is--ie;eFPeFated-theFein'bY're(erenee~ (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) ;he-dee)apathn-ef-eeveeants;-eeRd+t+ens'and"res~r+ct~°ns"sabmitted"f°r' pev+ew--sha))---~a)--prevttle-fer-e"m+ntm=m'~erm'°f'68'years;''~b)'"pr°ttde (ep-~he-eseab)+shment-ef-a-PrePertY'owners~'ass°c+att°n'c°mprtsed''°f'"the Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No.'23101 Page 5 ew~ePs--ef-eae~-+nd+v+dua~-~e~-eP-unth--~e)--pPevtde-feP-ew~epshtp-e~,the, cmn-and---~d~-conta+n-te-fo~ew+ng-prev+s+ens--vePbat+m~- (Amended by Plannlng Comm~ssion 9-28-88) mNe~hwtths~andtng--any--pwevlsien-tn-~his-geslmrmt(eR-tg-the-~ent~m~y~ ~he-(e)hwiR~-pPev+sleR-sha))-apply+- (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) The--pPepePty--e~RePsA-asseelatCen-established-heretR-shall-maRa§e-amd een~tnueusiy-ma+nntn-the-zeemmen-awea~v-me~e--pawUsulmPly--de~sP~ed en--EKh4b4t-~;-~z-ef-the-speG4~4{-p~mn-attaGhed-herete~-lnd-lha;1-~et se})-er-~ransfer-the-~eemmeR-areazt-er-aRy-paP$--lkePee(~--akseR~--the R~vers~de-or-the-Eounty~s-suecesser-(n-(R~eresh (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) The--preperty--ew~er~s--asseelaUeR-shaqq-have-the-riSht-{e-assess-{he ewRePs-e¢-eaeh-(Rd4v4dua~-let-er--~R(t--fer--the--reasemab~e--eest--ef maimtaiRimg--the--zeemmem--reaz--aRd--shal;-have-~he-ri~h~-~e-qie~-¢he= prepeF~y--e~--aRy--sueh--ew~e~--whe--defaHqts--~R--~he--paymeR~--9~--a ma~m{eRamse--assessmeR~,---AR--assessmeR~-4~eh-eRse-{rea~ed~-sha~q-be prhr-te--a~l--etheP-'l&ens--PeeePded--subsequeRt--{e--tke--meUse--ef assessmeR~--er--e~her-desumeRt-{reat4R~-~he-as~eesmeR~-q4eR~ (Amended by Planning C~nm~sston 9-28-88) This-BeeqaraUeR-shaqq-met-be-term4RatedrzsMbs(aRtiaqly~--ame~ded--er prepeFty--deamReKed--the~efFem-absemt-the-prter-writtem-eeRse~t-ef-the- PlaRR4R~--D~re~ter--ef--~he--CoMRty--ef--R4ver64de--er--(he---CeM~-t~ae- sueeessev-~m-4Rterest,---A--pFepeeed--ameRdmeRt--sha13--be--co.s~dered- ~s.bstaRUa~-if-i{-af~ee{s-¢he-e~teR~rusa~e-er--maiR{eRaRee--ef--{he- ~eemmen-area~= (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) (n-the-eve.t-ef-amy-seRfliet-betweeR-th4s-De;qaratiee-aRd-{he-AFt4¢;es ef-tneePpe~athnT-the-Byhws-eP-the-pPeperty-evmeFs~-asse~4at4eR-Rules aRd-RegwlatieRs,-if-aRyrth4s-Beelarat4ee-shaqq-eeetreq~a- (Amended by Planning Commission (9-28-88) Prior to recordatton of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee simple title, to all coe~non or common open space areas, free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases (recorded and unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which in the sole discretion of the County are acceptable. As a conditions prcedent to the County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Department for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of the County Counsel: (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 6 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and by Planning Commission 9-28-88} (Amended 2) A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall (a) provide for a term of 60years, {b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association comprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provisions verbatim: (Amended by Planning Commisison 9-28-88} 'Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: {Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) The property owners association established herein shall, if dormant,- be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners' association shall unconditionally accept from the County of Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit ' ' attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the property owners' association and the decision to require that the association unconditionally accept title to the 'common area' shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside. {Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is conveyed to the property owners' association, the association, thereafter shall own such 'common area', shall manage and continously maintain such '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 owners's association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall be prior to all.other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of assessment or other document creating the assessment lien. {Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) This Declaration shall not be terminated, 'substantially' amended or property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. A proposed amendment shall be considered Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 7 25. 26. 'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or maintenance of the 'common area'. (Amended by Planning Connission 9-28-88} In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control." (Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88) Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded. Prior to recordation of the final map, clearance shall be obtained from Rencho California Water District relative to the protection of applicable easements affecting the subject property. Lot line adjustments shall also be completed. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping requirements as shown in Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1: 1)' Prior to recordation of the final map the developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to, a parkway maintenance district for Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. I in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway maintenance. 2} Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the County Road Department. 3) The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, quaranteeing the viabtlity of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. 4) The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the district. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those o erattons are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the PVanning Director. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 8 2B. 29. Street lights ~hall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: 1) z) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with the Road !)apartment, 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. 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 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 is within an existing lighting district. 4)' All street lights and other outdoor lightin shall be shown on' electrical plans submitted to t e Department of ~ lding and Safety uih for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERNITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, detailed con~non open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following. 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 up to a 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. 4) Parkways and landscaped building setbacks shall be landscaped to provide vtsual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth bermtng, ground Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 9 30. 31. cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering sidewalks,'benches and other pedestrian amenities where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department and Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. 5) Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within 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) g) All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the proJect's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growin~ trees shall be steel staked. All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall 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 sedimentation during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. 3) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and conment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the Conditions of Approva, Tentative Tract No. 23101 Page 10 3me 34. 35, 36, 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 Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations. thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical heights shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan increase walls, and/or slope p anting combined slo ratio (i.e. 3:1), retaining 1 wit~etrrigation. 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. 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 PERHITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: ao With the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety the developer will demonstrate compliance with the acoustical study prepared for Tract 23101 which established appropriate mitigation measures to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels below65 Ldn. mm Conditions of Approval TentJttve Tract No. 2310Z Page 11 37. b. 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 10 feet. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. Roof-mounted machantcal equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERNITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prior to the final building inspection approval, by the Building and Safety Department, walls shall be constructed along Kaiser Parkway and Rancho California Road per the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and the Tract No. 23101 acoustical study. The required wall shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Building and Safety and Planning Director. b. Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure III-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. {Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88} c. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and Safety. d. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection. e. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1. Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I Development of Tentative Tract No, 23101 shall comply with the provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment ~o. I and Development Agreement No. 5. (Amended by Planning Commistson 9-223-88) LeRoy D. Smooe k:xe~ COeMA~$$1ONEI · COUNTY Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUNTy SURVEYOR July 22, 1988 COUNTY AOMINIITRATIVE C[NTrN MAII. ING &DOIIlltl I~.O. IOlt 10,0 RlVlER,IO[, CA~.llrORNI · TEI, EI.ONE 1714| Re: Tract Nap 23101 SChedule A - Team SP Ladies and Gentlehen: 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 O'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., concentra- tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement or by both. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: 'Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. Tract Map 23101 . duly 2.2, 1988 Page Z 3. Mejor drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 4. La Serena Way shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102, (32'/44'). · A' (sly of 'B" Street), 'B', 'C" Streets (including offsite right of way to Butterfield Stage Road) shall be improved within the dedicated riI~~ of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. '/66'). 'A" (nly of 'B' Street) and 'N' Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. Iqodified (62'/g0') as approved by the Road Con~issioner. 7. Kaiser Parkway shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101, (38'/50'). · 8. "F", "G", "I", 'd", "0" and "P" Streets shall be improved within the .r~ 0 '/6 '). "D", 'E", 'H", "K', 'L', "M", "q" and 'R" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60'). The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on Kaiser Parkway at the intersection with 'N" and "0" Streets as approved by the Road Department. 11. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif. Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. The landdivider shall post a deposit and execute an agreement with the Metropolitan Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. 13. The maximum centerline gradient shall not exceed 15%. The minimum centerline radii shall be 300' or as approved by the Road Department. Tract-Map 23101 'Jdly 22, 1988 Page 3 20. The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on I.a Serena Way at the intersection with 'A" Street as approved by the Road Department. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet or as approved by the Road Connissioner. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards. k~en blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road Commissioner. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). Primary and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road main- tained by the County shall be constructed within the public right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B, (32'/60'} at a grade and alignment as approved by the Road Con~missioner. This is necessary for circulation purposes. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road Commissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for maintenance by County. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Tract Flap 23101 July 22, 1988 Page 4 5e 30. 31. 32. Asphalttc emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0,05 gallon per square yard, Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications, Standard,cul-de-sacs and knuckles and off-set 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 Kaiser Parkway and La Serena Way and so noted on the final map. Landdivisions creating cut or fill slopes adjacent to the streets shall provide erosion control, sight distance control and slope easements as approved by the Road Department. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50' tangent measured fr~n flow line. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 23100, TR 22148, TR 23103 and SP 199. Street lighting shall be required in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 throughout the subdivision. The County Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether this proposal qualifies under an existing assessment district or not. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a 'Lighting Assessment District' in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. 3. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street tn~orovement plans. A striping plan is required for Kaiser Parkway and La Serena Way. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by.County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. 35. ll~e landdivider shall comply with the recommendations for SP 199 as outlined in the Road Department letter dated June 2, 1988. TFact Map 23101 July 22, 1988 Page 5 GH:lh Very truly yours, -Gus~Hughes~ Road Division Engineer KI:NNSTH L.. I:DWARDS CNII[~ IFJ'4~INE8:~ RIV_ERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVtRIIDE. CALIFORNIA lalOI June 17, 1988 1111 IIARKT~ ITRIET P. O. IOX loll TE~EPNO~Ii (714) 117-1011 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Specific Plans Kathy Gi fford Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Tract 23101 ~..c~xded Map This is a proposal to divide about 87 acres in the Temecula Valley area. The site is along the south side of La Serena Way between Kaiser Parkway and Butterfield Stage Road. This property is within the approved Specific Plan 199, Margarita Village. The area consists of ridges and natural watercourse that traverse the property. Offsite storm runoff enters this property from both the east and the south. Most of the offsite and onsite flows would be conveyed by storm drains or streets and discharged into the proposed open space along the site's south boundary. Storm drains would be installed along this open space to convey the nuisance flows; when major storms occur the open space would be used as a flood control channel. According to the approved drainage plan of Specific Plan 199, some onsite runoff would be redirected to the south; this is acceptable if the permission is obtained from the affected downstream property owner(s). Following are the District's recommendations: This tract is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Murrieta 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, 1988z 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 Re: Tract 23101 Amended ~ap No. 1 -2- June 17, 1988 At the option of the land divider, upon filing a re- quired affidavit requesting deferment 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. 2. The 100 year offsite tributary flows should be accepted, safely conveyed through the property and discharged into adequate outlets. 3. Appropriate erosion protection should be provided to all the fills exposed to the potential erosion hazards. Onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, "Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions". 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· 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. Riverside County Planning Department Tract 23101 Amended Map No. 1 -3- June 17, 1988 10. 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. Ale 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. 12. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic cal- culations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prior to recorda- tion of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang of this office at 714/787-2333. Very truly yours, cc: KENNETH L. EDWARDS ie Engines enior Civil Engineer Community Engineering Services, Inc. RC:pln RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD P1RE CHIEF 6-15-88 TO: PLANNING DEFARTMXNT Plannlnl & EnllneerinI Office 4080 Lemon ~reet. Suhc I l Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 787-660~ TEAH I, KATHY GIFFORD TR 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 an~ 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 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. MITIGATION FEES Prior to the recordsalon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of · building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. KAYMOND H. RF~IS Chief Fire Department Planner By George Tatum, Deputy Fire Marshal ml COUNTY or RIVERSIDE "' DEPARTMENT .-. . =" : . of HEALTH P R 1 1988 ~'~ RIbSIDE COU~Y PLA~ING D~T. ~%~:~,,,~ 4080 Lemon Street 8JV~eSJD~COUN~ --,-*,-,,, Rivers Xde. CA 92502 p~NNING DEPARTMENT Attn: Kim Gifford Iikeee4aG. CA $2220 ~:)~Tee IIqOAI:)IAY GAg& 9LAIIC& 7240 eeAliC~JEilitTA (X~llOelA. C.A 91?20 ~ke(T. CA 1Z~43 IilO 46.~09 OASES fTIEITT ~H~. CA IZZOl LAte ILellOlll SOleS fla&S![l~ INI. · 2'-S T~TZ,4kCN. LUM eiMlS. CA 113TO 141llllOll RE; Tract Map 23101; Being a portion of the Rancho Temecula granted by the government of the United States of America to Luls Vagnes by patent dated January 18, 1860 and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County. California in Book 1 of Patents at Page 37 and a portion of the Rancho Pauba granted by the oovernment of the Unated States of America to Luis V~gnes by patent dated 3anuary 19. 1860 and recorded in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder in Book 1 at Page 45. (263 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of ~ublic Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 23101 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 prindts of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in trZpllcate, wZth 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 4nd fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the 3unction of the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1. Chapter 7 of the California HeAlth and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 22, ChApter 1G, and General Order No. 103 of the Publlc Utilities Commission of the State of California, when applicable. Riverside Count~ Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: Klm Glfford April 19, 1988 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 23101 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water District and that the water service,storage and distribution system viII 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 protectzon or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responszble official of the water company. The plans must be ~ubmltted to the County_ Sur~E/s Office to review at least two weeks ~E!~E to the request for the recordatzon of the flnai_~~. 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 provxdXng satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for the financxal arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the flnal map. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal Water Dlstrict agreelng to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the DIstrict, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. 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 Map 23101 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 Elans must be submitted to the Coun~Z Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Three ATTN: KZm Gifford April 19, 1988 SurveyRr's Office to review at least two weeks ELiot ~o the L~guest for the recordation of the final m~. It w, ll be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. Sincerely, , Environmental Health Service SM:tac Board of Directors: Richard D. Steffey President James A. De*by Sr. Vice President Rslph Daily Doug Kulberg Joa A. Lundin Jeffrey L. Mjnkler T. C. l~we Officers: Stan T. Mills General Manner Phillip L. Forbes Dirt, c~or of Finance - ~asur~r Norman L. Thomss Director of En~ineerin~ Thomss R. McAliester Director of Operstions & Msintenance Barbsra J. Beed Di~ of Acimlnistration - Rutsas and Tucker June 16, 1988 """ Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Vesting Tract 23101 Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If RCWD can be of further service to you, please contact this office. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Senga P. Doherty Engineering Services Representative F012/jkw169f RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 28061DI~ROAD*POSTOFFICEBOX174,~MECULA. CA92390~174,(714) 676-4101,FAX(714)676~6I[ ....... III II I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IXSTIICT I, t..~. BOX ~ RI4) ~ March 30, 1988 Development Review 08-Riv-?9-8 Your Reference: VT 23101 Planning Department Attention Ms. Kathy Glrrord County of Riverside q080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 :~, '.6,../ ;,i.a.R 3 1 1988 RI',/'E~'-~DE C.T.J)-:TY pLA.~.~;~|..',:G C, EF,c,~T,%:ENT Dear Ms. Gtfford: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Vesting Tract 23101 located east of Kaiser Parkway and west of Butterfield Stage Road. This proposal is considerably removed from an existing or proposed state highway. Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal does not appear to have a significant effect on the state highway system, consideration must be given to the cumulative effect of continued development in this area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage should be provided prior to or with development of this area. We have no specific comment on this proposal. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M. Cormally at (714) 383-q38q- Very truly yours, H. N. LEWANDOWSKI District Permits Engineer , :tiVE::I iDE COUnC,u PLAnRinG DEPA::tCli1EnC DATE: ~iarch 16, 1988 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Dude Road Departhunt Realth - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game LAFCO, S Paisley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson 18 RIVERS!D_--, CO:,:,',,=Ty PLAr,IN$NG Riverside County Parks Agriculture Connissioner Airports Depart. GROFIT Eastern Municipal Water District Rancho. California Water Dist. Elsinore Union School Dist. Temecula Union School Dist. Sierra Club CLATRANS 38 Connissioner Bresson Connissioner Donahoe Shertff's Depart. VESTING TRACT 23101 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 32533 - ~arlborough Development Corp. - Community Engineering Services, Inc. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First & Third Supervisorial District - E. of Kaiser Parkway, W. of Butterfield Stage Road, S. of LaSierra Way - SP/R-2-6,000 Zone - 87.0 Acres into 263 Schedule A - (CONCURRENT CASE SP 199 Amd. tl, CZ 5107, TR s3100, 23102, 23103) - (ELATED CASE SP 199 Margarita Village) - Mod 120/339 - A.P. 923-200-010; 923-210-001 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for~Lay 16, 1988. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. lour comments and recommendations are requested prior to ~ay 1, 1988 in order that ve may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gifford at 787-6356 Flanner C0E~ENTS: The Elsinore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded and our educational progrsms seriously impacted by increasing student population casued by new residential, commercial and industrial con- struction. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of Ab 2926 and SB 327, this rict ies a fee against all new development projects within its~ 1~/4~,= DATE: SIGNATURE . FLEASE print name and title Joseph P. P-nserro. A-~t. -~,lperintenapnt 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46'209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342'8277 iVE biDE coun;v PLanninG DEPAtUnEn; ])All: ],~mrch 16, 1988 TO: Assessor - Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duds Road D~partment Bealth - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game LAFCO, S Paisley VeS, Postal Service - Ruth g. Davidson :~/ I~ :' 7~ 0 ,... Riverside County Parks Agriculture Conxnissioner Airports Depart. GROFIT Eastern Muni ci pal Water Di strict Rancho California Water Dist. ElsinoFe Union School Dist. Temecula Union School Dist. Sierra Club CLATRANS 38 Commissioner Bresson ConTnissioner Donahoe Sheriff's Depart. R[V-:-:'::'-;!2F COt INTY PLAUr.~i;<G DEP/-.RTMENT VESTING TRACT 23101 - (Sp P1) - E.A. 32533 - Harlborough DeveZopment Corp. - Community Engineering Services, luc. - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First & Third Supervisorial District - E. o[ Kaiser Parkray, W. o[ Butterfield Stage Road, S, of LaSierra Way - SP/R-2-6,000 Zone - 87.0 Acres into 263 'Schedule A- (CONCURRENT CASE SP 199 Amd. tl, CZ 5107, TR s3100, 21102, 23'103) - (RELATED CASE SP 199 Hargarita Village) - Mod 120/339- A.P. 923-200-010; 923-210-001 Please reviev the case described above, along vith the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Nay 16, 1988. If it clears, it wtll then go to public hearing. lout comments and recommendations are requested prior to Nay 1, 1988 in order that we may include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kathy Gifford at 787-6356 Planner C0)e. UCNTS: DATE: PLEASE print name and title ROY MOON MODE OF FUTURE DELIVERY: CENTRALIZED. CONTACT WITH THE USPS GROWTH COORDINATOR REQUIRED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR DELIVERY LOCATIONS. 4-5-88 SIGNATURE ~ ~ GROWTH COORDINATOR 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787'6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 t20/8/eg ] astem ] unicipat V%/rat m----KMJr. er District Apri 115, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor RIverside, California 92501 SUB]ECT: VESTING TR. 23101 - SP 199 - IMRGARZTA VILLAGE (Gtfford) The Dtstrtct ts responding to your request for con~nents on the subject proJect(s) relattve to the provision of water and sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project revtew. The subject project: X Is not within EMW13's: X water service area sewer service area Must be annexed to this District's Improvement District No. in order to be eligible to receive domestic water/sanitary sewer service. Will be required to construct the following facilities: a.) Water Service b.) Sewer Service Comments were submitted to Riverside Co. (Feb. 15, 1988) regarding 5P 199 - Am #1. This is to reiterate those comments that sewers are to be gravity regionally sized and no sewers will be allowed on private lands, or along tot lines. They are to be in streets. 24550 Set Jeciato Street · Poet Office Box 858 · HemeL Cdi~orma 92343 · Telephone (7t41 925-7676 :liVm:::l iDE COUI1L'V, PLAnNinG DEPA::IClllEII:L DATE: ~uv,_.,.,:L, er 23, 19E.{: '_ Dear Applicant: RE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 231~ 'L E. A. N)BER: 32533 REGIONAL TEAM NO. Specific Plans 7earn The Riverside County Board of ~upervisors has taken the following action on the above referenced tentative tract map at its regular meeting of November 6, 19C8 . 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. ne pruj~zt will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declara ion has tJe , dopted. A conditionally appr d tentatF~'F:~ract map shall expire -months after the approval at the Board of Superviso He.ar-iT~g~ ~te of which is s~~, unless within that period of time a fina ' >' ' ~l' :/,VL>e~Lapproved and~f~ ~th the County Racorder. Prior to the expiration d ."' ~ ~V~tgr(j~!~YiraIl~pl~,~iTM ' :~ng for an extension of c ond and a thiF~ one :)ear and upon further ap e y truly yours RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter. Planning Director FILE- WHITE APPLICANT - CANARY ENGINEER- PINK 29.5-39 (P,.ev. 10183) 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 City of Temecula Zoning District Rancho California Third Supervisorta] District Specific Plan Team' TRACT 23101 Minor Change #1 Planning Commission 5-2-90 Agenda Item No. 4-.2 RIVERSIDE COtlMTY PLANNIMG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer/Rep.: 3. Type of Request: 4. Locati on: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: Marlborough Development Marlborough Development Minor Change to Open space and recreational areas and added one lot. West of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Rancho California Road. Specific Plan 199 Amd. #1. Specific Plan 199 Amd. ~1. Graded areas and open space with rolling terrain. Located on eastern edge of City of Temecula. Vineyards begin east of Butterfield Stage Road. Comprehensive General Plan Des ignati on: 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Recanmendations: 12. Letters: Land Use: Specific Plan 199 Amd. ~1. Total Acreage: 122 acres Total Lots: 289 DU Per Acre: 2.4 per acre Proposed Min. Lot Size: 7200 sq. ft.. Road: 12-21-89 Heal th: 12-13-89 F1 odd: 12-14-89 Fire: 12-13-Bg Building & Safety: 12-22-89 Rancho California: 12-11-89 Opposing/Supporting: None RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23101 Minor Change #1 DATE: 5-2-90 Expires: 11-8-90 STANDARD CONDITIONS Riverside, its agents, officers, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Tentative Tract 23101 Minor Change ~2 which action is brought about within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside· The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A, unless modified by the conditions listed below. This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance 460. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If any grading is proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print of a comprehensive grading plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The plan shall cemply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as may be additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23101 , Minor Change #1 Conditions of Approval Page 2 7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Depar~ent of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. 8. 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 11-27-89, a copy of which is attached. 10. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract map boundary to a County maintained road. 11. 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. A11 dedications shal 1 be free from al 1 encumbrances as approved by the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. 12. 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. 35 Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's letter dated 12-6-89, a copy of which is attached. 14. The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations outlined by the Riverside County Flood Control District's letter dated 12-5-89, 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 460, appropriate fees for the construction of area drainage facilities shall be collected by the Road Commissioner. 15. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations 1 out ined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 12-13-89, a copy of which is attached. 16. The subdivider shall comply with the Building & Safety letter dated 12-22-89, a copy of which is attached. 17. The subdivider shall comply with the Rancho Water letter dated 12-11-B9, a copy of which is attached. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23101 , Minor Change Conditions of Approval Page 3 18. 19. 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. The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions of Development Agreement No. 5 and Specific Plan No. 199 Amd. # 1 20. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All lots shall have a minimum size of 6000 square feet net. b. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. Corner lots and through lots, if any, shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460 and so as not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in non-corner and non-through 1 ots. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the Specific Plan 199 Amd. ~1 zone. When lots are crossed by major public utility easements, each lot shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet, exclusive of the utility easement. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Trash'bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas shall be located away and visually screened fran surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping. h. Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average minimum lot area of 2000 square feet. Prior to 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 al 1 pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters fran the following agencies have been met: TEMTATIVE TRACT MO. 23101 , Minor Change Canditions of Approval Page 4 County Fire Depar~ent County Flood Control County Parks Depar~ent County County Airports Depar~ent All existing structures on the subject property shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map. The common open space area shall be shown as final map and shall be managed by a association. a numbered 1 ot on the master property owners' A property owners' association with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of the owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to amy encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the association. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to the County fee simple title, to all common or common open space areas, free and clear of all liens, taxes, assessment, leases {recorded and unrecorded} and easements, except those easements which in the sole discretion of the County are acceptable. As conditions precedent to the County accepting title to such areas, the subdivider shall submit the following documents to the Planning Deparment for review, which documents shall be subject to the approval of that department and the Office of the County Counsel: 1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and z) A sample document conveying title to the purchaser of an individual lot or unit which provides that the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by reference. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for review shall {a) provide for a term of 60 years, (b) provide for the establishment of a property owners' association canprised of the owners of each individual lot or unit and (c) contain the following provi s ions verbatim: "Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to contrary, the following provision shall apply: the TEIfTATIVE llLACT NO. 23101 o Minor Change Conditions of A~oproval Page 5 The property owners' association established herein shall, if dormant, be activated, by incorporation or otherwise, at the request of the County of Riverside, and the property owners' association shall unconditionally accept fr~ the County of Riverside, upon the County's demand, title to all or any part of the 'common area', more particularly described on Exhibit'_~__' attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the property owners' association and the decision to require that the association unconditionally accept title to the 'common area' shall be at the sole discretion of the County of Riverside. In the event that the common area, or any part thereof, is conveyed to the property owners' association, the association, thereafter shal 1 own such 'common area ', shal 1 manage and continuously maintain such '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 owners' association shall have the right to assess the owners of each individual lot or unit for the reasonable cost of maintaining such 'common area', and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintenance assessment. An assessment lien, once created, shall 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 property deannexed therefrom absent the prior written consent of the Planning 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'. In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, or the pro erty owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this DecVaration shall control.' Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final map is recorded. Prior to recordation of the final map, clearance shall be obtained from Rancho California Water District relative to the protection of applicable easements affecting the subject property. Lot line adjustment shall also be canpleted. TENTATIVE TRACT MO. 23101 , Minor Change Conditions of Approval Page 6 g. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping requirements as shown on Specific Plan 199, Amendment ~1: 1) Prior to recordation of the final map the developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to, a parkway maintenance district for Tentative Tract 23101 Minor Change ~1 in accordance with;the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project is within an existing parkway maintenance district. 2) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County Road and Planning Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans and specifications shall be prepared in a reproducible format suitable for permanent filing with the County Road Department. 3} The developer shall post a landscape performance bond which shall be released concurrently with the release of subdivision performance bonds, guaranteeing the viability of all landscaping which will be installed prior to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by the district. 4) The developer, the developer's successors-in-interest or assignees, shall be responsible for all parkway landscaping maintenance until such time as maintenance is taken over by the district. 5} The developer shall comply with the standards and exhibits in Specific Plan 199 Amd. #1. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director. i. Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: 1) 2) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street light layout first fran the Road Department's traffic engineer and then fran 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 an existing lighting district, unless the site is within an existing lighting district. .) TENTATIVE TP. ACI' NO. 23101 , Minor Chang~ #1 Conditions of Approval Page 7 3) 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. 4) All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. j. Prior to the recordation of the final map for the unit which includes the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat fences area as shown on Exhibit B. 1. The Secretary of the Interior must have approved the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and any proposed taking of the SKR must be in compliance with the approved Plan; 2. The Secretary of the Interior must have issued to the County, the Section lO(a) Permit required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and said Permit must be in effect: and 22. A report, prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to tra the Stephens' Kan aroo Rat for scientific purposes, documenting t~e amount and quali~ occu y of pied Stephens' Kangaroo Rat habitat subject to disturbance or destruction must have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for 160 units: The Secretary of the Interior must have approved the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and any proposed taking of the SKR must be in compliance with the approved Plan: 2. The Secretary of the Interior must have issued to the County, the Section lO(a} Permit required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 a d said Permit must be in effect; and n A re oft prepared by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and WildlVfe ~ervice to trap the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat for scientific | Kangaroo Rat habitat subject to distrubance or destruction must have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. TE!fTATIVE TRACT N0. 23101 , Minor Change Conditions of Approval Page 8 Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for 160 units 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 pa the fee required by the Habitat Co serva~ion Plan as implemented by ~ounty or resolution. n ordinance Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following: 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 up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity. All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall r ped building setbacks shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjuncti on with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department. 5. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at key visual focal points within the project. Where street trees cannot be planted interior streets and project parkways due right-of-way, they shall be planted right-of-way. within right-of-way of to insufficient road outside of the road 7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. TElfTATIVE ll~AC'F NO. 23101 , Minor Change #1 Conditions of Approval Page g All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, rel ocated and/or retained. 9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow gr~ing trees shall be steel staked. 10. The plans shall conform to those shown in Specific Plan 199, Amd. #1. All existing native specimen trees on the subject property shall be reserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall ~e relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading Director for approval. The p an shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of develo~ent and shall include the foll~ing: 1. Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. 2) Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which ma be graded during the higher probability rain months of January tKrough March 3} Preliminary pad and roadway elevations 4) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase f. Driveways shall be designed so as not to exceed a fifteen {15} percent grade. gmm Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, ~ich exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing {benching} plan, increased slope ratio {i.e., 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope lanting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a Vifteen percent grade. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and exceeding ten (10} feet in vertical height shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techniques: lt'NTATIVE TRACT MO~ 23101 , Minor Change Conditions ~f Approval Page 10 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. 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. Natural features such as water courses, specimen trees and significant rock outcrops shall be protected in the siting of individual building pads on final grading plans. - Prior to issuance of grading permits, for 160 units on Tract 23101 the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the roposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. ~hould the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall. be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to all~ recovery of fossils. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PER~4ITS the foll~ing conditions shall be sati sfi ed: a. The project shal 1 c~mply with the requirements of Development Agreement No. 5. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23101 , Hinor Change Conditions of Approval Page 11 Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety an acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish aVpropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual dwel ing units within the subdivision to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn and exterior noise levels to 65 Ldn. All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate all required elements fro~ the subdivision's approved fire protection plan as approved by the County Fire Marshal. 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 of 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 per the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199 Amd. #1. e. 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. f. Buildin separation between all buildings including fireplaces shall not be less than (10} feet. ten g. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. h. All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. 24. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety Department, walls shall be constructed along Kaiser Parkway and Rancho California Road per the requirements of Specific Plan 199 Amd. ~1. The requi red wal 1 shal 1 be subject to the approval of the Director of the Deparbnent of Building and Safety and the Planning Di rector. b. Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Exhibit III-2B of Specific Plan lgg Amd. #1. OFFIC~ OF ROAD COMMISSION~ & COUNTY SURVEYOR J,~Roy D. Smool ROAD COMHI.SSIONER & COUNTY SUR%TYOR November 27, 1989 COLq~TY ADML~ISTI(~TT~I CF_NTER MAILTNG kDDRI, SS PO BOX 1090 RJn, TLR~iDE. CAL~OP,,~,L~ 92502 (714; 787-6554 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Ladies and Gentlemen: Tract Map 23101 Minor Change #1 Schedule A - Team SP - SMD #9 AP #111-111-111-9 With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road 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 pans 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, obstruqtions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall be as approvedby the Road Department. The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Road Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Article XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities as approved by the Road Department. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIV/C[,NTER ,, 4080 LEMON STREET · RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNZA 92501 Tract Map 23101 - Minor Change #1 .November 27, 1989 .P~ge 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Major drainage is involved on this project and resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. its La Serena Way shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102. (32'/44') "A" (southerly of "B" Street), "B", "C" (including offsite right of way to Butterfield Stage Road) and "O" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. (44'/66') "A" (northerly of "B" Street) and "N" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with modified County Standard No. 103, Section A. (62'/90') as approved by the Road Commissioner. Kaiser Parkway shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101. (38'/50') "F", "G", "I", "J", and "P" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60') "D", "E", "H", "K", "L", "M", "Q", and "R" Streets shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60') The landdivider will provide Parkway at the intersection with approved by the Road Department. a left turn lane on Kaiser "N" and "0" Streets as The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho California Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. The landdivider shall post a deposit and execute an agreement with the Metropolitan 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./~,f~ The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on La Serena Way at the intersection with "A" Street as approved by the Road Department. Tract Map 23101 - Minor Change #1 November 27, 1989 Page 3 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The minimum lot knuckles shall be Commissioner. frontages along the cul-de-sacs and 35 feet or as approved by the Road 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. When blockwalls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street right of way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road Commissioner. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalks). Primary and secondary access roads to the nearest paved road maintained by the County shall be constructed within the public right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 106, Section B. (32'/60') at a grade and alignment approved by the Road Commissioner. This is necessary for circulation purposes. Prior to the recordation 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 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. 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. Electrical and comunications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Section 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. Tract MaD 23101 - Minor Change ~1 November 27, 1989 '~age 4 25. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. 26. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. 27. Lot access shall be restricted on Kaiser Parkway and La Serena Way and so noted on the final map. 28. 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. 29. All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line or as approved by the Road Commissioner. 30. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with TR 23100, TR 22148, TR 23103 and SP 199. 31. 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 LAYCO for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. 32. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. 33. A striping plan is required for Kaiser Parkway and La Serena Way. 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 borne by the applicant. 34. The landdivider shall comply with the recommendations for SP 199 as outlined in the Road Department letter dated June 2, 1988. The following conditions of approval from Specific Plan No. 199- Margarita Village, Amendment No. 1, shall also apply: All road improvements within the project bouDdavies shall be constructed to ultimate County Standards in accordance Tract Map 23101 - Minor Change #1 November 27, 1989 Page 5 with Ordinance 460 and 461 as a implementing subdivisions for the approved by the Road Commissioner. requirement of the Specific Plan, as The project proponent shall participate in Signal Mitigation Program as approved by Supervisors. the Traffic the Board of Any landscaping within public road rights of way will require approval by the Road Commissioner and assurance of continuing maintenance through the establishment of a landscape maintenance district or similar instrument as approved by the Road Commissioner .... A portion of the specific plan is contained within the limits of the Rancho Villages Assessment District which is an integral component of the planning for this area. Prior to the recordation of any tract maps within that portion of the specific plan or any other project located within the assessment district, the final actions necessary for formation of the district must be completed. Should the district fail, the project proponent shall, prior to the recordation of any tract maps within that portion of the specific plan provide for regional road improvements in accordance with their proportionate share as determined by traffic impacts. Prior to the recordation of any subdivision for any portion of the specific plan, the project proponent shall make provisions for the following road improvements, which shall be constructed prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling units in excess of 1,800: Provide for the widening of Rancho California Road from Margarita Road to Ynez Road furnishing, as a minimum, an interim four-lane section as approved by the Road Commissioner. Provide for the widening/restriping/reconstruction of Rancho California Road to provide six through lanes and auxiliary lanes as may be deemed necessary from Ynez Road to Front Street, all as approved by the Road Commissioner and Caltrans. Provide for the widening of the on and off ramps at the 1-15/Rancho California Road interchange as approved by the Road Commissioner and Caltrans. We generally concur with the on-site master circulation plan as shown on Figure II-5 of the specific plan. The Tract Map 23101 - Minor Change #1 November 27, 1989 Page 6 proposal to delete South General Kearney Road is acceptable provided_that a collector road be provided generally along the same alignment linking Kaiser Parkway with Butterfield Stage Road. A Comprehensive General Plan Amendment to implement the modifications to the area circulation master plan as recommended and/or per these Conditions of Approval shall be processed concurrently with the specific plan amendment. In response to the concerns voiced by Caltrans relative to cumulative impacts indicating the need to implement demand management strategies and/or provide for the development of additional highway corridors, the project proponent has agreed to fund such a study to be conducted under the direction of the Road Department as prescribed by Caltrans. The study is currently in progress. EB: jw Very truly yours, E~er Baumgarten Subdivis ion Engineer · S~ATE O~ CALIFOeNIA.--.~LISINES5, TRANSPOeTATION AND HOLISING AGENCY TDD [714) 383~&~09 NOvember 27, 1989 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8. P.O. BOX 231 ~~(~2~~jt~l~ll SAN BiSRNARDINO, CALIFOI~NIA 92402 DE C 0 1 7989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNtNG DEPARTMENT GEO4~GE DEUK,V~F. JLAN, Development Review 08-Riv-15-7.0~ Your Reference: TTM 23101 Planning Department Attention Ms. Kathy Gifford County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Ms. Gifford: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative Tract Map 23101, located west of Butterfield Stage Road and north of Ranch California Road near Rancho California. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or used by those items noted under additional comments. If any work is necessary within the State highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Thomas J. Neville at (714) 383-4384. Very truly yours, H. N. LEWANDOWSKI District Permits Engineer Try1 2 ~ ]d>] (Your Reference Plan checker CALTRANS REVIEW FORM Date Rte WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE: C~icmY]2~l~_ic~ within present or propo~ State right of ~ev should be invesziEated for potential hazardous ~aste (asbestos, petrcr, hamc~l~, erz.) and mir~gar~ as per requlremen~s of r~,ulatory aSevaes. v' b/ __ When plans are subStied, piesse conform to the requirements of the attac~ '~andout". ~ d expedite ~ re~%ew process and time required for Plan Check. Although the t_--=f~ ~n~ draLnage g~nerated by r_his proposal do not appear to have a significant effect on t~ state h~gh~ey sysu~n, consideration n~ast be given to the cLmfi~tive effect of c~n~J_nL~d deveic~ent in this arere. Any n~res r~c_~.~ry to mtigate the cun~,l~tive '~?~'t of ? '~' ~ drainage s~ll be pro~%dad prior to or ~ith develoImmt of the are that necessitates the.. It appears that U~ traffic ram' ~ _~c generatad by this pro _po~l could have a sigrLificant effect on the state hiF~)' system of the ares. Any m~ures r~ar}, to mitigate the traffic ~ '~u~ts s~n be included wi~h r]~ developmint. This portiere of state highway is included in the California Faster Plan of State Highways for Offiri~l Scenic p, ig~y Designation, and in the future your agency ~sy wish to tmve fitis route offiri~l ly designated as a state scenic hi-inlay. ~ portira of state high~ey has been offini~lly d~gnated as a state acetalc highway, and deve~.t in this corridor should be cc~tible with the scenic highway concapt. It is rer. o~ dmt there is considerable public concern about noise levels adjacent to hesvily traveled highweys. Land developmint, in order to be ccxnpatible ~ith ~ concern, my require sp~i~l noise attenuation m~ures. Development of property should include any necessary noise attenuaraon. WE REQUEST THAT THE ITDiS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT: Normal right of way dedication to provide__ half-width on the state highway. Normal street improvements to provide ___ half-width on the state highway. Curb and gutter, State Standard __ along the state highway. Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs. radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway. A standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns. A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage shall be provided to limit physical access to the state highway. Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway. Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by existing public road connections. Vehicular access to the state highway shall be provided by driveways. , , ~ standard not be pro~nidad ~r.~.~n of r.~e Lntarsection at Vehi_~,l~r M c~t.icr~ shM1 be p~ved at !e~ witl-d~ t.h~ s;ate ~Li~y n&~t Of ~ey. Landy. aping along the state hig~4my s~ml l be low and forgirth8 in nat~e. A left-turn lane, inchKiing any necessary vi_~, st~]] be provided on ~e state hig.h~ay at Cc~darmtion sh~l l be given to ~.~ provision. or future provesice. of s~gln~t i~tion and lighr. I~g of the intarsectton of ~'~ the state higrr-ey. A traffic st~iy UxLicating on- and off-site flow petterns and vohces, probable '~xnl~cts, and proposed .~Lti~mtic~ t~.~.~ures S~] ) be prepared. Adequate off-street per~ag. which Uoes not require lwking onto the state bighay, sh~! t be provideC. lot Sh~l l be developed ~n a mnnar that w~ll not ca~ any ~o,l~r ~v~t ~, ~,~i~ ~g s~l ~ ~ ~t, ~ of ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ ~y. Handicap pef~ing s~ll not be developed in t~a busy driveway mm arm. Care s~n~ be taRan ~t.~n developing this property to preserve ~.d perpetuata t/~ ex~stinS dmina~ [rottern of the .q~.~te .highway. Partic,,l~r ccr~idmmtion sh3uld ~e given to c~miativ~ inereuad storm rimoff to ram. me r. mta ~Ll~ay draj. nage problem is not creet~. WE Any _r~c_~ry noise attenuation sh~l l be providad as pan of r.-a deveioil~nt of this property. ~:~' .~I, ICH "tHE ~ELIEL~P~'I~ f'Y1LIST' P!~ase refer to attac~eo adaitiorkll cc~x~lts. REQUEST: A copy of ~ czl',cLi.~ of approval or revised approval. A ~ of my __ _dc,7~ramts providing ~ ~ m~ ~y n~t of ~y u~ r~r2~m of REQUEST Tile OPPORTU.qITY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS: ~y ~1~ ~ f,~ ~lOp ~ ~y. A ~ of ~e ~fic or ~~ ~y. A ~ p~t of ~ ~ ~ T~c ~. A ~ p~t of ~ ~ for ~y ~ro~ ~ ~ ~ ~)y n~t of ~y. A d~ ~t of ~ Gr~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~y ~ aele. RE: County RIVERSIDE COUN .' PLANNING DEPT. AM l~tA RONMIiNTAI. IIEAI.'Fll SPEC]AI.IS'F ]V TRACT MAP 23101 , MINOR CHANGE NO. 1 of Riverside December 6, 1989 DATE: Environmental Health Services has reviewed Minor Change No. 1 dated November 14, 1989. Our current com=nents will remain as statcd in our letter dated April 19, 1988.. SM:tac .) FiN. t,'UIt.%I 4. (|try. ~/~47) KENNETH L. EDWARDS C~4iir [NGtNE[I~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92502 1995 MAI~KE""' STREET PO BOX IC33 TELEPHONE C714 787-20!5 FAX NO '714.' 788-9965 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. P1 anner/(//07'//Y Area: AJ(H~ (_~/, ,c'~LgA/ / / Re: 23/0/ 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's report dated is still current for this project. The District does not object to the proposed minor change. This project is a part of free of ordinary storm flood hazard when improvements ~av2hbte~r°ject will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. The attached comments apply. V~ry r~~ OHN H. KASHUBA enior Civil Engineer D,,_ TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY DEC ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT TEAM I, KATHY CIFFORD RIVERSIDE COUNTY DLA. Nm,,~;NC, DEp'a''q'TMENT RE: TR 23101 MINOR CHANGE & Engineering Office ~on Street, Suite 11 Riverside. CA 92501 (714) 787°6606 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department 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 cerfification: "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. MITIGATION FEES Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist ml December 22, 1989 Administretjve genter · 1777 Atlente Avenue Riverside, GA g2B07 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: K. Gifford County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Tract 23101, Minor Change 1 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: The developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off-site signage advertising the sale of the sub- division pursuant to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach l' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. Very truly yours, Robert Linares ~ Sr. Land Use Technician Administration (714) 682-8840 · (714) 787-2020 ht r December 11, 1989 ,} Board of Directors: James A. Darby President Jeffrey L. Minkler Sr. Vice President Ralph Daily Csaba F. Ko Doug Kulberg Stephen M. Silla Richard D. Steffey Officers: John F. Hennigar General Manager Phillip L Forbes Director of Finance- Treasurer Thomas It McAliester Direcwr of Operations & Maintenance Edward P. Lemons Director of Engineering Perry It Louck Controller IAnda M. Frego.o Disu'ict Secretmy McCormick Kidm~n & Behrens Legal Counsel Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Tract 23101 (Minor Change) Gentlemen: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights. if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Senga Dohertv at (714) 676-4101. F012/dpm372f Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon Engineering Manager cc: Senga Doherty x,, j RANCHO CALIFORNI"A~WATER DISTRICT 28061 DIAZ ROAD · POST OFFICE BOX 9017 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0737 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-0615 s CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT t PARCEL MAP / TRACT NO. ~3101-9. DATE: 08/9.7/90 FAITHFUL PERFO]~ANCE SECURITY MATERIAL & LABOR SEfYURITY Streets And Dr~4n~e WAter ~ew~r TOTAL ml,O07.O00.O0 9.R9,000.00 9.55.000.00 ~l.5Bl.O00.O0 $503,500.00 $144.B00.00 ~19.7,500.00 ~77~.~00.00 ,Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) ,(or Bonds if work is completed) Monument Security Inspection Fee: (0ffsite Improvements) Fee paid to date (Credit) Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee City Traffic SiEning and Striping Costs Total Inspection Fees Due RCFC Drainage Fee Due $ Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD Fire Mitigation Fee - FMA ~_L $ $155.000.00 $51.4~0.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 77,~50.00 (10.a00.00] 66,750.00 576.80 67,326.80 ~7.49.~.76 la,~O0.O0 43,~00.00 **** Pr,E~SE READ INS"rBtIOTIONS BELOW **** Securities in the amount of $4,000 or less for improvements and $2,500 or less for payment of taxes must be cashiers check or Money Order· Fill in name at the top of the agreement and complete the last paragraph of each agreement with the name and address of developer under "Contractor" PIZASE DO NOT DATE A~S. All securities must ge either bonds, instruments of credit, letters of credit or cashier°s check. All bonds, instruments of credit, and letters of credit must be on City Forms. DO NOT RE-TYPE FORMS. If forms are duplicated, they must be printed on both sides. All signatures must be notarized on white copy of agreements and on all securities. Submit evidence of authority to sign. Unit prices are updated periodically. Bond estimates are subject to change. Please fill out additional sheet with n~mes and personal residence addresses for each person signing agreements and securities. Do not use Carbon paper on white copy. IT IS THE ORIGINAL! PLEASE LIST NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PKRSONS WHO HAVE SIGNKD THE ENCLOSED AGeS AND EXECUTKD TEE BONDS AND AGI~EEMENTS ACCORDINGLY. PRIVATE PERSON If the entity executing the agreements is a private person, the residential address of each such person must be listed. Each individual signature should be notarized by use of a general acknowledgement. P/~RTNI~.qI-ITP/JOTNT VEN'rU~E If the entity executing the agreements is a Partnership or Joint Venture, the name and address of the Partnership AND the residential address of each person who executed the agreements must be listed The Bonds and Agreements should be signed by a General Partner(s) and accompanied by Articles of Limited Partnership if signed by a limited Partnership. If executed by a General Partnership, the signature should be one or more partners accompanied by some indication of his/her/their authority to bind the remaining partners (e.g. Articles of Co-Partnership, Partnership Resolution authorizing fewer than all of the partners to bind the remaining partners). l'X:]l.r~TC CORPOP-~,"rTON If the entity executing the Agreements is a Domestic Corporation, the corporate address is required. Pursuant to C~rpor-tton~ Coae, Section 313, the Bonds and Agreements should be signed by the Ch~ix~n~n fif the Pa~a, th~ PrAmidant or th~ Vi~e Px~m~taAnt and the ,cecret~wx, ~nv Am~i~t~nt ,~ecret~wv, the Chief Financial Officer or pry AR~i~t~nt Tx~am, w~T, or if signed by a single corporate officer, there should be a Corporate Resolution authorizing such person to bind the Corporation. If the entity executing Agreements is a foreign Corporation, only the designated agent for service of process is required to be listed below. The Bonds and Agreements should be executed as in Number 3, above. IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CAUFORNIA :RAC' \o. 2,5' -2 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 22554. AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 147, OF PARCEP MAPS. AT PAGES 94 THROUGH 98. THEREOF. RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; LOCATED IN THE RANCHO TEMECULA N 'to c, oton& ;qqin~hQ / PROJECT SITE To San O,egO Location Map 'F F~ A C 'F M. FJ. e a/I- 35 -~r d P,.I / I [ t / "- TRACT No. 23101-2 '- - No ZZlz~B -fit ACr Z '9t-' ~0 ~ ~.5 Zo ] z,,,._. C~LrlIO~qNI A A'A~. I /44 '4 3 ,9/~//I  t11 f " / //l :.' / l/l """':""'/__,411t1~, / I ' t '~ . ' '1 JL I'M 145 j ~-~,~ ITEM NO. 13 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer September 18, 1990 City's Annual Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year 1990-91 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City's Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1990-91. DISCUSSION: Attached you will find the public document for the City's Operating Budget for FY 1990-91 as adopted on June 6 (City), and on July 24 (CSD). ITEM NO. 14 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER /~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry - Finance Dept. September 18, 1990 City Treasurer's Report for the Month Ending July 31, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report for the month ending July 31, 1990 DISCUSSION: FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENT: A report to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio is required as part of Government Code Section 53646. In addition, a report from the City Treasurer regarding receipts, disbursements and fund balance is required by Government Code Section 41004. The accompanying report for the month ending June 30, 1990 meets both of these Government Code requirements. None City Treasurer's Report for the Month Ending July 31, 1990. Cit~ of Temecula City Treasurer's Report For the Month Ending July 31, 1990 Cash Activity eginning Balance, July 1, Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements 1990 $1,328,506 539,410 (173,795) Cash and Investments as of July 31, 1990 $1,694,121 Cash and Investment Portfolio as of July 31, 1990 Institution Yield Maturity Balance Money Market Overland Bank Demand Deposits Overland Bank Petty Cash N/A Local Agency Investmt Fund State Treasurer 6.50% 4.75% 8.52% ~/~ N/~ N/~ $248,215 15,556 350 1,430,000 Cash and Investments as of July 31, 1990 $1,694,121 ITEM NO. 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Seal Committee September 18, 1990 Committee Recommendations PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek DISCUSSION: The Staff Report regarding the City Seal Committee recommendations will be forwarded to you under separate cover. Several of the designs are still in the process of being executed and will probably not be ready until shortly before Tuesday's meeting. All designs will be posted prior to the meeting for your review, ITEM NO. 16 To: FroiB: League of California' Cities 1400 K STREET · SACRAMENTO, CA 958,14 · (916) 444-5790 Sacramento, CA July 12, 1990 The Honorable Mayor and City Council L"" '-"" 2,3 Don Benninghoven, Executive Director ~i,)LL~ L, Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual ConTeT ee' .... _'_ .... Dear City Official: This year's League Annual Conference is scheduled for October 21-24 in Anaheim. One very important aspect of the Annual Conference is the General Business Session at which time the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual Conference resolutions will guide cities and the League in our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government within this state. All cities should be represented at the Business Session on Tuesday afternoon, October 23, at 1:30 p.m. at the Anaheim Convention Center. To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy-making meeting. each City Council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at the Business Session. The League Constitution provides that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. A voting card will be given to the city official designated by the City Council on the enclosed "voting delegate form." If the Mayor or a member of the City Council is in attendance at the Conference, it is expected that one of these officials will be designated as the voting delegate. However, if the City Council will not have a registered delegate at the Conference but will be represented by other city officials. one of these officials should be designated the voting delegate or alternate. Please forward the enclosed "voting delegate form" to the Sacramento office of the League at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday. September 28. 1990), so that the proper records may be established for the Conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the League Registration Area in the Anaheim Convention Center. If neither the voting delega~.e nor alternate is able to attend the Business Session, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. An outline of the voting procedures that will be followed at this conference is printed on the reverse side of this memo. It is suggested that the Mayor and all Council Members from a given city try to sit together at the Business Session so that, if amendments are considered, there may be an opportunity to exchange points of view and arrive at a consensus before the city's vote is cast. Your cooperation in returning the attached "voting delegate form" as soon as possible will be appreciated. League of California Cities :Annual Conference Voting Procedures Each member city has a fight to cast one vote on matters pertaining to I_eague policy. To cast the city's vote a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city should designate a voting delegate and an alternate and return the Voting Delegate Form to the League for use by the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate or alternate may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegates' desk in the conference registration area. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and the alternate is permitted. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Session, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. Qualification of an initiative resolution is judged in part by the validity of signatures. Only the signatures of city officials, who, according to the records of the Credentials Committee, are authorized to use the city's voting card and who have left a sample of their signature on the Credentials Committee register will be approved. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city official to vote at the Business Session. CITY: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1990 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE FORM 1. VOTING DELEGATE: (NAME) VOTING ALTERNATE: (TITLE) (NAME) (TITLE) ATTEST: (NAME) (TITLE Please Return To: League of California Cities 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Not Later Than Friday. September 28, 1090 IO ITEM NO. 17 BEDFORD PROPERTIES May 14, 1990 Honorable Mayor Parks and Councilmembers City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 RE: DONATION OF LAND FOR PARK USE Dear Mayor Parks and Councilmembers: Please consider this letter as our offer to convey to the City of Temecula at no cost, a strip of land approximately 3 acres in size for future park purposes. The land is bounded on the south by La Serena Way, on the north by Meadowview, on the west by the Ridgeview Association, on the east by the La Serena Association and constitutes approximately the westerly one-half of the Metropolitan Water District right-of-way for their pipelines #1 and #2. We urge you and the rest of the City Council to accept this land on behalf of the City and when funds are available, develop it into a neighborhood park. We also wish to thank Councilman Munoz for developing the idea of having this become a public park in the first place. Upon your approval we will execute and deliver the proper documentation for your acceptance and recordation. Sincerely, Csaba F. Ko Vice President CFK:sfg Bedford Properties, Inc. A Diversified Real Estate Development and Management Company Mailing Address 28765 Single Oak Drive Telephone P.O. Box 9016 Suite 200 714 Temeculal California Temecula, California 676-5641 92390-0736 92390 ITEM NO. 18 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager September 18, 1990 Scheduling Meetings and Study Sessions PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff with direction regarding Council's wishes for scheduling of City Council meetings and study sessions. BACKGROUND: At the City Council study session held on September 4, 1990, Council directed staff to place the matter of meeting and study session schedules on this agenda for discussion. ITEM NO. 19 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECUI, A A GENDA REPORT City Council City Manager September 18, 1990 Building and Safety and Community Services Department Positions PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Providing for the Establishment of Personnel Policies." Authorize the City Manager to fill Building and Safety and Community Services Department positions as recommended in the staff report. BACKGROUND: Attached is a report from Ideas for Effective Management, prepared by consultant Michael Deblieux. The recommended salary ranges and job titles are consistent with the 1990-91 budget figures which were approved by the City Council in June. Since these positions are not covered by the City's currently authorized personnel resolution we recommend adoption of the resolution included as Attachment A. Ideas for Effective Management September 9, 1990 David F. Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43172 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA. 92390 Dear Mr. Dixon: Per your request, we have obtained salary data for new Building and Safety and Community Services related positions which are not covered by the City's currently authorized position titles. The enclosed report includes brief job descriptions and a salary survey (Attachment II) which reflects data from other agencies in the general Temecula geographic area for these job titles. Recommended salary ranges and job titles for the proposed positions are shown in Attachment I, Exhibit A. Generally, the recommended salary ranges are at, or slightly above, the median rates shown in the survey. We believe the recommended ranges will permit the City to recruit and retain qualified staff. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to call upon me. Yours truly, Michael R. Deblieux CC: Scott Field, Esq. Linda Daube, Esq. c~p5Otembudgetgb.tem ...... P.O. Box32&3 · Tustin, CA92681 · 714-669-0309. City of Temecula Classification Titles, Salary Ranges FY 1990/91 Budget Buildin~ and Safety September 9, 1990 City of Temecula September 9, 1990 Table of Contents Recommendation .................. Background ................... Position Summaries ................ Building and Safety ................ Senior Building Inspector ........... Building Inspector ............... Community Services ................ Maintenance Supervisor ............. Senior Maintenance Worker ........... Maintenance Worker ............... Senior Planner (Park Development Coordinator) Recreation Supervisor (includes Volunteer Coordinator) ................. Recreation Leader ............... Salaries ................... Resolution .................... Attachment I - Resolution ............. 4 4 4 5 6 Attachment II - Salary Survey ........... 7 City of Temecula Classification Titles & Salary Ranges September 9, 1990 Recommendation: Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment I) to authorize positions, classification titles and salary ranges for new Building and Safety and Community Services positions included in the FY 1990/91 budget which are not covered by the City's currently authorized position titles. Backqround: As organizations grow and develop, new programs and responsibilities require the addition of new staff. In order to accommodate these new responsibilities, it is often necessary to establish new classification titles and salary ranges. The City established initial classification titles on the basis of brief job concept summaries. The City's initial salary ranges were based on a salary survey for surrounding communities and available private sector data. A similar approach has been followed in developing the recommendations in this report. Position Summaries: The FY 1990/91 budget includes positions which involve three levels of responsibility in the Building and Safety function. The duties and qualifications for these positions are briefly summarized as follows: Buildinq and Safety Senior Buildinq InsDector Under direction to perform difficult, complex and/or specialized inspections of public and private construction projects; to enforce building and other codes; to prepare reports and recommendations; to supervise other building and safety employees; and to do other work as required. Knowledge of principles, methods, materials, equipment, construction, surveying and safety techniques related to the construction of residential, commercial and industrial buildings; soil conditions, types and formations; basic mathematics including, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and measurements; technical expertise in at least two construction fields such as carpentry, electrical, plumbing, grading mechanical or other City of Temecula - Building and Safety (FY 90) closely related fields. Ability to read, understand, interpret and apply plans, specifications, codes and related records; inspect construction and detect faulty materials, workmanship and practices; communicate clearly both orally and in writing with contractors, citizens, officials and others; oversee and train lower level building and safety staff. Two years experience in municipal building inspection or a closely related field. Completion of some course work related to construction and/or inspection of residential, commercial and/or industrial construction. Buildinq InsDector Under general supervision to inspect public and private construction projects to assure compliance with codes, specifications and regulations; and to do other work as required. Knowledge of principles, methods, materials, equipment, construction, surveying and safety techniques related to the construction of residential, commercial and industrial buildings; soil conditions, types and formations; basic mathematics including, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and measurements; technical expertise in at least two construction fields such as carpentry, electrical, plumbing, grading, mechanical or other closely related fields. Ability to read, understand, interpret and apply plans, specifications, codes and related records; inspect construction and detect faulty materials, workmanship and practices; communicate clearly both orally and in writing with contractors, citizens, officials and others. Community Services Maintenance SuDervisor Under direction to plan, supervise and perform building, facility and landscape maintenance for assigned areas; to coordinate the work of contractors; to repair or coordinate the repair of maintenance related equipment; to maintain maintenance records; and to do other work as required. Knowledge of methods, materials and procedures used in the maintenance of building, landscaping, roadways and related equipment and facilities; purpose and safe use of a wide City of Temecula - Building and Safety (FY 90) 2 variety of maintenance and construction related tools and equipment; safe work practices. Ability to supervise employees assigned to perform work related to maintenance of one or more facilities; to perform a wide variety of maintenance tasks; to coordinate the work of outside contractors; to establish and maintain maintenance records; to communicate effectively; to read blue prints and schematics. Approximately three years experience performing a variety of maintenance related work which involved landscaping, irrigation systems, buildings and related equipment. Senior Maintenance Worker Under direction to maintain buildings, equipment and facilities; to perform general carpentry, electrical and plumbing work; to provide direction to other maintenance employees; to inspect, monitor and perform routine preventative maintenance operating equipment such as, but not limited to air conditioners, pumps and other equipment; to maintain maintenance records; and to do other work as required. Knowledge of methods, techniques and tools used in the repair and maintenance of buildings, equipment and facilities; safe operation and uses of hand and power tools; basic principles of electrical and plumbing maintenance and carpentry. Ability to perform skilled and semi-skilled maintenance, construction and repair work; to perform plumbing, carpentry, painting, electrical; and mechanical maintenance and repair tasks; to safely use hand tools and operate electrical and other power tools; to work independently; to maintain maintenance related records. Maintenance Worker Under general supervision to perform a variety of general maintenance tasks; to provide skilled and semi skilled labor related to maintenance, minor construction and related activities; to use hand and power tools; to operate equipment; and to perform a variety of other work as required. Knowledge of hand tools, power tools and light construction equipment and their uses and applications; general landscape maintenance; safe work practices. Ability to perform a variety of general maintenance tasks City of Temecula - Building and Safety (FY 90) 3 and to learn to perform new or more difficult tasks as assigned; perform heavy manual labor for extended periods of time; understand and follow written and oral instructions. Some experience performing general maintenance tasks. Senior Planner (Park DeveloDment Coordinator) We are recommending that this position be classified in the existing Senior Planner classification. It will work with consultant, architects, the community and others in planning and developing park and recreation facilities. The salary survey indicates a salary similar to Senior Planner is appropriate for this type of work. We prefer not to recommend specialty classes in new organizations any more than necessary pending the evolution of work assignments as the organizational structure is implemented. Recreation SuDervisor (includes Volunteer Coordinator) Under general supervision to plan, implement and supervise recreation and leisure time programs for a variety of age groups; to prepare and distribute program publicity; to supervise assigned staff; and to do other work as required. Knowledge of procedures and practices for planning, implementing and supervising a variety of recreation programs for all age groups; recreation program publicity; basic principles of supervision. Ability to plan, implement and supervise community based recreation and leisure programs; supervise assigned staff; maintain records; develop flyers and other materials to announce or advertise recreation related programs. Some college course work in recreation, public administration or a related field. Approximately two years of experience in recreation programs. Recreation Leader Under supervision to carry out specific recreation programs; and to do other work as required. Ability to implement assigned programs; to direct and oversee recreation activities of a wide variety of groups. Salaries We have conducted a salary survey which included the City of Te~ecula - Building and Safety (FY 90) 4 following agencies: City of Corona City of Escondido dity of Hemet City of Lake Elsinore City of Moreno Valley City of Perris City of San Marcos City of Riverside Rancho California Water District Generally, we are recommending salary ranges which are at, or slightly above, the median rate of the survey agencies. Resolution A proposed personnel resolution to adopt the recommendations is included as Attachment I. We would expect the resolution to be revised as the City continues to develop its organizational structure. Michael R. Deblieux Ideas for Effective Management City of Temecula - Building and Safety (FY 90) 5 (Attachment A) RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority under Chapter 2.08.060 (b) of the City's Municipal Code, the City Manager has the authority to hire, set salaries and adopt personnel policies; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended and the City Council now wishes to adopt those policies as identified below; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: SECTION 1. The attached list of Position Titles and Salaries (Exhibit A) is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 45001 of the California Government Code. Such list is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. This list of Position Titles and Salaries shall become effective immediately and may be thereafter amended. SECTION 3. The City Manager shall implement the above list of Position Titles and Salaries and has the authority to select and appoint employees in accordance with the City's personnel policies. SECTION 4. All prior resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby rescinded. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of September, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 104 09 / 13/90 Listed in AlphabetiCal Order # of Exempt/ Positions Non-Ex. Proposed Title 2 NE 1 NE 1 E 5 NE 1 NE 1 E 2 NE 5 NE 1 E 1 E 1 NE 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 1 E 2 NE 7 NE 1 NE 2 NE 2 E 1 NE 1 E 1 NE 1 NE 1 E Account Clerk Accountant Administrative Assistant Administrative Secretary Assistant Planner Assistant to the City Manager Associate Planner Building Inspector Chief Accountant City Manager Code Enforcement Officer Deputy City Clerk Director of Building and Safety Director of Community Services Director of Finance Director of Planning Executive Secretary Information Systems Manager Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Worker Office Assistant Planning Technician Recreation Leader Recreation Supervisor Secretary Senior Accountant Senior Building Inspector Senior Maintenance Worker Senior Planner 48 Total Attachment I Minimum Maximum 1,600 1,993 2,498 3,111 2,105 2,621 1,702 2,120 2,464 3,068 2,807 3,495 2,885 3,592 2,431 3,027 3,377 4,205 Set by City Council 2,193 2,731 2,414 3,006 5,236 6~519 5,236 6,519 5,236 6,519 5,236 6,519 2,285 2,846 4,148 5,165 3,331 4,148 1,667 2,076 1,303 1,624 2,193 2,731 1,424 1,774 2,533 3,154 1,454 1,811 2,788 3,471 2,675 3,331 1,926 2,398 3,424 4,236 0 I 0 I CO I 0 C~ Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-'. 0') I'0 OlD "'-.I PO 0 C~ I"0 AaA-InS AjxeIeS - II ~uauxqoe]~f ITEM NO. 20 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT City Council City Manager September 18, 1990 Commission Swearing-in Ceremonies PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to schedule ceremony to swear-in members of the Parks an Recreation, Traffic and Public Safety Commissions. BACKGROUND: During the City Council study session on September 4, 1990, you expressed your desire to hold a swearing-in ceremony for all of the remaining commissions. Since the Council will be holding interviews to select the Traffic Commissioners on Monday, September 24, 1990, it is suggested that you select a date and a location to hold this ceremony. ITEM NO. 21 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA A GENDA REPORT City Council City Manager September 18, 1990 Lease of City Hall Office Space PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Approve recommendations as contained in the staff report BACKGROUND: The staff report containing the recommendations for lease of office space at 43172 Business Park Drive will be forwarded to you under separate cover. ITEM NO. 22 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council City Manager September 18, 1990 Riverside County Chapter of the League of California Cities PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to advise the League of California Cities that the City of Temecula favors the creation of a Riverside County Chapter of the League of California Cities. BACKGROUND: Because of the rapid urbanization of Riverside County and San Bernardino County, it is becoming difficult to have effective communications between all the cities currently included in the Inland Empire Chapter of the League of California Cities. The Mayors and Councilmembers of Riverside County voted to request the League to modify the Inland Empire Chapter of the League to consist of two chapters, the San Bernardino Chapter and the Riverside Chapter. The City of Temecula has been asked to formally approve this request and to transmit this approval to the League of California Cities for consideration at the general meeting in Anaheim beginning October 21, 1990. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD BUSINESS 1. Minutes A GENDA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT - A REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of August 14, 1990 as mailed. 1.2 Approve the minutes of August 28, 1990 as mailed. 2. Annexation of Tract 23992, Bedford Apartments to TCSD Zone A RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve annexation of Tract 23992, Bedford Apartments to TCSD Zone A. 3. Annexation of Parcel Map No. 23430, Bedford Properties RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve annexation of Parcel Map No. 23430, Bedford Properties to TCSD Zone A. MANAGERS REPORT DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENTi ~. Next meeting: September 25, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol street, Temecula, California ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD AUGUST 14, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:35 PM, President Birdsall presiding. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CSD BUSINESS President Birdsall suggested that Items 1 through 10, except for Item 5, for which there is a request to speak, be grouped together similar to a consent calendar. Director Lindemans requested separate consideration of Item 2 and Director Mu~oz asked separate consideration of Item 7. It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to approve Items No. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 as follows: 1. Minutes 1.1 Approve the minutes of July 23, 1990 as mailed. 1.2 Approve the minutes of July 24, 1990 as mailed. 1.3 Approve the minutes of July 31, 1990 as mailed. 3. Landscape Maintenance Services o Ridgeview 3.1 Approve agreement for landscape service with California Landscape and authorize the President to execute the same. 4\CSDMIN\081490 - I - 09/04/90 CSD Minutes 4. 10. August 14, 1990 Landscape Maintenance Services - Winchester Creek and Winchester Collection 4.1 Approve agreement for landscape service with MacKenzie Landscape and authorize the President to execute the same. Annexation to TCSD - Zone A - Parcel Map 2 1592 Tomond Properties 6.1 Approve annexation. Encroachment Permit - Tract 22593 - Rancho Solano 8.1 Approve encroachment permit for Tract 22593 to complete process of dedication. Annexation to TCSD - Zone ,4 - Tracts 23299 & 23267 Presley of San Diego 9.1 Approve annexation Annexation to TCSD - Zone A o Tract 23125 Ranpac Engineering 10. 1 Approve annexation. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Sports Complex Maintenance- CSA 143 Director Lindemans asked who is maintaining the Sam Hicks Monument Park and if there is a problem maintaining property the City does not own? President Birdsall answered the City does not own the Sports Park does maintain it. City Attorney Field stated in the case of Sam Hicks Park, the City is deciding whether to accept it as a City Park. It is a park that is open to the public and is used by the public. Director Mu~oz asked whether the City should enter into an agreement to maintain Sam Hicks park before it is decided to accept the park. 4\CSDMIN\081490 -2- 09/04/90 CSD Minutes August 14, 1990 Director Parks asked if there is a termination clause in the agreement. Jeanine Overson, CSA:143 stated that according to the contract between the City and CSA there is a 30 day termination clause. She explained that Sam Hicks Park has not been dedicated to the City, however it is annexed to the CSD. Director Lindemans asked if it is insured through the County. Ms. Overson stated that the City is covered under the County's insurance. Director Mu~oz asked if the County went out to bid for these landscaping services. Ms. Overson answered that the bidding process was done in 1988 and out of 15 bids, contracts were awarded to the low bidders. She explained that several companies were used because one company could not accommodate the work of the entire City. It was moved by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Parks to approve the agreement for landscape service with Dennis Reeve and authorize the President to execute the same. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Landscape Maintenance Services - The Summit, Costain Homes, Vineyards and Woodcrest. President Birdsall stated there is a request to speak on this item. Fred S. Laspesa, 29751 Dawncrest Circle, representing Woodcrest Country Homes, stated the homeowners filed a petition regarding the weeds growing very high and the lack of maintenance, at which time East Brothers did begin work on the problem. At the present the weed abatement is substandard. Sprinklers are not maintained properly unless calls are made. He requested that this contract not be approved and competitive bids be obtained. Director Mu~oz asked how a situation such as this is handled. Jeanine Overson, CSA, stated there has been a problem with Woodcrest Country prior to the County taking over the service. She stated that a problem was reported and East Brothers sent crews out to take care of the problem. Since that time, 4\CSDMIN\081490 -3- 09/04/90 CSD Minutes August 14, 1990 the CSA has not received any complaints and they were not aware that problems existed. Director Parks asked if there is a method of evaluation for these properties. Ms. Overson reported that a staff person evaluates these projects monthly whereby a score is given on all areas, and if there is a problem, the contractor is given two weeks to bring this up to standard. If the contractor does not bring it up to standard he can lose the contract. Director Parks asked if a homeowner complains about the service, is that homeowner included in the evaluation? Ms. Overson stated the County tries to follow-up with the concerned party. President Birdsall asked Ms. Overson is all complaints on slope maintenance should be referred to the County. Ms. Overson said they should be referred to her office. President Birdsall requested that Ms. Overson take the name and address of Mr: Laspesa and invite him to go with the inspector so that he can highlight his complaints on specific areas. Director Lindemans suggested continuing this item for one month and placing the contractor on sufferance for that period of time. Director Lindemans moved, Director Mu~oz seconded a motion to continue this for one month with the contractor being placed on sufferance for this period of time. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None 7. Annexation to TCSD - Zone A - Parcel Map 23335 Bedford Develo~Tment Co. Director Mu~oz requested that the CSD formulate guidelines regarding conditions for accepting property. 4\CSDMIN\081490 -4- 09/04/90 CSD Minutes August 14o 1990 President Birdsall suggested reviewing CSA-143's guidelines, for possible adoption by the CSD. She requested staff obtain a copy of CSA-143's guidelines, make recommendations and bring them to the CSD Board for review. Director Parks stated it is his understanding that these projects have plot plans that are approved and part of the conditions of approval set by the County require they be annexed to CSA-143. In order for CSA-143 to accept them for maintenance, they have to meet certain requirements. He said they can be annexed to CSA-143 without being accepted for maintenance. He stated this is the first step in annexation. He asked if there are any projects that the CSA would not accept? Jeanine Overson, CSA-143, answered the project must have all the legal documents and must be in the boundaries of the CSD. Director Lindemans stated there is a 9 1/2 acre park on La Serena Way, two or three acres are along street and unfenced. He said this is a very dangerous traffic area and would not recommend that The City accept this site. Ms. Overson stated it has already been annexed, although the CSD may choose not to accept it for dedication. Director Mu~oz asked what kind of land is being accepted on this item? Debbie Tharp, CSA-143, stated this is a commercial area off Winchester and Ynez and is annexing for street lights only. It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Mu~oz to approve annexation of Parcel Map 23335, Bedford Development Co. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None CITY MANAGERS REPORT None given. 4\CSDMIN\081490 -5- 09/04/90 CSD Minutes CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT None given. Auqust 14, 1990 DIRECTORS REPORTS Director Lindemans requested that shading be provided at the Sports Park over the playground equipment and seating areas. President Birdsall requested that staff secure a map showing all of the areas currently annexed to the TCSD and indicating which areas are the maintenance responsibility of the District. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to adjourn at 9:10 PM._ The motion was unanimously carried. Patricia H. Birdsall, President ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 4\CSDMIN\081490 -6- 09/04/90 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT - HELD AUGUST 28, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:10 PM, President Birdsall presiding. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Betsy Hanna and June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS None given. CSD BUSINESS President Birdsall suggested that Items 1, 2 and 3 be grouped together similar to a consent calendar. Director Moore asked whether the CSD standards have been met on these parcels. She asked whether the parcels have been inspected. Jeanine Overson, Director of CSAo143, answered that these parcels have been inspected and all standards have been met. It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to accept Items 1,2 and 3 as follows: 1. Dedication of Tract 18518-3 - Pavilion Pointe 1.1 Accept Dedication of Lot 51 of Tract 18518-3, Pavilion Pointe. 2. Dedication of Tract 21764 - Ridgeview by Warmington Homes 2.1 Accept Dedication of Easement Deed for Tract 21764 - Ridgeview. 4\CSDMIN\082890 -1- 09/12/90 CSD Minutes August 28, 1990 Annexation to the TCSD, Zone A of Tract 2 1820, Mesa Homes 3.1 Approve Annexation of Tract 21810, Mesa Homes into the TCSD, Zone A. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None MA NA GERS REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORT Director Lindemans suggested preparing signs which say "This property is maintained by the Temecula CSD", with the phone number listed. This would enable citizens to have a point of contact if properties were not maintained properly. President Birdsall suggested using the words Community Services District, rather than just the letters CSD. Director Mu~oz asked staff to inquire as to the status on Rancho California Water District planting drought resistant shrubbery in the medians on Rancho California Road and urge them to do something quickly. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Parks to adjourn at 8:20 PM to a meeting on September 18, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center. The motion was unanimously carried. 4\CSD MIN\082890 - 2- 09/12/90 ITEM NO. 2 Rivers;ide County Service Area 443 JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road, Suite 10,5 - Rancho California, CA 92390 [714] 699-0235 · Fax [714) 699-4390 LATE: TO: FROM: SLBJECT: September 7, 1990 june Greek - City of Temecula Deputy Clerk Deborah M. Tharp - CSA 143 Office Assistant'~;~~~C~ '~) Iemecula Community Service District Agenda Item £or Sept. Ple~se find attache,d the CSA 143 Staff Report for Annexation to TCSD Zone A for Tract 23992, Bedford Apactments. This ..~f£i,:e request this item to be placed on the Temecula Community Service District Agen.:ia for September 18, 1990. Should you have any questions on [his matter [,lease contact this office. Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries by Assessor's Parcel Number APN 923-020-043 And APN 923-590-005 Current zoninq? SP (SP 180) 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.): Tr. 23992 382 Condo Units With Rec. Bldg. And Pools With Tennis Courts. Also Part Of SDecific Plan 180 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. Maintenance of slopes, parks, street lights & police protection. If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). Also. ~tt~ch ~treet lighting l~yot,t prep-red ~V the re-~onsihle D,,h~)2 Utility. ~na ~proved hY the County Traffic Rngineer. If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level of service to be provided. Approximately 100 F_eet Of pub] i c Storm Drain And SlODeS maintenance, mowing. weed control. irrigation. parks maintenance. PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up the total ownership of the project area? One How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project All ' How many landowners are in favor of the project? (attach letters of consent from landowners) One ADDlicant 4. How many landowners are not in favor of the project? 0 NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and address of people to whom notices and communications should be directed. NAME: Reaford Apartments ADDRESS: 28765 Single Oak Drive, #200 TELEPHONE: 714 676-5641 CITY & ZIP: Temecula, Ca. 92390 NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: TITLE: DATE: TELEPHONE: Sen~or Pro~ect M~n~er 5/2/90 APPT,TCATION TO THF. TF, MF, CUT.~ COMMUNITY' SERVICES DISTRICT Mail or deliver to: For office use only Temecula Community Service D~strict c/o CSA 143 29377 Rancho Ca]~fornia Road. Sutie 205 Temecu]~. CA 92390 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· SUbmit th~s original. a boundary map and metes and bounds legal description of the affected area, and two f2] complete copies of all materials. No other application form wi]] be accepted. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO: (Describe proposal or action requested) Ann~ ~ T~SD Z~ne A APPLICANT: Bedford Apartments Telephone: 714 676-5641 ADDRESS: 28765 Single Oak Dr., #200 Temecula, Ca. 92390 CONTACT PERSON: Sharoyn Delor Telephone: 714 676-5641 ADDRESS: Same LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) Southwest Corner Of Rancho California Road And Ynez Road Between 1-15 And Ynez Road A. OWNERSHIP: Is the applicant ~pe~y owner in the area of the proposed project (circle) Is the applicant sole owner of this property (circle)~ NO B. AREA INFORMATION: How many acres or square miles of territory are included in this proposal? 36.6 Acres Specifically describe how the property will be improved or developed (e.g. 2 Condominium Units ' , number of dwellin units mobilehomes, etc.) Developed Into 38 Specifically describe how the property is presently used (e.g., vacant, groves, sin le family residences etc ) Existing Vacant Lan~ ' ' Population within the area at the present time? None Number of registered voters within the boundaries? None Area assessed value? $ 3,213,311.00 Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries by Assessor's Parcel Number APN 923-020-043 And APN 923-590-005 Current zoning? SP (SP 180) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN: (attach additional sheets where necessary) 1. Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. (Note: Refer to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.): Tr. 23992 382 Condo Units With Rec. Bldg. And Pools With Tennis Courts. Also Part Of Specific Plan 180 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. Maintenance of slopes, parks, street liEhts & police protection. If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). Also. Rtt~ch ~treet lighting l~yo,,t prep-red hY the responsible p,,b~>f utility. and ~roved by the County Traffic Rngineer. If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level of service to be provided. Approximately 100 F_eet of pnb] i c storm Drain And slopes maintenance, mowing. weed control. irrigation. parks maintenance. PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up the total ownership of the project area? One How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project All : How many landowners are in favor of the project? (attach letters of consent from landowners) One Applicant 4. How many landowners are not in favor of the project? 0 NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS: List below the names and address of people to whom notices and communications should be directed. NAME: Redford A~artments ADDRESS: 28765 Single Oak Drive, #200 TELEPHONE: 714 676-5641 CITY & ZIP: Temecula, Ca. 92390 NAME: ADDRESS: CITY & APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: TITLE: DATE: TELEPHONE: Senior Project Man~er 5/2/90 EXf{IBIT "A" Page 1 of 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A" THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF THE RECORD OF SURVEY AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 48, PAGE 72 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND TIERRA VISTA ROAD PER AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 151, PAGES 61 AND 62 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; AND CONSIDERING THE CENTERLINE OF YNEZ ROAD TO BEAR N. 48° 15' 11" W. PER SAID AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708, AND ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE: N. 41° 44' 49" E., 50.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID YNEZ ROAD, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE: N. 48° 15' !1" W., ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 40.00 FEET; THENCE: N. 41° 44' 49" E. 101.98 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 210.00 FEET; THENCE: EASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29° 00' 11", AN ARC LENGTH OF 106.30 FEET; THENCE: N. 70~ 45' 00" E., 95.42 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 275.00 FEET; THENCE: EASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6° 33' 48", AN ARC LENGTH OF 31.50 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 25° 48' 48" E.; THENCE: LEAVING SAID CURVE, N. 32° 50' 10" W., 78.87 FEET; THENCE: N. 44° 03' 02" W., 32.00 FEET; THENCE: N. 32° 53' 15" W., 79.19 FEET; THENCE: N. 62° 04' 49" W., 33.10 FEET; THENCE: N. 31° 53' 27" W., 26.50 FEET; THENCE: N. 21° 33' 12" W., 85.75 FEET; Page 2 of 5 THENCE: N. 8° 55' 06" W., 82.24 FEET; THENCE: N. 17° 18'-42" E., 80.65 FEET; THENCE: N. 39© 48' 20" E., 17.57 FEET; THENCE: N. 56° 33' 24" E., 64.42 FEET; THENCE: N. 37° 49' 22" E., 60.27 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE: S. 24° 58' 19" E., 25.00 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE; THENCE: S. 65° 01' 39" E., 690.38 FEET; THENCE: S. 16° 49 13" W., 630.11 FEET; THENCE: S. 41° 51 32" W., 90.79 FEET; THENCE: N. 34° 54 43" W., 155.83 FEET; THENCE: N. 47° 59 31" W., 50.80 FEET; THENCE: N. 39° 54 50" W., 67.80 FEET; THENCE: N. 37° 25 17" W., 83.10 FEET; THENCE: N. 31° 10' 26" W., 154.62 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 325.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 26~ 02' 37" E.; THENCE: WESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6© 47' 37", AN ARC LENGTH OF 38.54 FEET; THENCE: S. 70° 45' 00" W., 56.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 70.00 FEET; THENCE: WESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29° 00' 11", AN ARC LENGTH OF 35.43 FEET; THENCE: S. 41~ 44' 49" W., 179.38 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD, ALSO BEING THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1; THENCE: N. 48~ 15' 11" W., ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, 40.00 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SEE EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED HERETOAND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. Page 3 of 5 PARCEL "B" THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 151, PAGES 61 AND 62 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND TIERRA VISTA ROAD PER SAID AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708; AND CONSIDERING THE CENTERLINE OF YNEZ ROAD TO BEAR N. 48° 15' 11" W. PER SAID ~24ENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708, AND ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE: S. 48° 15' I1" E., ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID YNEZ ROAD, 65.00 FEET; THENCE: S. 41° 44' 49" W., 50.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD, ALSO BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE: S. 48° 15' 11" E., ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 135.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.00 FEET; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1° 23' 04", AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.12 FEET; THENCE: S. 46° 52' 07" E., 200.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2050.00 FEET; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01~ 23' 04",AN ARC LENGTH OF 49.54 FEET; THENCE: S. 48~ 15' 11" E., 113.41 FEET, TO THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE: S. 41~ 44' 49" W., 499.77 FEET, TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 506.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 51° 31' 11" W.; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10° 11' 48" AN ARC LENGTH OF 90.05 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSING CURVATURE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY ANDHAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS N. 41° 19' 23' E.; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3~ 53' 33" AN ARC LENGTH OF 33.97 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS N. 45° 12' 56" E.; THENCE: LEAVING SAiD CURVE, S. 49° 44' 01" W., 324.68 FEET; 544.~1' .v,M, JSJ / 5J--.82 o C \'/ ®®®® · Z 0 Page 4 of 5 THENCE: S. 12° 11' 06" E., 145.00 FEET; THENCE: S. 78° 45' 06" W., 155.00 FEET; THENCE: S. 50° 35' 48" W., 300.00 FEET, TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 15, AS SHOWNBY SAID AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708; THENCE: N. 36° 15' 32" W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 90.00 FEET; THENCE: N. 45° 08' 50" W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 344.61 FEET; THENCE: N. 15° 42' 03" W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 306.14 FEET; THENCE: N. 25° 17' 47" W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 281.49 FEET; THENCE: LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N. 71° 28' 20" E., 223.68 FEET, TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 361.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 71° 28' 20" W.; THENCE: NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47° 17' 35" AN ARC LENGTH OF 297.98 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1433.34 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS N. 61° 14' 05" W.; THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10° 58' 54" AN ARC LENGTH OF 274.72 FEET; THENCE: N. 39° 44' 49" E., 306.96 FEET; THENCE: N. 86° 55' 27" E., 33.82 FEET, TO A POINT IN SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD; THENCE: S. 48° 15' 11" E., ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 5.11 FEET. THENCE: LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, S. 44° 17' 37" W., 287.32 FEET; THENCE: S. 21° 00' 10" E., 278.82 FEET; THENCE: S. 40° 27' 01" E., 199.90 FEET; THENCE: N. 58~ 59' 19" E., 100.72 FEET; THENCE: N. 74° 26' 54" E., 133.47 FEET; THENCE: N. 15° 34' 06" W., 74.99 FEET, TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 167.00 FEET; Page 5 of 5 THENCE: NORTHERLY, ~LONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14~ 32' 03" AN ARC LENGTH OF 42.36 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLYAND HAVING A RADIUS OF 139.94 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 88° 57' 57" W.; THENCE : NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42° 46' 52", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 104.49 FEET; THENCE: N. 41' 44' 49" E., 45.66 FEET; THENCE: N. 86° 44' 49" E., 35.36 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SEE EXHIBIT "C", ATTACHED HERETOAND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS SHOWN ON PAGES 1 THROUGH 5 WAS PREPARED BY ME/UNDER MY DIRECTION. WILLIAM G. RYDEN~ LS 5589 EXP. DATE 12-31-93 DATE EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A" THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF THE RECORD OF SURVEY AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 48, PAGE 72 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND TIERRA VISTA ROAD PER AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 151, PAGES 61 AND 62 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; AND CONSIDERING THE CENTERLINE OF YNEZ ROAD TO BEAR N. 48° 15' 11" W. PER SAID AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708, AND ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE: N. 41° 44' 49" E., 50.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID YNEZ ROAD, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE: N. 48° 15' 11" W., ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 40.00 FEET; THENCE: N. 41° 44' 49" E. 101.98 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 210.00 FEET; THENCE: EASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29° 00' 11", AN ARC LENGTH OF 106.30 FEET; THENCE: N. 70° 45' 00" E., 95.42 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 275.00 FEET; THENCE: EASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6° 33' 48", AN ARC LENGTH OF 31.50 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 25° 48' 48" E.; THENCE: LEAVING SAID CURVE, N. 32° 50' 10" W., 78.87 FEET; THENCE: N. 44° 03' 02" W., 32.00 FEET; THENCE: N. 32~ 53' 15" W., 79.19 FEET; THENCE: N. 62~ 04' 49" W., 33.10 FEET; THENCE: N. 31° 53' 27" W., 26.50 FEET; THENCE: N. 21° 33' 12" W., 85.75 FEET; THENCE: N. 8° 55' 06" W., 82.24 FEET; THENCE: N. 17° 18" 42" E-, 80.65 FEET; THENCE: N. 39~ 48' 20" E-, 17.57 FEET; THENCE: N. 56° 33' 24" E., 64.42 FEET; THENCE: S. 65° 01 THENCE: S. 16~ 49 THENCE: S. 41° 51 THENCE: N. 34~ 54 THENCE: N. 47° 59 THENCE: N. 39° 54 THENCE: N. 37° 25 Page 2 of 5 THENCE: N. 37° 49' 22" E., 60.27 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE: S. 24° 58' 19" E., 25.00 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE; 39" E., 690.38 FEET; 13" W., 630.11 FEET; 32" W., 90.79 FEET; 43" W., 155.83 FEET; 31" W., 50.80 FEET; 50" W., 67.80 FEET; 17" W., 83.10 FEET; THENCE: N. 31~ 10' 26" W., 154.62 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 325.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 26° 02' 37" E.; THENCE: WESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6° 47' 37", AN ARC LENGTH OF 38.54 FEET; THENCE: S. 70° 45' 00" W., 56.83 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 70.00 FEET; THENCE: WESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29° 00' 11", AN ARC LENGTH OF 35.43 FEET; THENCE: S. 41~ 44' 49" W., 179.38 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD, ALSO BEING THE SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1; THENCE: N. 48° 15' 11" W., ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, 40.00 FEET, TO THE TRUE POIMT OF BEGINNING. SEE EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED HERETOAND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. Page 3 of 5 PARCEL "B" THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 151, PAGES 61 AND 62 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND TIERRA VISTA ROAD PER SAID AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708; AND CONSIDERING THE CENTERLINE OF YNEZ ROAD TO BEAR N. 48° 15' 11" W. PER SAID AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708, AND ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN BEING RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE: S. 48° 15' 11" E., ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID YNEZ ROAD, 65.00 FEET; THENCE: S. 41° 44' 49" W., 50.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD, ALSO BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POIN~T OF BEGINNING; THENCE: S. 48° 15' 11" E., ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 135.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1950.00 FEET; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1° 23' 04", AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.12 FEET; THENCE: S. 46° 52' 07" E., 200.00 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2050.00 FEET; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01° 23' 04" AN ARC LENGTH OF 49.54 FEET; , THENCE: S. 48° 15' 11" E., 113.41 FEET, TOTHE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE: S. 41° 44' 49" W., 499.77 FEET, TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 506.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 51° 31' 11" W.; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10~ 11' 48" AN ARC LENGTH OF 90.05 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSING CURVATURE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY ANDHAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS N. 41° 19' 23' E.; THENCE: SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 53' 33" AN ARC LENGTH OF 33.97 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS N. 45~ 12' 56" E.; THENCE: LEAVING SAID CURVE, S. 49° 44' 01" W., 324.68 FEET; Page 4 of 5 THENCE: S. 12° 11' 06" E., 145.00 FEET; THENCE: S. 78° 45"06" W., 155.00 FEET; THENCE: S. 50~ 35' 48" W., 300.00 FEET,TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 15, AS SHOWNBY SAID AMENDED PARCEL MAP NO. 22708; THENCE: N. 36° 15' 32" W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 90.00 FEET; THENCE: N. 45° 08' 50" W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 344.61 FEET; THENCE: N. 15° 42' 03" W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 306.14 FEET; THENCE: N. 25° 17' 47" W., ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 281.49 FEET; THENCE: LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N. 71° 28' 20" E., 223.68 FEET, TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 361.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 71° 28' 20" W.; THENCE: NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47° 17' 35" AN ARC LENGTH OF 297.98 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1433.34 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS N. 61° 14' 05" W.; THENCE: NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10° 58' 54" AN ARC LENGTH OF 274.72 FEET; THENCE: N. 39° 44' 49" E., 306.96 FEET; THENCE: N. 86° 55' 27" E., 33.82 FEET, TO A POINT IN SAID SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD; THENCE: S. 48° 15' 11" E., ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 5.11 FEET. THENCE: LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, S. 44° 17' 37" W., 287.32 FEET; THENCE: S. 21° 00' 10" E., 278.82 FEET; THENCE: S. 40° 27' 01" E., 199.90 FEET; THENCE: N. 58° 59' 19" E., 100.72 FEET; THENCE: N. 74~ 26' 54" E., 133.47 FEET; THENCE: N. 15° 34' 06" W., 74.99 FEET, TO A POINT IN A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 167.00 FEET; Page 5 of 5 THENCE: NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14° 32' 03" AN ARC ~ENGTH OF 42.36 FEET, TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLYAND HAVING A RADIUS OF 139.94 FEET, A RADIAL LINE THERETO BEARS S. 88° 57' 57" W.; THENCE : NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42° 46' 52", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 104.49 FEET; THENCE: N. 41° 44' 49" E., 45.66 FEET; THENCE: N. 86° 44' 49" E., 35.36 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SEE EXHIBIT "C", ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON PAGES 1 THROUGH 5 WAS PREPARED BY ME/UNDER MY DIRECTION. WILLIAM G. RYDEN~ LS 5589 EXP. DATE 12-31-93 DATE -ZP 0~ ~..0 ~0 0 o / INT~RSTAT~F --,,~, § ~ Z Z ~ m t *' I ® [] ITEM NO. 3 Riverside County Service Area JEANINE R. OVERSON, DIRECTOR 29377 Rancho California Road. Suite ~05 - Temecula. CA 92390 [7'14) 699-0235 Fax: [7~4) 699-4390 DATE: August 21, 1990 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June Greek - City of Temecula Deputy Clerk ~___- Deborah M. Tharp - CSA 143 Office Assistant " remecula Community Service District Agenda Item for Sept. 18, 1990 Please fine[ attached the CSA 143 Staff Report for Annexation to TCSD Zone A for Parcel Map No. 23430, Bedford Properties. This office request this item to be placed on the Temecula COmmunity Service District Agenda for September 18, 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 Roaa, Suite ~05 - Temecula, CA 92390 [7,14) 699-0235 Fax: [7'M] 699-4390 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 21, 1990 Iemecula Community Service District ' Jeanine R. Overson - Director - Report for September 18. 1990 TCD~Meeting Annexation to TCSD Zone A Parcel Map No. 23430 Bedford Properties 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 APP;.ICATION TO THR TEMRCU;.A COMMUNITY SRRVICES DISTRICT · Mail or deliver to:. For office use only Temecula Community Service District c/o CSA 143 29377 Rancho California Road. Suite 105 Temecu]a. CA 92390 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. Submit this original, a boundary map and metes and bounds legal description of the affected area. and two (2] complete copies of all materials. No other application form will be accepted. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO: Annex to TCSD Zone A (Describe proposal or action requested) APPLICANT: Bedford Development Company ADDRESS: 28765 Single Oak Dr., Ste. 200 CONTACT PERSON: Brenda Wahlert ADDRESS: 28765 Single Oak Dr., Ste. 200 Telephone: 714-676-5641 Temecula, CA 92390 Telephone: 714-676-5641 Temecula, CA 92390 LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) Southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. A portion of Lots ' 115 & 116 of Temecula Land & Water Company on file in Book 8, Page 359, of Maps Records of San Diego County, CA. 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)e NO B. AREA INFORMATION: How many acres or square miles of territory are included in this proposal? 44.07 Acres Specifically describe how the property will be improved or developed (e.g., number of dwelling units, mobilehomes, etc.) Plot Plan 11222 proposes a 420,000 square foot shopping center. Specifically describe how the property is presently used (e.g., vacant, groves, single family residences, etc.) Vacant 4. Population within the area at the present time? None 5. Number of registered voters within the boundaries? None 6. Expected change in population which will result from this proposal? None 7. Area assessed value? $ 8,809,740.00 Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries by Assessor's Parcel Number 910130022-4 910130005-9 Current zoning? C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN: (attach additional sheets where necessary3 Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. (Note: Refer to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.): Southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. A portion of Lots 115 & 116 of Temecula Land & Water Company on file in Book 8, Paqe 359, of Maps Records of San Dieqo County, CA. 2. 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. Condition of approval for Plot Plan 11222 that the site be annexed to the Temecula CommunitV Services District for street li~htin~ maintenance and additionally requestinq maintenance of Ynez Road median· 3. If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). A]som attach street l~ght~ng layo,~t prepared hY the responsible ~]ic utility. and ~pproved by the County Traffic Rngineer~ 4-22,50Q LU per county traffic drawing #1001. If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level of service to be provided. Weedinq, tree maintenance and irrigation of medians. PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up the total ownership of the project area? one How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project ohe 3. How many landowners are in favor of the project? (attach letters of consent from landowners) all 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: Brenda Wahlert, Bedford Properties TELEPHONE: 714-676-5641 ADDRESS: 28765 Sinqle Oak Dr., Ste. 200 CITY & ZIP: Temecula, CA 92390 NAME: Gregory A. Erickson, Bedford Properties TELEPHONE: 714-676-5641 ADDRESS: 28765 Single Oak Dr., Ste. 200 CITY & ZIP: Temecula, CA 92390 APPLICANT ' S SIGNATURE: ~..~x~, ~ [ ~. TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: Gre~orV A. Erickson TITLE: Are~ ,Manager, Bedford DATE: ~ ~ ~, Properties APPLICATION TO THE TEMECUI.A COMMUNITY' SERVICES DISTRIC/~ Mail or deliver to: For office use only Temecula Community Service District c/o CSA 143 29377 Rancho Cal4forn4a Road. Suite 105 Temecu]a. CA 92390 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. Submit this original, a boundary map and metes and bounds legal description of the affected area, and two f2] complete copies of all materials, No other application form will be accepted. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE TO: Annex to TCSD Zone A (Describe proposal or action requested) APPLICANT: Bedford Development Company ADDRESS: 28765 SinGle Oak Dr., Ste. 200 CONTACT PERSON: Brenda Wahlert ADDRESS: 28765 Single Oak Dr., Ste. 200 Telephone: 714-676-5641 Temecula, CA 92390 Telephone: 714-676-5641 Temecula, CA 92390 LOCATION OF PROJECT: (Describe specific boundaries) Southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. A portion of Lots 115 & 116 of Temecula Land & Water Company on file in Book 8, Page 359, of Maps Records of San Diego County, CA. A. OWNERSHIP: 1. Is the applicant ~pe~y owner in the area of the proposed project (circle) 2. Is the applicant sole owner of this property (circle)~ NO B. AREA INFORMATION: How many acres or square miles of territory are included in this proposal? 44.07 Acres Specifically describe how the property will be improved or developed (e.g., number of dwelling units, mobilehomes, etc.) Plot Plan 11222 proposes a 420,000 square foot shopping center. Specifically describe how the property is presently used (e.g., vacant, groves, single family residences, etc.) Vacant 4. Population within the area at the present time? None 5. Number of registered voters within the boundaries? None 6. Expected change in population which will result from this proposal? None 7. Area assessed value? $ 8,809,740.00 Identify the number of parcels within the boundaries by Assessor's Parcel Number 910130022-4 910130005-9 Current zoning? C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL AND SERVICES PLAN: (attach additional sheets where necessary) 1. Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. (Note: Refer to Tract Numbers, Specific Plans, etc.): Southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads. A portion of Lots 115 & 116 of Temecula Land & Water Company on file in Book 8, Paqe 359, of Maps Records of San Dieqo County, CA. 2. 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. Condition of approval for Plot Plan 11222 that the site be annexed to the Temecula Community Services District for street liqhtin~ maintenance and additionally re~uestinq maintenance of Ynez Road median. 3. If street lights are to be installed, list how many, type and intensity (e.g., 5-22,000 LPSV and 20-9,000 LPSV). Also, attach street l~ght~ng layo~,t prepared by the responsible ~3Ahlic utility. and approved by the County Traffic Engineer. 4-22,50Q LU per county traffic drawing #1001. If parks, medians, drainage facilities, etc., are to be maintained, describe the area(s) to be maintained and level of service to be provided. Weedinq, tree maintenance and irri~ation of medians. PROPERTY OWNERS POSITION: 1. How many landowners make up the total ownership of the project area? one How many landowners have been contacted regarding the project ohe 3. How many landowners are in favor of thae project? (attach letters of consent from landowners) 1 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: Brenda Wahlert, Bedford Properties TELEPHONE: 714-676-5641 ADDRESS: 28765 Sinqle Oak Dr., Ste. 200 CITY & ZIP: Temecula, CA 92390 NAME: Gregory A. Erickson, Bedford Properties TELEPHONE: 714-676-5641 ADDRESS: 28765 Single Oak Dr., Ste. 200 CITY & ZIP: Temecula, CA 92390 APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: dre~r TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: V A. Erickson TITLE: Ar~e~nDager, Bedford · ' '---. - - ' ' DATE.: ~ Properties February 12, 1990 Revised July 23, 1~90 w.O. 8911108 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL MAP 23430 BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. That portion of Lots 115, 116, Apricot Avenue and (vacated) Madison Avenue as shown by the map of Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 of Maps, page 359 thereof, Records of San Diego County, California, described as follows: Beginning at the centerline intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road as shown by Parcel Map 19677 on file in Book 135 of Parcel Maps, at pages 85 and 86 thereof, Records of Riverside County, California; Thence S.42°00'01"E. along the centerline of said Ynez Road, 88.00 feet wide, as conveyed to the State of California by easement deed recorded July 12, 1973 as Instrument No. 90991, Official Records, Riverside, California, a distance of 1,223.39 feet; Thence Southeasterly on a curve concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet, through an angle of 31°47'15", an arc length of 554.80 feet; Thence S.10°12'46"E. continuing along said centerline of Ynez Road, a distance of 45.36 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of the Murrieta portion of Rancho Temecula as shown on said map of Temecula Land and Water Company; Thence S.44°54'46"W. along said Southeasterly line, a distance of 1,263.89 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Interstate Highway 15; Thence N.28°40'49"W., a distance of 626.07 feet; Thence N.25olS'31"W., a distance of 466.46 feet; Thence Northwesterly on a curve concave Northeasterly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet through an angle of 19°48'40", an arc length of 414.92 feet; EXHIBIT "A" BEDFORD PROPERTIES February 12, 1990 Revised July 23, 1990 Page 2 Thence N.05°26'5i"W., a distance of 318.19 feet; Thence Northeasterly on a curve concave Southeasterly, having a radius of 200.00 feet through an angle of 49°20'50", an arc length of 172.25 feet; Thence N.43°53'59"E., a distance of 181.94 feet; Thence N.33°58'55"E., a distance of 118.54 feet; The preceding 7 courses being along the Easterly and Southerly right- of-way lines of said interstate Highway 15, as conveyed to the State of California by deeds recorded November 15, 1967 as Instrument No. 100330 and July 12, 1973 as Instrument No. 90990, both being of Official Records, Riverside County, California; Thence N.41°51'51"W., a distance of 55.00 feet to the centerline of said Winchester Road; Thence N.48°08'33"E. along said centerline of Winchester Road, a distance of 339.69 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 46.133 acres, more or less. See Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. AB:HAF:bn LEG/DF0 DESCRIPTION PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: Homer A. Fountaine Date F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. February 12, 1990 _ Revised July 23, 1990 W.O. 8911108 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL MAP 23430 BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. That portion of Lots 115, 116, Apricot Avenue and (vacated) Madison Avenue as shown by the map of Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 of Maps, page 359 thereof, Records of San Diego County, California, described as follows: Beginning at the centerline intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road as shown by Parcel Map 19677 on file in Book 135 of Parcel Maps, at pages 85 and 86 thereof, Records of Riverside County, California; Thence S.42°00'01"E. along the centerline of said Ynez Road, 88.00 feet wide, as conveyed to the State of California by easement deed recorded July 12, 1973 as Instrument No. 90991, Official Records, Riverside, California, a distance of 1,223.39 feet; Thence Southeasterly on a curve concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 1,000.00 feet, through an angle of 31°47'15'', an arc length of 554.80 feet; Thence S.10°12'46"E. continuing along said centerline of Ynez Road, a distance of 45.36 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of the Murrieta portion of Rancho Temecula as shown on said map of Temecula Land and Water Company; Thence S.44~54'46"W. along said Southeasterly line, a distance of 1,263.89 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Interstate Highway 15; Thence N.28o40'49"W., a distance of 626.07 feet; Thence N.25o15'31"W., a distance of 466.46 feet; Thence Northwesterly on a curve concave Northeasterly, having a radius of 1,200.00 feet through an angle of 19°48'40", an arc length of 414.92 feet; EXHIBIT "A" BEDFORD PROPERTIES February 12, 1990 Revised July 23, 1990 Page 2 Thence N.05°26'5i"W., a distance of 318.19 feet; Thence Northeasterly on a curve concave Southeasterly, having a radius of 200.00 feet through an angle of 49°20'50", an arc length of 172.25 feet; Thence N.43°53'59"E., a distance of 181.94 feet; Thence N.33°58'55"E., a distance of 118.54 feet; The preceding 7 courses being along the Easterly and Southerly right- of-way lines of said interstate Highway 15, as conveyed to the State of California by deeds recorded November 15, 1967 as Instrument No. 100330 and July 12, 1973 as Instrument No. 90990, both being of Official Records, Riverside County, California; Thence N.41°51'51"W., a distance of 55.00 feet to the centerline of said Winchester Road; Thence N.48°08'33"E. along said centerline of Winchester Road, a distance of 339.69 feet to the point of beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 46.133 acres, more or less. See Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. AB:HAF:bn LEG/DF0 *~ Homer A. Fountaine ~ ~ J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. OF DESCRIPTION PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: Date .~ c/') r m EXHIBIT "C" BEDFORD PROPERTIES A PORTION OF YNEZ ROAD MEDi;-_'~ .w~TES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION That portion of lzt 115 cf the TEYaCULA L~D khD WATER COM2kNY as shown by map on file in Book 8 of Maps at Page 359 nherecf, Records cf San Diego County, California described as follows: CcmLencing at the centerline intersection of Winchester Road - State Highway 79 (formerly Banana Street) and Ynez Road as described in highway easement deeded to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA recorded July 12, 1973 as Instrument No. 90991, Official Records of Riverside County, California; Thence S.42°00'01"E. along the centerline of Ynez Road a distance of 366.35 feet to a pclnt on a curve, a radial bearing to said poinz being S.35c06'52"W., and the Point of Beginning of the parcel of land being described as follows: Thence southeasterly along said curve, concave northeasterly having a radius cf 1!5.14 fee~, through a central angle of ilc55'47'', an arc length of 24.81 feet, to a point of reverse curvature; Thence southeasterly along a curve, concave southwesterly, having a radius cf 119.14 feet, through a central angle of 24°48'53'', an arc length cf 51.60 feet to a point of tangency; Thence S.42°00'01"E. a distance of 283.46 feet to a point of curvature; Thence southeasterly along a curve, concave northwesterly having a radius of 1.00 foot through a central angle of 180°00'00'', an arc length of 3.14 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N.42°00'Oi"W. a distance of 249.00 feet to a point of curvature; Thence northwesterly along a curve concave southwesterly, having a radius cf 119.14 feet, through a central angle of 24°48'53'', an arc length of 51.60 feet iDa point of reverse curvature; Thence northwesterly along a curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of l!9.14'feet, through a central angle of 8e09'23", an arc length of 16.96 feet to a point of intersection with the centerline cf Ynez Road, a radial bearing to said point being S.31e20'29"W.; Thence N.42c00'0i"W. along the centerline of Ynez Road a distance cf 42.04 feet to the ~oint of Beginning. The above described parcel of land contains 0.03 acres, more or less. See Exhibit "D" a:tached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. DESCRIPTION PRZPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: Roge~S~J~C~nliffe-Owen q\~'June 21, 1990 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. E× p. ,O T ADDED PER ANNEXATION OF P.M. 23430 ~ N42oOO'OI"W t.._p.04'. D=08°O! R=ll L= T=8.49 J VICINITY MAP NOT TO SC.,~LE EXHIBIT "D" ~/ ~/ 0o/ : 11055:47 R: 9.4 L = 24.81' T = 12.45'S31o20'29"W(R) / / FD=24c4.8',55" / I = ~1 i D = 24° 48' 53 ,T R=119.14' L=51.60' T=26.21' 0.0 3 AC ~ F_ S 1293.25 SO'.:-.-,= '==100 LE=~.',4' J.F. D~. VIDSON /SSOCI/ TES, INC. 7~,','S PLAT IS SOLEL Y ,4,V ,~/D IN L9C. ATIHC ;',,.tE P~C~(S) PESCRIB~ IN ~E A~AC.~'~ DOCUME7~ /T /S IVOTA P~T OF THE ~l~N D~CRIP~ON ~EREI~ ~ ~r- 50' f ~X' W.S.S. 06/90 ~ YNEZ --~. /"= _ ~F~' ~A~ SU~ECT ..¢HEETI OF I ROAD LANDSCAPE MED!AN 89111C8-2 EXHIBIT "C" - BEDFORD PROPERTIES A PORTION OF YNEZ ROAD Y~DI~ ~TES AND BOb~N'DS DESCRIPTION That portion of LcZ 115 cf the TEFaCULA L~D ~D WATER COF_~ANY as shown by map on file in Book 8 of Maps at Page 359 thereof, Records cf San Diego County, California described as follows: CcmTLencing at the centerline intersection of Winchester Road - State Highway 79 (formerly Banana Street) and Ynez Road as described in highway easement deeded to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA recorded July 12, 1973 as Instrument No. 90991, Official Records of Riverside County, California; Thence S.42°00'0!"E. along the centerline of Ynez Road a distance of 366.35 feet to a pcin~ on a curve, a radial bearing to said point being S.35c06'52"W., and the Point of Beginning cf the parcel of land being described as follows: Thence scutheas%erly along said curve, concave northeasterly having a radius cf 1!9.i4 feet, through a central angle cf 11~55'47'', an arc length cf 24.81 feet, to a point of reverse curvature; Thence southeasterly along a curve, concave southwesterly, having a radius cf 119.14 feet, through a central angle of 24048'53", an arc length of 51.60 feet to a point of tangency; Thence S.42°00'01"E. a distance of 283.46 feet to a point of curvature; Thence southeasterly along a curve, concave northwesterly having a radius of 1.00 foot through a central angle of 180°00'00", an arc length cf 3.14 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N.42°00'01"W. a distance of 249.00 feet to a point cf curvature; Thence northwesterly along a curve concave southwesterly, having a radius cf 119.14 feet, through a central angle of 24°48'53'', an arc length of 51.60 feet to a point cf reverse curvature; Thence northwesterly along a curve concave northeasterly, having a radius of 119.14 ~eet, through a central angle of 8009'23", an arc length of 16.96 feet ~o a point of intersection with the centerline of Ynez Road, a radial bearing to said point being S.31°20'29"W.; Thence N.42c00'01"W. along the centerline of Ynez Road a distance cf 42.04 feet to the F~int of Beginning. The above described parcel cf ].and contains 0.03 acres, more or less. See Exhibit "D" airached hereto and by this reference r~ade a part hereof. DESCRiPTiON PREPARED D~DER THE SUPERVISION 0[' 8911108-2 jobs.cY0 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIAT=c iNC. ADDED PER ANNEXATION OF P.M. 23430 N 42000'01"W D=08oO~, R=119. L=16.96 T=8.49 J VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE EXHIBIT "D" ,~")/ oo/ 11o55'47'' R = 119.14' L = 24.81' T = 12.45' s31o 20'29"W(R) / L:51.60, L=51.60' T=26.21' i 0.03 .'-"C=,ES 129:::5.25 SO j-=: ~:-, ./' r:3= 'F,=l.O0, iL=3.14 PREr-AP, ED UNDER THE ~ ~~ SUPERWSION OF.' · $ DA~' t"~,...,/7_l/~ J K. DI WDSON AGSOC/A TE:, T'n'/S PLA, T /5 SOLEL f Kv A/D IN L C, C,~TI/vG 7HE PARCEZ(S) DESCRIBED IN THE ,4TTAC, eTD DOCUME/v~. IT IS NST A PART OF THE WFUTTEN DESCRIPTION THEREIN. E,~LE. 1"= . 50L I DFJ'~,'V-~K' W.S.S. DAZE 06/90 I SUBJECT YNEZ ,SHEET I OF I ROAD LANDSCAPE MEDIAN 8.9111C8-2 CITY OF TEMECULA BUDGET FISCAL YEAR , ~-:- ._., 1990-1991 CITY OF TEMECULA 1990-91 Annual Budget CITY COUNCIL Ronald J. Parks, Mayor Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor Pro Tem Patricia H. Birdsall, Councilmember Peg Moore, Councilmember J. Sal Munoz, Councilmember CITY MANAGER David Fo Dixon FINANCE OFFICER Mary Jane Henry CITY OF TEMECULA TABLE OF CONTENTS Transmittal Letter ............................................ i Understanding the Budget Document ............................. I Budget Summary: Where the Money Comes From ................................. 2 Where the Money Goes ....................................... 3 Budget Summary ........................................... 4 Revenue Schedule .......................................... 5 Explanation of Major Revenue Sources ............................ 7 Operating Budget Department Summary ........................... 9 Operating Budget Appropriations Schedule ......................... 13 Gann Appropriations Limit .................................... 14 Personnel Allocation By Program Area ............................ 15 Organizational Chart ........................................ 19 Operating Budget: General Government ........................................ 21 Public Safety ............................................. 55 Community Development ..................................... 60 Community Services ........................................ 80 CITY OF TEMECULA TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Appendix Temecula Community Profile .................................. 90 Glossary of Terms Used ..................................... 91 Description of Funds ........................................ 93 September 18, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I am pleased to submit the Fiscal Year 1990-91 operating budget as adopted on June 26 and July 24, 1990. The proposed budget represents the City's first full year of operation and is intended to be a flexible expenditure plan allowing for the implementation of basic City functions. Periodic budget review and amendments will be utilized throughout the budget year to ensure that resources will support appropriations in an effort to provide the highest level of service to the citizens of Temecula. PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS During the 1990-91 fiscal year, the City will assume responsibility for providing public safety, community services and community development operations from the County of Riverside and will continue to build the administrative foundation of the City. Public Safety: The City will contract with the County of Riverside Sheriff's Department for police services. The contract will provide for a police force of thirty eight (38) by the end of the fiscal year. The City will also contract with Riverside County for fire services. The contract provides for twenty-three (23) staff persons which is more than double the number of persons before incorporation. Community Development: The City began to transition planning and engineering services from the County during the 1989-90 fiscal year by contracting with Willdan Associates. During Fiscal Year 1990-91, the City will begin to staff the planning and building departments. Engineering services are expected to be provided by contract. Public works will be contracted with the County of Riverside for both minor and major street maintenance. Community Services: The Community Services District (CSD) is responsible for administering parks and recreation programs, as well as landscape maintenance and street lighting districts within the City. During Fiscal Year 1989-90 the CSD was administered by the County CSA 143. Administrative: Major activities in the administration of City government for the 1990-91 fiscal year will be to complete the staffing of major support functions and the establishment of programs, regulations and procedures. BUDGET OVERVIEW At the end of the City's transition year, City reserves are expected to be $800,000. Revenues for the 1990-91 fiscal year are expected to be nearly $12.7 million. During the year, the City will receive its first property tax payment of approximately $1 million. Sales tax is estimated at $4 million and charges for community development services are expected to be $4.1 million. The State and County gas tax revenues are estimated at $1.3 million. The Community Services District revenues of $2.25 consist of property owner assessments for the estimated cost of providing the services. The CSD estimates a beginning FY 1991 reserve of $800,000. During the Fiscal Year 1990-91, the City anticipates revenue audits for sales tax, transient occupancy tax and CSD reserves. Estimated City expenditures are $12 million of which Public safety represents $4.1 million (34%), Community Development is estimated at $5.3 million (44%), and General GovTrnfftent is expected at $2.6 million (22%). David F. Dixon City Manager DFD:sh CITY OF TEMECULA Understanding the BudSlet Document This Budget Document is intended to provide to the public concise and readable information about City government. It displays the City's objectives and budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year. The Budget Document begins with the City Manager's transmittal letter which provides an overview of the fiscal year 1990-91 Operating Budget by highlighting programs and major projects. The Budget Document is then divided into the following sections: Budget Summary Operating Budget Appendix The Budget Summary provides revenue and expenditure analysis. presents historical and categorical data for comparative purposes. summaries are also provided. This section Staffing level The Operating Budget section contains the objectives and resource allocation plans for each operating program. Budget information is organized into four programs which identify the major services provided by the City. Each program is described and its budget amount itemized by activity. Finally, the Appendix includes a community profile, glossary of terms used in the Budget Document, and fund descriptions. Additional information on the City's fiscal affairs is available in the following documents at the City offices: City Financial Statements City Treasurer's Monthly Reports BUDGET SUMMAR Y 0 LLI 0 0 /I/ O "'  LtJ I--O >~ T C) ~; 2 C) rr 0 O> o LLILu rr LLIO ,< O~-~-OaOl,OO~O')l'-,Odl'-~O~O(,O0 CITY OF TEMECULA BUDGET SUMMAR Y Estimated Fund Balance July 1, General Fund Gas Tax Fund Community Services Estimated Revenue Total Resources Appropriations Reserve for Contingency 1990: CITY 288,576 488,648 12,691,654 13,468,878 (12,097,205) ~1,371,673 TCSD ~ 822,000 2,249,~.9 3,071,~.~.~ (2,489,036) ~ 582,412 4 CITY OF TEMECULA REVENUE SCHEDULE CITY General Fund: Property taxes Other taxes Sales & use Franchise fees Real property transfer tax Transient occupancy tax Business License In tergo vernmen tal re venues Motor vehicle in lieu Cigarette tax Charges for services Planning Building Engineering Fines & forfeitures Investment interest ~ 1, 000, 000 4,000,000 276, 072 199, 971 253,320 38,000 1, 135, 374 48,322 975,000 1,453, 360 1,696,356 33,000 40,000 Gas Tax Fund: Intergo vernmental Transportation Funds: Local Transportation Measure A Community Development Block Grant: Reimbursement from CSD: TO TAL CITY REVENUES: 423,081 496,000 375,554 50,000 198,244 12,691,654 5 CITY OF TEMECULA REVENUE SCHEDULE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Assessments Community Service Zone A Zone B TO TAL CSD REVENUE: 1,564,838 599,019 85,591 CITY OF TEMECULA Explanation of Major Revenue Sources General Fund Property Tax: is determined by the Riverside County Tax Assessor based on the full value of a property. The County levies a base tax of one percent of assessed valuation plus assessments. Approximately six percent of the County levy is subvened to the City. Sales and Use Tax: the State of California imposes a six percent sales tax on taxable sales in the City. The City receives one percent of the six percent collected. Franchises: fees are imposed on gas, electric and cable television companies operating in the City. Real Property Transfer Tax: the County imposes a transfer tax on real property sold based on the value of the property transferred. This tax is evenly allocated between the County and the City. Transient Occupancy Tax: the City levies an eight percent tax on the rents collected by a hotel/motel located within the City limits. Licenses and Permits: the City assesses certain license and permit fees as a means of recovering the cost of regulating various activities. The fees are paid by individuals, businesses and developers (receiving permits for activities requiring permits). Intergovernmental Revenues: are revenues collected by the State of California and then subvened to the City according to formulas established by law. Charges for Services: service charges or fees are imposed on the user for a specific service rendered based on the rationale that the benefitting party should bear the cost of the service rather than the general public. Fines and Forfeitures: fines and penalties are imposed for traffic and parking violations occurring within the City limits and local ordinance infractions. The revenues are collected and distributed to the City by the Riverside County Court System less an administrative overhead cost. Interest Earnings: the City pools its available cash and invests in instruments as allowed in the City's investment policy. CITY OF TEMECULA Explanation of Major Revenue Sources (Continued) 0 THER FUND S Gas Tax Funds: the State of California assesses a tax on gasoline purchases as authorized by Sections 2106, 2107, and 2107.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code. A portion of this tax is allocated to the City based on a formula established by law, These funds are earmarked for the maintenance, rehabilitation or improvement of public streets. Transportation Funds: State and County funding is provided for the construction and improvement of major streets, and for fixed route transit facilities. These include: Local Transportation Funds and Measure A Funds. 8 CITY OF TEMECULA OPERATING BUDGET DEPARTMENT SUMMARY FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1991 - COMMUNITY SERVICES PERSONNEL SERVICES Number of Staff Salaries & wages Benefits Employer taxes OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Telephone Service Repair & Maintenance-Facilities Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles Office Supplies Printing Legal Documents/Maps Dues & Memberships Publications Postage & Packaging Rent - Equipment Utilities Small Tools/Equipment Signs Consulting Services Other Outside Services Travel/Conferences Meetings in Town/Mileage Auto Allowance Blueprints Street Lighting Landscape Maintenance Drainage Maintenance Initial CSD Engineering City Admin. Charges ACCOUNT# 5100 5106 5104 5208 5212 5214 5220 5222 5224 5226 5228 5230 5238 5240 5242 5244 5248 5250 5258 5260 5263 5268 5500 5510 5520 COMMUNITY SERVICES ZONE A ZONE B TOTAL 190 191 192 11.00 11.00 318,552 $ 318,552 95,566 95,566 4,406 4,406 418,524 418,524 3,240 11,000 12,500 6,325 28,500 5,000 310 500 S00 1,000 64.000 5,000 1.000 72.000 57.000 7.600 1.700 2.400 1.000 45,000 198,244 $ 160,189 586,037 92,381 $ 85,591 3,240 11,000 12,500 6,325 28,500 5,000 310 500 500 1,000 64,000 5,000 1,000 72,000 57,000 7,600 1,700 2,400 1,000 245,780 586,037 92,381 45,000 198,244 523,819 838,607 85,591 1,448,017 11 CITY OF TEMECULA OPERATING BUDGET DEPARTMENT SUMMARY - COMEUNITY SERVICES FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1991 CAPITAL OUTLAY Office Furnishings Office Equipment Computer Hardware/Peripheral Vehicles CIP - Design CIP - General Contractor ACCOUNT# COMMUNITY SERVICES ZONE A ZONE B TOTAL 190 191 192 5600 19,000 19,000 5602 3,300 3,300 5604 10,000 10,000 5608 50,000 50,000 5802 45,746 45,746 5804 494,449 494,449 622,495 622,495 $ 1,564,838 $ 838,607 $ 85,591 $ 2,489,036 CITY OF TEMECULA Operating Budget Appropriations Schedule Department Summary CITY City Council City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Finance Personnel Information Systems Planning Building/Safety Engineering Roads Police Services Fire Services Animal Control Nondepartmental CDBG TOTAL CITY Appropriations ~ 227,927 315, 138 177, 125 300,000 376,854 78,519 239,950 1, 020, 955 637, 738 1,980,267 1, 637, 700 3, 140,475 853,957 80,000 910,600 120,000 $ 12,097,205 Number of Employees 5.84 5.66 5.00 8.00 1.50 6.00 10.00 9.00 51.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Community Services Zone A Zone B TO TAL COMMUNITY SERVICES ;~ 1, 564, 838 838, 607 85, 591 2,489,036 11.00 11.00 13 CITY OF TEMECULA GANN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT Article XIIIB of the California State Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Gann Initiative or Gann Limit, was adopted by California voters in 1980 and placed limits on the amount of proceeds of taxes that state and local governmental agencies can receive and appropriate (authorize to spend) each year. The limit is different for each agency and the limit changes each year. Each year's limit is based on the amount of tax proceeds that were authorized to be spent in fiscal year 1978-79 in each agency, modified for changes in inflation and population in each subsequent year. For cities which have incorporated after 1978-79, such as the City of Temecula, the initial appropriations limit is set by the voters at the time of incorporation. Then each subsequent year's limit is increased or decreased for changes in inflation and population. Temecula voters established the initial appropriations limit for the City at $8,500,000. Inflationary adjustments are, by law, based on increases in the March-to-March U.S. All Urban Consumer Price Index or 4th Quarter California personal income, whichever is less. Population adjustments for Temecula have to date been based on the annual population percentage increase for unincorporated Riverside County. For FY 1991-92, the State Department of Finance will begin to provide the City with the required annual population change factor to be used for appropriations limit calculations. For FY 1990-91, the City's estimated tax proceeds to be received, as well as tax proceeds appropriated by the City Council, will be well under the legal limit. The law requires a governing body to annually adopt, by resolution, an appropriations limit for the following year. The City's 1990-91 appropriations limit was adopted in the form of Resolution No. 90-85. 14 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation By Program Area (Full-time Equivalents listed) PROGRAM: GENERAL GO VERNMENT Department.' City Council Coundlmembers Executive Secrelry Administrative Secretry Department Total Authorized 1989-90 Change Authorized 1990-91 5 0 5 0 O. 34 O. 34 0 0.5 0.5 5 O. 84 5. 84 Department.' City Manager City Manager Asst. to City Mgr. Administrative Asst. Executive Secretary Administrative Secretry Office Assislnt Department Total I 0 1 I (0.5) 0.5 I 0 1 I (0. 34) O. 66 I (0.5J 0.5 2 0 2 7 (1.34) 5. 66 Department: City Clerk Deputy City Clerk Administrative Secrelry Office Assistant Department Total Department: Finance Director of Finance Chief Accounlnt Management Analyst Accounlnt Administrative Secrelry Account Clerk Office Assisint Department Toil I 0 1 I 0 1 I 2 3 3 2 5 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation by Program Area (Full-time Equivalents listed) PROGRAM: Authorized 1989-90 GENERAL GO VERNMENT (Conb~ued) Department: Personnel AssL to City Mgr. Office Assistant Department Total 0 0 0 Department.' Information Systems Director of Information Systems Network Administ~rative Administrative Secretary Secretary Office Assistant Department Total 1 0 0 0 0 1 Change 0.5 1 1.5 0 1 1 1 2 5 Authorized 1990-91 0.5 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 2 6 PROGRAM TOTAl: 21 11 32 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation By Program Area (Full-time Equivalents listed) PROGRAM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Department: Planning Authorized 1989-90 Change Authorized 1990-91 Director of Planning I 0 1 Senior Planner I 0 1 Associate Planner 2 0 2 Assistant Planner I 0 1 Planning Technician I 0 1 Administrab've Secretary I 0 1 Secretary 0 2 2 Office Assistant I 0 1 Department Total 8 2 10 Department: Building & Safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Director of Building & Safety Senior Inspector Code Enforcement Officer Building Inspector AdministralYve Secretary Office Assistant Department Total 1 1 1 4 1 1 9 11 PROGRAM TOTAL: 1 1 1 4 1 1 9 19 17 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation By Pro~Tram Area (Full-time Equivalents listed) Authorized Change Authorized 1989-90 1990-91 PROGRAM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Department: Community Services Dir. of Community Services Perk Development Coordinator Maintenance Supenfisor Maintenance Worker RecreatiOn Program Supervisor Recreation Leader/AssL Volunteer Coordinator Administrative Secretary Office Assistant Department Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 11 PROGRAM TOTAL: 11 11 TOTAL: 29 33 62 18 tl 7 WLLrO t-- Z LU O LU I..-, Z Z 0 (3 EL LLI LU Z 4: Z LLj Z 0 Z ZCL DO _.j rruJ :~LU 0~' :S~ 7)-- OUJ _co OE3 o).- Z~- _w E3LL O)-- --.ILLI Z LL< cOO --cO Zw DO '~n'- Ow LLJ Z Z v 0 >_or cO ~_LLI cr OOn 0 PERA TIN G BUDGET CITY OF TEMECULA Program Summary Program: General Government Funding: General Fund General Government includes the operations of the City Council as policy makers, the City Manager as administrator, and administrative support departments including: City Attorney, City Clerk, Finance, Information Systems and certain nondepartmental activities. CITY CLERK 177125 CITY ATT"":':"'. ...... ,,.....,. MANAGER 300C .':' ..'. ~,/2,,./,.~jj~~l./: '~ ' / .... "',: '15138 FINANCE :" CITY COUNCIL 376854 [' /_-- - ' 227927 ;',..' ' PERSONNEL . 78519 .." INFORMATION SYSTEk,"' '~ ~' " 239950 ' '!. ""' · .. ;,,,,.,;,,...,,_PARTMENTAL 910600 FY91 - TOTAL $2,626,113 21 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: General Government Department: City Council Funding: General Fund Description: The City of Temecula has a five member City Council which serves as the governing body of the City. Members of the Council are elected at-large and serve four year terms, except for the initial Council -two of which would be up for election in November 1992. The City Council formulates policy guidelines in response to the needs, values and interests of the citizens of Temecula, and appoints commissions, and hires the Manager, Attorney, Clerk and Treasurer to run the City. Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 ~ 10,500 ~ 51,827 35, 000 167, 100 9,000 ~ 45,500 ~ 227,927 Elected Officials Regular/Full-time Total Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 5 5 FY 1990-91 5.0 .84 5.84 22 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: General Government Department: City Manager Funding: General Fund Description: The City Manager's Office provides overall leadership and direction to City staff; implements municipal programs in accordance with City Council policy direction; and coordinates departmental operations. The City Manager's Office is also responsible for the Personnel function. Personnel Cost Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 ~ 137,210 ~ 270,078 1 O, 500 20, 960 23,805 24, 100 ~ 171,515 ~ 315, 138 Regular/Full-time Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 7 5.66 23 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: General Government Department: City Clerk Funding: General Fund Description: The City Clerk administers elections for the City in accordance with the State and local elections laws; directs the City's records retention program; maintains the municipal Code; and provides support services to the City Council and City staff including production and distribution of City Council agendas, minutes and documentation. Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 ~ 39,373 35, 500 18, 120 ~ 92,993 Budget 1990-91 ~ 130,605 23, 120 23,400 ~ 177, 125 Regular/Full- time Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 3 FY 1990-91 5 24 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Genera/Government Department: City Attorney Funding: General Fund Description: The City Attorney provides legal advice to the City Council, prepares necessary legal documents and prosecutes or defends actions to which the City is a party. This department represents funding for the retainer and general litigation services provided by the contract City Attorney firm, Burke, Williams and Sorensen. Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 Personnel Costs Operating Costs ~ 105,000 $ 300,000 Capital Outlay Total Cost ~ 105,000 ~ 300,000 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 No City Personnd in this department. FY 1990-91 25 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: General Government Department: Finance Funding: General Fund Description: The Finance Department is responsible for maintaining and enhancing the financial health of the City in accordance with legal requirements and pursuant to policy direction from the City Council and City Manager. Specific functions include: treasury, budgeting, risk management, general accounting, payroll, and capital financing. Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 ~ 56,271 26,000 19,262 ~ 101,533 Budget 1990-91 ~ 302,354 34,800 39, 700 ~ 376,854 Regular/Full- time Personnd Summary FY 1989-90 5 FY 1990-91 8 26 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: General Go vernment Department: Personnel Funding: General Fund Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost R eg u lar/Fu II- time Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 50,000 50,000 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 None Budget 1990-91 ;~ ~.~.,089 30,830 3,600 ;~78,519 FY 1990-91 1.5 27 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: General Government Department: Information Systems Funding: General Fund Description: The Information Systems Department provides information systems support to every department at City Hall. Requirements analysis, system configuration, budgeting, purchasing, implementation, and training are all provided. The Director of Information Systems is also designated as the Purchasing Agent and the department provides a centralized purchasing and facilities maintenance function. Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 ~ 24,214 ~ 193,550 1, 500 14, 700 25, 894 31, 700 ;~ 51,608 ;~ 239,950 Regular/Full-time Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 1 FY 1990-91 6 28 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: General Government Department: Nondepartmental Funding: General Fund Description: This department accounts for various administrative functions which are not directly attributable to a specific department. Major items include: facility rental, insurance and debt service. Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 Personnel Costs Operating Costs ~ 72,300 ~ 607,600 Capital Outlay 145, 000 303, 000 Total Cost $ 217,300 $ 910,600 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 No City personnd in this department. FY 1990-91 29 CITY OF TEMECULA Program Summary Program: Public Safety Funding: General Fund Program Activities The Public Safety program incorporates the departments of police services, animal control and fire protection services. Fire protection services for the City are partially funded through a fire services district administered and staffed by the Riverside County Fire Department. POLICE SERVICES 3140475 ANIMAL CONTROL 80000 -,, FIRE SERVICES ...... ~ 853957 FYgl - TOTAL $4,074,432 30 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Public Safety Funding: General Fund Department: Police Services Description: This department provides funding for the law enforcement contract with the Riverside Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department is responsible for providing for the protection of life and property of citizens, enforcement of laws, and meeting the community's needs for law enforcement and crime prevention. Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 Personnel Costs Operating Costs ~ 162,646 ~ 3, 135,475 Capital Outlay 5, 000 Total Cost ~ 162,646 ~ 3, 140,475 Personnd Summary FY 1989-90 No City personhal in this department. FY 1990-91 31 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Public Safety Department: Fire Services Funding: General Fund Description: The Fire Services Department coordinates with other departments and agencies to provide a plan in the event of a major disaster to provide for emergency care and to assist in an orderly recovery after the emergency. The Fire Services Department provides funding for the contract with the County of Riverside to provide the above services. Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 853,957 None $ 853,957 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 No City personnel in this department. FY 1990-91 32 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Public Safety Department: Animal Control Funding: General Fund Description: The Animal Control department provides funding for the contract with the County of Riverside to control animals as mandated by City and County codes and Health Department regulations. Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 80,000 None ~ 8~000 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 No City personnel in this department. FY 1990-91 33 CITY OF TEMECULA Pro{Iram Summary Program: Community Development Funding: General Fund Gas Tax Funds Program Activities Community Development is an integrated program which includes four departments: Planning, Building, Engineering and Roads. Program activities range from advanced and current planning to permit inspection services and code enforcement. ENGINEERING 1980267 BLDG/SAFETY 637738 ~,.,~.,~~~CA~,..S 1637700 PLANNING 1020955 FY91 - TOTAL $5,276,660 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Community Development Department: Planning Funding: General Fund Description: The Planning Department is responsible for advanced and current planning including land use applications, environmental documentation, and development and maintenance of the General Plan in compliance with zoning, subdivision and various state and local land use regulations. This department represents the funding for the contractual services provided by Willdan Associates and the phase-in of regular City employees. Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 None Budget 1990-91 ~ 335,867 503, 188 161,900 ~ 1, 020, 955 Regular/Full-time Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 8 FY 1990-91 10 35 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Community Development Department: Building & Safety Funding: General Fund Description: This department is responsible for the review of building plans, issuance of permits, inspections of construction and property, and investigations of complaints relating to building and construction. This department represents the funding for the contractual services provided by the County of Riverside and the phase-in of regular City employees. Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost None 325,233 277,805 34, 700 637, 738 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 Regular/Full-time 9 36 CITY OF TEMECULA Program Summary Program: Community Development Department: Engineering Funding: General Fund Gas Tax Funds Description: The Engineering Department is responsible for ensuring Capital Improvement Projects, City projects and private projects comply with legal requirements and high standards of quality through development review, public works inspections and transportation planning. This department accounts for contractual engineering services with Willdan Associates. Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost None *Includes Gas Tax Expenditures totalling $190,000 Budget 1990-91 1,970,267 10,000 1, 980, 267 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 No City personnd in this department. FY 1990-91 37 CITY OF TEMECULA Pro(?ram Summary Program: Community Development Department: Roads Funding: General Fund Gas Tax Funds Description: The Roads Department is responsible for road improvement and maintenance. This department accounts for contractual road services with the County of Riverside. Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost None $ 537,700 1, 100, 000 ~ 1, 637, 700 *Includes Gas Tax Expenditures totalling $1,587,700 Personnd Summary FY 1989-90 No City personnd in this department. FY 1990-91 CITY OF TEMECULA ProWlram Summary Program: Community Development Funding: Department: Community Development Block Grant General Fund Gas Tax Funds Description: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is to be received from County of Riverside CDBG funds and is anticipated to be used for park improvements. Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost None 120,000 120,000 Personnd Summary FY 1989-90 No City personnel in this department. FY 1990-91 CITY OF TEMECULA Program Summary Program: Community Services Funding: Community Services District Assessments Program Activities Community Services offers residents a variety of recreation services. This program is also responsible for parks design and maintenance, and parkway and median maintenance street lighting. COMMUNITY SER~ -_~ 1564838 - '\~-  ZON E B 85591 ZONE A 838607 FY91 - TOTAL $2,489,036 40 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Community Services Department: Community Services Funding: Community Services District Assessments Description: This department provides for management and direction, coordination of the budget, goal setting, ongoing evaluation of programs, and staff support for City park and recreation operations. This department is also responsible for park development and the administration of contractual services for recreational programs and landscape maintenance of parks, parkways and medians. Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 Personhal Costs ~ 418, 524 Operating Costs ~ 20,000 523,819 Capital Outlay 622, 495 Total Cost ~ 20,000 ~ 1,564,838 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 Regular/Full-time None City overhead costs are allocated to this department based on a rate of 15% of expenditures. 11 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Community Services Department: Zone A Funding: 'Special A ssessmen ts Program Activities Description: This department is responsible for administration of landscape maintenance of parkways and medians and street lighting for an assessment district of the City, Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 838,607 None ~ 838,607 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 42 CITY OF TEMECULA Department Summary Program: Community Services Department: Zone B - Street Lighting Funding: Special Assessments Description: This department is responsible for the administration of street lighting for an assessment district of the City. Personnel Costs Operating Costs Capital Outlay Total Cost Financial Summary Estimated 1989-90 Budget 1990-91 85,591 None ~ 85, 59 1 Personnel Summary FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 43 APPENDIX CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY PROFILE Date Incorporated Form of Government Area Population Parks Dwelling Units December 1, 1989 Council/Manager 26 Square Miles 31,980 2 12,300 CITY OF TEMECULA Glossary of Terms Used ADOPTION - Formal action by the City Council which sets the spending limits for the fiscal year. APPROPRIATION A legal authorization granted by the City Council to make expenditures and incur obligations for specific purposes. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) - Annual appropriations in the City's budget for capital purposes such as street improvements, building construction and park improvements. CONTINGENCY - A budgetary reserve set aside for emergency or unanticipated expenditures. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - Consultant contracts for professional services. FISCAL YEAR - The period designated by the City for the beginning and ending of financial transactions. The fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30. FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTE) - The amount of time a position has been budgeted for in terms of the amount of time a regular, full-time employee normally works in a year. Most full-time employees are paid for 2,080 hours in a year. FUND - An accounting entity with a set of self-balancing revenue and expenditure accounts used to record the financial affairs of a governmental organization. FUND BALANCE - The difference between the assets (revenues and other resources) and liabilities (expenditures incurred or committed to) for a particular fund. OBJECTS OF EXPENDITURE - The individual expenditure accounts used to record each type of expenditure City operation incur. For budgeting purposes, objects of expenditure are categorized into groups of similar types of expenditures called major objects of expenditure. The principal objects of expenditure used in the budget are: PERSONNEL COSTS - Salaries and benefits paid to City employees. Includes items such as special duty salaries and retirement. OPERATING COSTS Office supplies and other materials used in the normal operations of City departments. Includes items such as books, maintenance materials and contractual services. CAPITAL OUTLAY Expenditures which qualify as capital costs according to accounting standards. This includes furniture, fixtures, machinery, equipment and other relatively minor fixed assets. 45 CITY OF TEMECULA Glossary of Terms Used (Continued) OPERATING BUDGET - Day-to-day costs of delivering City services. PROGRAM/DEPARTMENTS - The budget organizes departmental expenditures into functional areas called programs. RESOURCES - Total amounts available for appropriation including estimated revenues, fund transfers and beginning balances. 46 CITY OF TEMECULA Description of Funds The City of Temecula revenues and expenditures are accounted for in a series of funds. Each fund is an autonomous accounting entity, established in accordance with legal and professional accounting standards. Funds are used to segregate the various financial activities of a governmental entity and to demonstrate compliance with specific regulations, restrictions or limitations; (for example, demonstrating that restricted revenues are spent only for allowed purposes). Funds used in government are classified into three broad categories: governmental, proprietary and fiduciary. Governmental funds include activities usually associated with a typical state or local government's operations (public safety, general government activities, etc). Proprietary funds are used in governments to account for activities often found in the private sector (utilities, stadiums and golf courses are prime examples). Fiduciary funds are utilized in situations where the government is acting in a fiduciary capacity as a trustee or agent. At the present time, the City of Temecula utilizes only governmental funds. The following funds are utilized by the City of Temecula: Governmental Funds: General Fund: This is the general operating fund for the City, utilized to account for all resources not required to be accounted for in another fund. Special Revenue Funds: Gas Tax Funds: The City maintains the fund to account for the Highway User's Tax revenues received from the State of California under sections 2106, 2107 and 2107.5 of the Streets and Highways Code. Section 2107.5 revenues may only be spent on street engineering work. Sections 2106 and 2107 revenues may only be spent for street and highway purposes. Local Transportation Fund: The City maintains the fund to account for Local Transportation and Measure A funds to be used for construction and improvement of major streets and for fixed route transit facilities. 47