Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120490 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER DECEMBER 4, 1990 - 7:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 90- Resolution: No. 90- CALL TO ORDER Invocation: Pastor Sean Oliver, Rancho Christian Church Flag Salute: Councilmember Lindemans ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Murnoz, Parks PRESENTATIONS/ Presentation - Bill Johnson and the Temecula Rose Sdciety PROCLAMA TIONS Reception - City's 1st Birthday Party 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 no listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request To Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOT/CE TO THE PUBL/C All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 2/agenda/120490 1 11/29/90 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of November 13, 1990 as mailed. 3 Dedication of New Jefferson Avenue Alignment RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Accept the offer of dedication of Jefferson Avenue realignment for public road, drainage and utility purposes, but not as a part of the City maintained road system. 4 Summary Vacation of Jefferson Avenue RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA VACATING THAT PORTION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE LYING NORTHERLY OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK BETWEEN SANBORN AVENUE AND THE PREVIOUSLY VA CA TED EXTENSION OF CHERRY STREET 2/aawWn/l 20400 2 11/29/90 5 Final Parcel Mao No. 23561-2 Project containing 23 industrial lots on 35.47 gross acres, located west of 1-15, south of Date Street and north of Santa Gertrudis Creek. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve Final Parcel Map No. 23561-2, subject to the conditions of approval. 6 Comorehensive Annual Financial Report for the Seven Months ended June 30, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Receive and file report 7 ARoroval of Bid for Legal Advertising RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the best low bid submitted by The Californian to provide publication of the City's legal notices. 8 Aogroval of Bid for City Seal Final Art RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the best low bid submitted by BoGraphics to provide final camera ready art of the City's logo. 2hpendd120490 9 11 /29/90 9 Second Reading of Nuisance Abatement Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE NON-CODIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCES AND ADDING CHAPTER 6.14 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NUISANCE ABATEMENT 10 Second Reading of Ordinance Relating to Placement of Adult Materials RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 11.10 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELA TING TO THE PLA CEMENT OF MA TIER HARMFUL TO MINORS 11 Final Tract Man No. 24132 A subdivision containing 108 residential lots within 60.43 gross acres located south of Pauba Road and west of Meadows Parkway. RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132 subject to the Conditions of Approval. 21ageMa/120490 4 11/29/90 12 Final Vesting Tract Man No. 24132-1 A subdivision containing 108 residential lots within 43.06 gross acres located south of Pauba Road and west of Meadows Parkway RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132-1 subject to the Conditions of Approval. 13 Acceptance of Easement for Proposed Public Roads and Drainage Purposes for Tract No. 23100-3. Tract No. 23101-1. Tract No. 23101-2 and Tract No. 23102 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Accept the dedication of Chemin Clinet across a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 22554 for road, drainage and utility purposes, but not as a part of the City-maintained road system, as an access for Tract No. 23100-3. 13.2 Accept the dedication of a drainage easement for storm drain purposes across Metropolitan Water District's pipeline easement per the Conditions of Approval for Tract No. 23101-1 and Tract No. 23101-02, but not as a part of the City-maintained drainage system. 13.3 Accept the dedication of Heitz Lane, LaSerena Way, Meadows Parkway as shown on Tract No. 23101-2, and Cabern Court as shown on Tentative Tract No. 23102, across Metropolitan Water District's pipeline easement, but not as a part of the City- maintained road system. COUNCIL BUS/NESS 14 Western Riverside Council of Governments 1990-91 Dues Assessment RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Approve the expenditure of $9,620.25 for the 1990-91 membership dues to Wetern Riverside Council of Governments. 2/agenda/120490 5 11/29/90 CSD MEETING - (To be hold at 8:00 PMT Please see separate agenda 15 Proposals for Curb-side Recycling Program RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Continue this matter to the meeting of December 11, 1990. 16 Presentation of Land Use Inventory Report (Lightfoot Groug) RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Receive and file report. 17 Holiday Time-off Policy RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Authorize abbreviated work days for December 24, and December 31, 1990. 18 Building Department Positions/Reclassification RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 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 2/agenda/120490 a 11/29/90 CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY A TTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: December 11, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California 2/sg"a/l 20480 „/29/90 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVID F. DIXON DATE: NOVEMBER 29, 1990 SUBJECT: DONATION OF ROSES ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA MEDIAN PREPARED BY.• SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: Accept donation and installation of roses in one median on Rancho California Road, directly east of Ynez Road. FISCAL IMPACT.- If accepted, maintenance and operation costs would become the responsibility of the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). DISCUSSION; The current streetscape on Rancho California Road, east of Ynez Road, is not developed and does not meet acceptable streetscape standards. Mr. Bill Johnson has offered to donate and install approximately 160 rose bushes to the first median directly east of Ynez Road, as a birthday present for the City's one year anniversary. The Temecula Rose Society has volunteered their services in assisting in the required pruning of the roses, as well as providing installa- tion and maintenance advise. The daily maintenance and operation costs would be provided by the TCSD for this fiscal year, and then integrated into the budget for next fiscal year. Due to the availability of roses, the installation to this median will occur the first part of January. The remaining two medians, directly east of the above median on Rancho California Road, currently does not have water. Efforts to coordinate with the Rancho Cal- ifornia Water District to bring water to the medians, and then plant with roses are being pursued. ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD NOVEMBER 13, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:38 PM at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Scott Field announced the purpose of this closed session was to discuss matters relating to litigation in the case of Jones Intercable and Outdoor Media Group pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.89. The meeting was adjourned to executive session at 6:39 PM. The executive session was adjourned at 7:03 PM. INVOCA TION The invocation was given by Associate Pastor Carlos Mauritz, Lamb's Fellowship. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Munoz. PRESENTA TIONS/ PROCLAMA TIONS Mayor Parks proclaimed November 23 through December 24, 1990, as "Shop Temecula First" campaign. Minute s\ 1 1 \1 3\90 -1- 11/21/90 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Munoz to add a proclamation for 1990 California Family Week to the agenda on the basis of subsequent need. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks None None Mayor Parks proclaimed November 18, through November 24, 1990, as "1990 California Family Week". Mayor Parks presented Buck Kemmis, General Chairman of the Great Temecula Tractor Race for 1989 and 1990, with a Certificate of Appreciation. PUBLIC FORUM Jerry Allen, Mayor of new City of Murrieta introduced three of the newly elected Councilmembers, Dave Haas, Joe Perry, Fred Weishaupe. He stated Councilmember Gary Smith, was not able to be present this evening. James Marple, 28541 Via Princessa, Murrieta, representing CRWM (Citizens for Responsible Watershed Management), asked the City Council to update the ordinance dealing with urban runoff, to avoid expensive improvements at a later date. Christina Grina, 30305 Via Norte, presented the City Council with a copy of her senior thesis for California Polytechnic Institute, which dealt with Old Town Temecula Redevelopment, and stated copies would be available for purchase at Kinkos. Edward Doran, 39985 Stamos, asked the Council three questions; one, since Proposition 140, removing the State Legislature from a private pension program was passed at the last election, would the City Council reconsider it's decision regarding "PERS"; two, if $405,000 in tenant improvements is necessary for a building which is rented; and three, since development is Temecula's primary "industry", and developer fees may decrease due to the recent slow down of development, should the City readjust the budget? City Manager Dixon responded that Social Security is not a retirement plan, "PERS" is, and the City participates in Social Security as it relates to Medicare. He said the $405,000 in tenant improvements is to basically turn a warehouse into usable office space. He explained that this $405,000 is not a direct expense, but is built into the Minutes\11\13\90 -2- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 lease. In answer to the reduction in development, City Manager Dixon stated Temecula is not a one industry town. He reported there are many fine industries in the City who generate taxable sales, property tax, etc. Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, informed the Council that the San Diego Board of Supervisors will be meeting on November 14, 1990 to consider the North San Diego County Landfill proposals. Mayor Parks reported that he will attend the meeting and make a presentation. He said he will illustrate to the Board that one of the proposed landfills would be only three miles from the City of Temecula, greatly affecting the quality of life for residents. CONSENT CALENDAR It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 13, with Councilmember Lindemans casting a "no" vote on Item No. 10, 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. 2. Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 16, 1990, as mailed. 3. Claim for Damages - Bill Be/l, Sr., vs The City of Temecula 3.1 Deny the claim for damages. 4. Claim for Damages - Larry Mi//ikin ys The City of Temecula 4.1 Deny the claim for damages. 5. C/aim for Damages - Brian Miiiikin ys The City of Temecula 5.1 Deny the claim for damages. Minutes\11\13\90 -3- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 6. Claim for Damages - Bruce Millikin vs The City of Temecula 6.1 Deny the claim for damages. 7. Claim for Damages - Jeff Millikin vs The City of Temecula 7.1 Deny the claim for damages. 8. Acceptance of Substitute Bonds for Storm Drain Facilities in Tract 23371 and Authorization of Release of Bonds on File 8.1 Accept Substitute Bonds for Storm Drain Improvements 8.2 Authorize the City Clerk to release existing bonds on file. 9. Resolution Approving Payment of Demands 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 10. Second Reading of Ordinance Permitting Zone Change 5714 10.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-21 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5714, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M- SC (MA NUFA C TURING- SER VICE COMMERCIAL) TO C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWA Y COMMERCIAL) ON PROPERTY L OCA TED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND JEFFERSON AVENUE Minutes\11\13\90 -4- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13. 1990 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 1 1. Third Party Cooperative Flood Control Agreement for Parcel MaQ No. 2349 11.1 Approve the Cooperative Flood Control Agreement for Parcel Map No. 23496 and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. 12. Plot Plan 11609 - Bed and Lounge Furniture Showroom and Retail Center 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-113 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 11609 TO CONSTRUCT AN 18,453 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL AND FURNITURE SHOWROOM COMMERCIAL CENTER 13. Attendance at National League of Cities Meeting - Councilmember Mur3oz 13.1 Approve the participation of Councilmember Sal Munoz at the National League of Cities Conference to be held in Houston, Texas from December 1 through December 5, 1990. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Minutes\11\13\90 -5- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes PUBLIC HEARING November 13, 1990 14. Zone Change 5611. Vesting Tentative Tract Maq No. 25004 Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, stated this is a request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25004, to subdivide approximately 59 acres into 135 single family lots. He said accompanying this application is a zone change request from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential. He reported the Planning Commission approved this item on October 15, 1990, on a three to one vote. He said their concerns related to the compatibility of this project to surrounding residential developments, the slope concerns and the Water District Easement through the property. He stated these concerns were resolved to the Planning Commission's satisfaction. Councilmember Munoz asked about the property which contains a Metropolitan Water District easement. Mr. Thornhill explained the property in question is owned by the applicant but the Water District has an easement; He sited previous applications where the City has acquired similar property. He explained this property could be used as part of a City-wide Trail System. Councilmember Munoz asked if this property would be improved. Mr. Thornhill answered that staff would prefer to utilize the Quimby Fees at a more usable site and obtain this land unimproved. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:00 PM. Gary Kuontz, CM Engineering Associates, representing the applicant, stated that he agrees with all conditions as submitted, but would like to discuss Item No. 24, which relates to the Quimby Act Fees, and Item No. 21-I, which relates to dedication of lots for open space. Mr. Kuontz stated the applicant has no problem dedicating the easement and adjacent properties but since 18 acres is being dedicated he requested an appraisal of this land be done for consideration in the establishment of the fees. He stated Condition No. 29, states that prior to occupancy, Lot 141 shall be conveyed to the homeowners association. He explained this property is a slope easement for the access road along the southern property line. He stated the applicant has discussed with CSA maintenance of this slope, and they have agreed in concept. He asked, therefore that wording be added "or landscape maintenance district" to Condition No. 29. Councilmember Munoz asked for staff's response on having the land appraised. Gary Thornhill stated that staff feels that the applicant should not receive credit Minutes\11\13\90 -6- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 for this property for several reasons; one, that the applicant is obtaining a rezoning of the property which grants higher density; and second, the value of the land is considered in terms of its development potential. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, stated the City is in great need of developed, active recreation areas. He said this project will generate 350 new residents, and he supports Planning staff's recommendation that areas be set aside for recreation opportunities. City Manager Dixon stated that recently Bedford offered an easement much like the one in question to the City, with no Quimby credit being received, and suggested that all easement property should be handled in the same manner. Councilmember Birdsall asked if there is any problem with CSA maintaining Lot 141. City Manager Dixon stated he felt the City should have the option; To designate the homeowners association or the TCSD. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 7:50 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Munoz to approve staff recommendations with the addition to the conditions of approval No. 29, to add the wording "or offer for dedication to the TCSD". Mr. Thornhill stated the City Attorney would like to add a condition that prior to issuing occupancy permits, the CC & R's be approved by the City Attorney to ensure that Lot #141 is properly maintained. In order to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to a new condition, Mayor Parks reopened the public hearing at 8:10 PM. Mr. Kuontz, asked if a homeowners association is not established, what action would be taken. City Attorney Field answered that a "dormant homeowners association" would be established. Mr. Kuontz stated he understood this condition and did not have a problem with it. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:11 PM. Minutes\11\13\90 -7- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 Councilmember Munoz amended his motion, Councilmember Birdsall seconded to approve staff recommendations with the addition to the conditions of approval No. 29 to add the wording "or offer for dedication to the TCSD, subject to City Attorney Approval of the CC&R's to ensure Lot #141 is properly maintained as follows: 14.1 Adopt Negative Declaration. 14.2 Read by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICA TION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5611, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SERA PHINA ROAD AND RITA WAY 14.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25004 TO SUBDIVIDE A 59 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 135 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SERAPHINA ROAD AND RITA WAY The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Parks called a recess at 8:15 PM. The meeting was reconvened following a Community Services District Meeting at 8:40 PM. Minutes\11\13\90 -8- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes 15. Adult Business Ordinance November 13, 1990 Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, reported that on October 9, 1990, a 45-day Interim Ordinance was adopted regulating adult businesses in the City of Temecula. He asked that this ordinance be extended for another 10 month and 15 day period, pursuant to the Government Codes. He stated the reason for this ordinance is to give the City Council significantly more control over the development of these types of businesses, restricting them to one zone district and requiring a Conditional Use Permit for any application, which has not been possible under the existing County ordinance. Mayor Parks asked if this was originally adopted as an urgency ordinance. City Attorney Field said the revised ordinance clarifies this issue. He stated the first 45-day ordinance will expire on November 23, 1990, and because of this expiration, the ordinance before the Council tonight is also an urgency ordinance, extending the original ordinance for 10 1 /2 months. He said this ordinance would allow for the development of a permanent ordinance which would include a Sheriff's Licensing Provision, whereby these types of businesses could be closely monitored. Councilmember Lindemans asked if any other California Cities have been successful in banning these types of business. City Manager Dixon stated staff will explore every avenue to address both the legal and moral concerns of the citizens. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:45 PM. The following citizens spoke in favor of adoption of Ordinance No. 90-23. Anita Washington, 30456 Spica Court Carl Heimple, 37780 Villa Balboa Drive Wayne P. Wilbur, 37349 Avenida Chapala David L. Eurich, 41095 Avenida Verde Gary Nelson, 27462 Enterprise Circle West Robert Lee, 45607 Gleneagles John Downing, 39875 Highbury Drive David Dodd, 24983 Rancho California Road James Beckley, 29141 Vallejo Avenue Michael Trimble, 28900 Valiejo Avenue Barry Brothers, 30602 Mira Loma Drive Earl Brumback, 3113-91 South General Kearney Road Minutes\11\13\90 -9- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes Kathleen Siegel, 28886 Calle de Lago, Murrieta Alan Siegel, 28886 Calle del Lago, Murrieta Tim Buttrey, 31440 Kahwea Road Wally Melzer, 29855 Camino del Sol Garth D. Moore, 29659 Calle Violeta Jeff Miller, 30080 Villa Alturag Nelene Fox, 42200 Margaria Road Sean Oliver, 42227 Stonewood Road Michael McNefff, 45627 Clubhouse Drive Sofia Sadler, 41941 Ave Viata Ladera Greg Turner, P.O. Box 1864 Tim Riter, 41768 Borealis Mayor Parks declared a one minute break at 9:25 PM. November 13, 1990 In addition, the following speakers voiced their opinions in favor of adopting a very strong Adult Business ordinance: John Trautman, 22943 Navut Avenue, Wildomar Paul Valencia, 40417 Yardley Court Geneva Krag, 29917 Via Puesta Del Sol N. Erik Krag, 29917 Via Puesta Del Sol Mark Eastman, 40391 Carmelita Circle Ed Dey, 30856 Via Norte Nancy Horan, 30583 Greenway Circle Andy Sellers, 35720 Sellers Road Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:45 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to read by title only and adopt an interim urgency ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-23 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RELATING TO ADULT BUSINESSES AND REQUIRING A PERMIT THEREFOR Minutes\11\13\90 -10- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None City Manager Dixon stated he will instruct staff to explore the experience of the City of Garden Grove regarding, a Moratorium on Adult Businesses, at the earliest possible time, and would investigate what can be done to require adult magazines to be placed behind the counter. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 10:10 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 10:22 PM. COUNCIL BUS/NESS 16. Resolution Supporting EMWD that the City General Plan Comply with Air Quality Requirements City Manager Dixon reported that the Eastern Municipal Water District has asked the City of Temecula to adopt a resolution to meet the requirements of the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"), the regional planning agency. He stated that SCAG found that the EMWD was not in conformance with Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP"), and for this reason the City has been asked that its general plan comply with Air Quality Requirements. Minutes\11\13\90 -11- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 17. Used Oil Recyc/iny City Attorney Field reported this ordinance was prepared pursuant to previous Council direction. He explained under the current law, the California Waste Management Board has prescribed guidelines requiring that there be an "800" number on all new oil containers for a local recycling facility, and that retailers post signs notifying the consumer of one or more conveniently located collection facilities. Mr. Field stated, however, there are no such facilities located in the City of Temecula, the closest being Corona and Escondido. He explained the ordinance mandates that oil retailers comply with the current guidelines and work together to establish at least one local collection facility. He explained the ordinance would not go into effect immediately, but allows time for the City Manager to meet with local retailers in the community to encourage them to develop a collection facility. Mr. Field stated the Council could direct the City Manager to work together with the local retailers to accomplish the same objective. He also stated that a local franchise for waste management would probably include a provision for used oil collection. Councilmember Lindemans asked City Manager Dixon if this plan is feasible. Mr. Dixon stated he would contact the lube and oil change shops in an effort to bring them together. He said the City would look at the recycling program for at least twice a year and possible each quarter. Councilmember Birdsall suggested having the City Manager contact the local merchants and solicit their cooperation before an ordinance is adopted. She Minutes\11\13\90 -12- 11/21/90 city council minutes November 13, 1990 also stated that the City should not only address used oil, but also anti-freeze which also presents a problem. Councilmember Munoz stated it has been nearly six months since this issue was first heard, and that the Council should take responsibility for what is in the best interest for the community, and take steps to resolve this problem. Councilmember Moore said she is concerned this is only a small part of a much larger problem and the City needs a total waste management solution. She said used oil recycling should be part of the RFP for the waste management franchise. Mayor Parks suggested continuing this item for 30 days to give the City Manager an opportunity to contact people involved. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue this item to the meeting of December 11, 1990 to allow the City Manager the opportunity to gather additional information, and contact concerned parties. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 18. Conditional Use Permit 3046- Arco Mini-Mart Gary Thornhill, Planning Director, reported Arco is requesting an addition of a pump island with four pumps and a canopy that extends approximately 18 feet. Mr. Thornhill advised Council approved a rezoning previously and stated the Conditional Use Permit was continued at the request of the applicant to work out a few minor issues with adjoining property. The problems existed due to trash and debris coming over on their property. To resolve this problem, it was agreed that a vinyl coated chain link fence and an additional trash container would be required. He reported additional landscaping is also proposed along the fence area and there is a proposal to extend the driveway opening 10-12 feet to assist in the stacking of vehicles. Mr. Thornhill stated that Condition 2 which requires biannual review, which is not appropriate for this type of use should be deleted. Minutes\11\13\90 -13- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 Mr. Thornhill recommended approval of CUP 3046, subject to the attached conditions, the deletion of Condition No. 2 and the addition of a condition that reads; prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for Director's approval showing enhanced landscaping, additional trash containers and a black vinyl coated chain link fence between the site and the adjoining property. Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 10:40 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 10:41 PM. Larry Markum, 4175 Winchester, representing the applicant stated that concerns with adjoining property owners have been worked out. He stated that the landscaping plans will be submitted to adjoining owners prior to submittal to the Planning Director. He stated the applicant's only requested change is that the fence be either black or green. Mr. Markum said the applicant has agreed to landscape on both sides of the fence. Mayor Parks asked that the applicant consider the first flush problems at this site and developing a mechanism to collect drainage at the driveway. Mr. Markum said the applicant would look into this. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Munoz to approve staff recommendations with additions and deletions to the conditions of approval recommended as follows: delete Planning Department Condition No. 2, add a Planning Department Condition No. 9 to require landscape plans, additional trash enclosure and plans for installation of vinyl coated chain link fence between the site and the adjoining property, and add an engineering condition to widen the driveway at Jefferson by 10 to 12 feet; and adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3046 TO PERMIT OPERA TION OF AN EXISTING GAS STA TION AND MINPMART A T JEFFERSON AVENUE AND WINCHESTER ROAD Minutes\11\13\90 -14- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. City Ha// Lease Agreement City Manager Dixon stated the lease agreement is now complete for Buildings C and D of Windsor Park I. He stated there will be approximately $405,000 of Tenant Improvements which will be spread throughout the life of the lease. Councilmember Lindemans asked if these Tenant improvements could be taken when the City moves. City Manager Dixon explained these improvements would be things such as lights, heating, ceilings, restrooms, etc. which cannot be moved. Councilmember Munoz asked if staff would be looking for sites to purchase, or whether it would lease for the entire 3-year period. City Manager Dixon answered that sometime in the Spring staff would actively begin looking for a permanent site for City Hall. Mayor Parks asked if the City were to stay at the present location beyond the 3-year lease period, can it be extended. City Manager Dixon stated every effort would be made not to stay beyond the 3-year period, however two one year extensions are included. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Munoz to: 19.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the lease for City Hall located at 43172 Business Park Drive. 19.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve a Tenant Improvement Budget, not to exceed $405,000. Minutes\11\13\90 -15- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 20. Assessment District 159 - Utility Agreement - Rancho Vi//ages City Attorney Field reported this is a Utility Agreement for Assessment District 159, known as Rancho Villages. He explained this agreement provides that once the improvements are installed, the City will acquire and maintain those improvements. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Munoz to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 90-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE COUNTY OFR/VERS/DEREGARDING ASSESSMENTDISTR/CT NO. 159 The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Munoz to extend the meeting to 11:15 PM. The motion was unanimously approved. 21. Traffic Signa/s - Target Shoppin en er City Manager Dixon reported over the past several months, staff has been aware of problems with left-turn movements out of the Target Shopping Center on Rancho California Road. He said a meeting was held with Mayor Pro Tem Minutes\11\13\90 -16- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 Lindemans, himself and a representative from Land Grant Development, and a proposal was made that Land Grant share in the cost of a signal on Ynez with the developer on the West side of the street, and that Land Grant pay for half the cost of the signal on Rancho California Road and the City Manager would approach the Council to share in that cost. City Manager Dixon said it was hoped to have a response from Land Grant, but it has not been received and requested this be continued to the meeting of November 27, 1990. Councilmember Moore asked if this would include the closure of some of the entrances into the center. City Manager Dixon stated this will need to be looked at, but that left-turn lanes where there is no light would be restricted. Howard Gerelick, representing Land Grant, stated a number of other property owners involved with this center are being contacted to solicit their cooperation, (Target, Albertsons, Mobile). He stated that the closure of medians would not be favorably received by Mobile and Albertsons, and should not be tied to the request for signalization. He suggested separating the issue and proceed first with the signalization. Mr. Gerelick stated that at the time the center was developed, County regulations were in effect. Due to contributions for traffic mitigation fees imposed by the County, Land Grant feels that these signals have already been paid for once. He said, however, that in the spirit of cooperation, they are willing to re-exam the issue. He said a resolution should be reached by the next meeting. Councilmember Munoz asked for clarification about what traffic mitigation fees go toward. City Manager Dixon said he has had the opportunity to work with centers developed under the guidance of the County and almost without exception, the signal mitigation fee is a pooled fund for signals that could be adjacent, but more often are used as needed in the area. He stated when a specific plan has been approved by the City, the City normally extracts a signal mitigation fee for the overall good, and then require at specific driveways full signalization with no cost sharing. Councilmember Lindemans stated he would like to get these needed signals in as quickly as possible, and is in favor of this proposal. Mayor Parks took a straw vote to indicate support of a joint pubic and private venture as outlined. All Councilmembers were unanimously in favor. Minutes\11\13\90 -17- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 22. Holiday Dinner - Volunteer Committees and Commissions Councilmember Lindemans asked that the City Commissioners be invited to a Christmas Dinner with the Council. He said these people need to feel the support of the Council, and deserve recognition. Councilmember Moore said she is in total agreement with recognizing the commissioners and major committees, however she said she would rather honor them not at another time of the year. Mayor Parks stated he would like to first see joint meetings with the Commissioners to set guidelines and let them do their job before they are honored. CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon said the City will be initiating a Public Hearing sign program. Parcels involved in public hearings will have a 16 square foot sign placed on the of property. He said a 4 by 4 foot sign, bright yellow with black lettering, will be used for posting the Public Hearing notices. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS City Attorney Field stated that he has heard the direction of the Council and the wishes of the citizens and he will have a "Blinder Rack" ordinance prepared at the next City Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mufioz requested that the "No U-Turn" signs at Rancho California Road and Front Street be reevaluated. He also requested staff to arrange to meet with developer David Lowrey to discuss a possible Mello Roos CFD for road improvements on Solana Way. Councilmember Birdsall requested staff research what is being planned by the Kiwanis Club for the City's first birthday party. Minutes\11\13\90 -18- 11/21/90 City Council Minutes November 13, 1990 Councilmember Lindemans requested the matter of the City's charges for various development fees be discussed at the next meeting. He also requested that the City Manager contact Bedford Properties to obtain a copy of the traffic model they have had prepared for the City of Temecula. Mayor Parks requested that staff schedule joint meetings with the various commissions, starting with the Planning Commission, as soon as possible. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Munoz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 11:30 PM to the meeting of November 27, 1990, at 7:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk Minutes\11\13\90 -19- 11/21/90 ITEM NO. 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Engineering Department DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Dedication of Jefferson Avenue Realignment PREPARED BY: Robert Righetti RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the dedication of Jefferson Avenue realignment for Road, Drainage and Utility purposes, but not as a part of the City Maintained Road System. DISCUSSION: The new alignment for Jefferson Avenue between Sanborn Avenue and Cherry Street is a condition of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23561-2. The applicant for this Parcel Map, Bedford Properties has requested that the City accept the dedication of the new alignment that runs across their property. In place of the existing road easement, the applicant is dedicating a strip of land 100 feet in width to line up with the previously dedicated alignment of Jefferson Avenue as shown on Parcel Map No. 20490. This realignment of Jefferson will create a straighter corridor than the curvilinear one now existing. The City, in accordance with Government Code 7050, may accept the dedication of any property for any public purpose. Upon recordation by the County Recorder's office, the offer is irrevocable. The City does not become liable for maintaining a street until and unless the Council adopts a resolution accepting the street or highway into the City system (Streets and Highways Code Section 1806). This can be done once the improvements have been completed and accepted by the City Council. STAFFRPT\ENG-003 1 FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council ACCEPT the Dedication of Jefferson Avenue realignment for Road, Drainage and Utility purposes, but not as a part of the City maintained Road System. RR:ks Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Offer of Dedication of Easement Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Parcel Map 23561-2 Vicinity Map STAFFRPT\ENG-003 2 son Avenue CERTIFICATE of ACCEPTANCE of EASEMENT (Government Code Section 27281) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property granted by the easement dated from to the CITY OF TEMECULA, is hereby accepted for the purpose of vesting title in the City of Temecula on behalf of the public for public road and utility uses as part of the City Maintained Road System by the undersigned on behalf of the City Council pursuant to the authority contained in County Ordinance No. 669. Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duty authorized officer. Dated: City of Temecula By: Douglas M. Stewart RCE 37254 Exp. 6/30/90 Deputy City Engineer City of Temecula THIS INSTRUMENT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF TE14ECULA AND ENTITLED TO BE RECORDED WITHOUT FEE. (GOV. CODE 6103) RETURN TO CITY OF TEMECULA OFFICE. EASEMENT Bedford Development Company, A California Corporation grants(s) to the City of Temecula an easement for public road and drainage purposes, including public utility and public services purposes, over, upon, across, and within the real property in the City of Temecula, State of California, described as follows: SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND MADE A PART HEREOF Dated: October 22, 1990 er B. B df 1 As bene under a deed of trust: Wells arAQ Ba k: e Pres STATE OF CALIFORNIA iss. Riverside I i COUNTY OF m ~ On - October _ 22., .1990 be fore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for u said State, personally appeared Peter B. Bedford personally known to me (or pro-wed to me on the E a c basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons who executed the within instrument as__._.__._ LL E President br)6L/-J/ /3Erfeja/y/on behalf of Bedford..... o Development.. Company. A V c the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that OFFICIAL SEAL . n SHAWNA H. WEAVER such corporationexecutedthewithin instrument pursuant toits Notary Public • C21"Onfio l by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. RIVERSIDE COUNTY m My COfnrti stif f. . 26.1993 Oct WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~ ~ ~ L I U~ Signatures = ~^✓_X-~C.c ~.k- _ t-'- 1 ' (This area for official notarial seal) EXHIBIT "A" DEDICATION - JEFFERSON AVENUE ("NEW ALIGNMENT" A strip of land 100.00 (one hundred) feet wide for right-of-way purposes to be known as the "New Alignment" of Jefferson Avenue over that portion of the Murrieta Reservation of the Temecula Rancho as shown by Map of Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 at page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California, described as follows: Commencing at the centerline intersection of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue) and Winchester Road (formerly Banana Street) as shown by Record of Survey on file in Book 58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of Survey, Records of Riverside County, California; THENCE North 37 ° 40' 46" West along the centerline of said Jefferson Avenue, 1070.00 feet; THENCE South 52° 19' 14" West, at right angles to the centerline of said Jefferson Avenue, a distance of 30.00 feet to the Southwesterly right-of-way line of said Jefferson Avenue, as shown by said Record of Survey, said point being the true point of beginning of the parcel of land to be described; THENCE North 37° 40' 46" West along said Southwesterly right- of-way line of said Jefferson Avenue a distance of 597.18 feet; THENCE North 48° 39' 30" West a distance of 1429.67 feet to a point in the Southeasterly right-of-way line of Cherry Street as shown on said map recorded in Book 8 of Maps at page 359, records of San Diego County, Califoria; THENCE South 48° O1' 07" West along said right-of-way line a distance of 119.98 feet; THENCE South 41° 58' 53" East, at right angles to said Southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 9.00 feet; THENCE South 88° 57' 00" East a distance of 31.25 feet; THENCE South 48° 39' 30" East a distance of 1653.12 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the. Southwest, having a radius of 1750.00 feet; THENCE through a central angle of 10° 58' 4411, an arc length of 335.33 feet; THENCE South 37° 40' 46" East a distance of 7.01 feet; THENCE North 52° 19' 14" East, at right angles to the centerline of said Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue), a distance of 20.00 feet to the true point of SHEET 1 OF 3 beginning. Contains 3.974 acres more or less. See Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. ~a P ~r.I-A ND o -Tj 1 L&30-92 S. 3777 tYP C AV SHEET 2 OF 3 \ S. 48 ' 0/' D 7 "W. 178' M.,•r, r:r~Str'tR "f*''a ~~ERR~ S~~E✓ EXHIBIT. B DEDICATION OO ti z ''~l c. 1;5 ~P ✓ X \ 'p . ti un '19c IV ti t~ Cs, U NN \ ✓ ZOO' 400' i i i \i .7041,r11AtESTERY elAl L/,f/E s°~ U \ JEFFERSGN/ ASE." w~~ \\o -1 (FORAIERCY GA,PF/Elo A!/E.✓~W Q p 0, u~~ s37°4o'¢vE poi' X015 G -STA. ' WEBB, HAWKINS & ASSOCIATES CPA~~~1 c a vc 1ENGNEERG . L.ervo OURVGYORN ESt~ 0 28481 Rancho Csllforrva Rood • 84its 109' 'Z 0 Rancho Cwllfomlu, CsPfornle 92380 • (7141876-2443 C I T Y ' OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ~o,'P`rLH W ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 0 cl PRwwT: NEW AUG mwr ✓6wRsav AUE Pw_ _ J_S SCALE s _ ?00' ~l S. 3717 ' JJ z0. 6-30 92 r DATE I MAY /990 CSI FOF C A Y X.O. NO.1 /OGB APPROVEn BY: DATE: SHEEP 3 or 3 W I ~ W 51 ~I rH3 , 1"'w I I' ill AA!a 1 1 97 3a 1 All ■.70 I iY 191 .i 11~d ~i~ Iito, ! , ,I ,rte ,/1ff I w - p. i` I Ili, 1 ci cfl o m u 0 Q ° Q , ~ -j a a 1 N J Z W U ~ CC LLJ d e Ir Q > W U O > _ H Q Z T W t-' Yti/ H - :i~nv ~ 'swvuv + Fri ~ I~i ~ I\, ~I~II' rw ^r ~\a ~'H , M yl~l I 11 /~l • r . g 5! i lit r ! . ~ , ~ I EQv a A, ~~i N O 1 4 1- I rl , I~ a li FBI o 1 j-- V y el 3» h Jo o I ~ J Y W 'm, o I III I I. I ~ . ~ •jll N . I a 1• ; N It, 171 ILI LU } 'I ;t I C 1 1 d i ©I H I r P.M. 2 3 sco I- 2 VAC GRADED VAC. O ~D 'D '9 INDUS T. PAAIM 115 vm AC. PROJECT o GRADED SITE _ Z z 72.8AC■ ` VAC. CovN \ G~ 1Q ♦~a iii ~j I J VAC. VAC. 'f 'VAC. VAC. • ANC VINITY MAP I~ FFlrF P~ 5~ G~~ f VAC. : Fr ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY, fiJ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Engineering Department DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Summary Vacation of Jefferson Avenue PREPARED BY: Robert Righetti RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 90- vacating that portion of Jefferson Avenue lying northerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek between Sanborn Avenue and the previously vacated extension of Cherry Street. DISCUSSION: The Summary Vacation of Jefferson Avenue between Sanborn Avenue and Cherry Street is a condition of approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23561-2. The applicant for this Parcel Map, Bedford Properties has requested that the City vacate the portion of the existing road easement that runs across their property. In place of the existing road easement, the applicant has dedicated a strip of land 100 feet in width to line up with the previously dedicated alignment of Jefferson Avenue as shown on Parcel Map No. 20490. This realignment of Jefferson will create a straighter corridor than the curvilinear one now existing. The Streets and Highways Code provides that a City may proceed with a summary vacation if the City Council finds that "the easement has been superseded by relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement." (Section 8333) Staff has reviewed this case and has found that it conforms to the conditions for a summary vacation. Any utilities which may have been located in the existing alignment have been relocated to the new one. On December 3, 1990, the City Planning Commission adopted Resolution 90- , finding that this vacation is consistent with the General Plan currently in being developed by the City, and there is no likelihood of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the vacation ultimately is found to be inconsistent with the Plan the City adopts. STAFFRPT\ENG-002 FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 90- vacating that portion of Jefferson Avenue lying northerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek between Sanborn Avenue and Cherry Street. RR:ks Attachments: 1. Resolution 90-- 2. Exhibit "A" 3. Exhibit "B; "G" 4IV 4. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23561 5. Vicinity Map STAFFRPT\ENG-002 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, VACATING A STREET EASEMENT WHEREAS, Streets and Highway Code Section 8330 et. seq. provides for a method by which City streets may be summarily vacated; and WHEREAS, Streets and Highway Code Section 8333 provides that the City Council may summarily vacate a street easement if the easement has been superseded by relocation and there are not other public facilities located within the easement and said circumstances apply to the easement in the present case; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds as follows: (a) The City is presently the owner of a street easement lying within that portion of the Murrieta Reservation of the Temecula Rancho as shown by Map of Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 at page 359 of maps, records of San Diego County, California. This easement is more particularly described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; (b) Said easement is no longer necessary because the street has been relocated; and (c) Vacating the street easement will be consistent with the General Plan the City is presently developing, and there is no likelihood of substantial detriment to the General Plan the City is presently developing if vacating the easement is inconsistent with the General Plan the City adopts. SECTION 2. The easement described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby vacated and from and after the date this Resolution is recorded the easement allowing for a desilting basin shall not longer constitute an easement or right-of-way of the City of Temecula and shall revert back to the developer. STAFFRPT\ENG-002 -1- SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 1990. RON PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1990 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE GREEK CITY CLERK STAFFRPT\ENG-002 -2- APPROVED EXHIBIT "A" 11-7-90 K VACATION OF A PORTION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE PARCEL 1 A strip of land 60.00 (sixty) feet wide known as Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue) over that portion of the Murrieta Reservation of the Temecula Rancho as shown by Map of Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 at page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California, described as follows: Commencing at the centerline intersection of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue) and Winchester Road (formerly Banana Street) as shown by Record of Survey on file in Book 58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of Survey, Records of Riverside County, California; THENCE North 37° 40' 46" West on the centerline of said Jefferson Avenue a distance of 1512.54 feet to a point in the Northeasterly right-of-way line of the "New Alignment" of Jefferson Avenue, said point being the true point of beginning of the parcel of land to be described; THENCE North 48° 39' 30" West along said Northeasterly right- of-way line of the "New Alignment", a distance of 157.52 feet to a point of intersection of said 'Northeasterly right-of-way line and the Southwesterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue); THENCE North 37° 40' 46" West along said Southwesterly right- of-way line and the Northwesterly prolongation thereof, a distance of 1454.07 feet to a point in the centerline of Cherry Street (vacated) and also being on the Southeasterly line of Lot 81 as shown by said Record of Survey on file in said Book 58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of Survey, Records of Riverside County, California; THENCE North 48° 01' 07" East along said centerline and said Southeasterly line a distance of 60.17 feet to a point of intersection of said centerline of Cherry Street and the prolongation of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue); THENCE South 37° 40' 46" East along said Northeasterly right- of-way line a distance of 1631.44 feet to the most Westerly corner of Lot 8 as shown by Parcel Map No. 23561-1 on file in Book 157, pages 44 through 46 of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, said point also being in the Southeasterly right-of-way line of Sanborn Avenue; THENCE South 41° 20' 30" West parallel with the centerline of said Sanborn Avenue a distance of 2.98 feet; THENCE South 03° 39' 30" East a distance of 32.53 feet to a point in the Northeasterly right-of-way line of said Jefferson Avenue "New Alignment"; THENCE North 48' 39' 30" West, continuing along said "New Alignment" right-of-way line, a distance of 46.60 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 2.185 Acres more or less. See Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. PARCEL 2 That portion of the Northeasterly corner of the Murrieta Reservation of the Temecula Rancho as shown by the Map of Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 at page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California, and as shown by Records of Survey on file in Book 58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of Survey, Records of Riverside County, California, described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue) and Cherry Street (vacated) as shown on said Record of Survey; THENCE South 48° 01' 07" West along the centerline of said Cherry Street a distance of 30.09 feet to a point in the Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue), said point being the true point of beginning of the parcel to be described; THENCE South 37° 40' 46" East along said prolongation and Southwesterly right-of-way line a distance of 335.75 feet to a point of cusp with a curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 256.50 feet; THENCE Northwesterly through a central angle of 56° 30' 3011, an arc length of 252.97 feet, the initial radial line bears North 52° 19' 14" East; THENCE South 85' 48' 44" West a distance of 135.24 feet to a point in the Southwesterly right-of-way line of said Cherry Street, said point being 30.00 feet Southeasterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of said Cherry Street; THENCE South 48° 01' 07" West along said right-of-way line and parallel with said centerline a distance of 44.66 feet to a point in the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue "New Alignment"; THENCE North 48° 39' 30" West along said Northeasterly right- of-way line a distance of 30.20 feet to a point in the centerline of said Cherry Street; THENCE North 48' O1' 07" East along said centerline a distance of 278.81 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 0.696 acres more or less. See Exhibit "C", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. PARCEL 3 That portion of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue) being a part of the Murrieta Reservation of the Temecula Rancho as shown by Map of Temecula Land and Water Company on file in Book 8 at page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California, described as follows; Commencing at the centerline intersection of Jefferson Avenue (formerly Garfield Avenue) and Winchester Road (formerly Banana Street) as shown by Record of Survey on file in Book 58, pages 75 through 83 of Records of Survey, Records of Riverside County, California; THENCE North 37' 40' 46" West along the centerline of said Jefferson Avenue a distance of 1512.54 feet to a point in the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue "New Alignment"; THENCE South 48' 39' 30" East along said Northeasterly right- of-way line a distance of 46.60 feet to the true point of beginning of the parcel to be described; THENCE North 03' 39' 30" West a distance of 32.53 feet to a point 50.00 feet Southeasterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Sanborn Avenue, as shown on Parcel Map No. 23561-1, on file in Book 157, pages 44 through 46 of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, California; THENCE North 41' 20' 30" East parallel with the centerline of said Sanborn Avenue a distance of 2.98 feet to the most Westerly corner of Parcel 8 of said Parcel Map No. 23561-1; THENCE South 37' 40' 46" East along the Southwesterly line of said Parcel 8 a distance of 146.01 feet to a point of intersection of said Southwesterly line and the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue "New Alignment", said point being a point of cusp with a curve concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 1850.00 feet; _ THENCE through a central angle of 02' 32' 47" Northwesterly along said Northeasterly right-of-way line of Jefferson Avenue "New Alignment", an arc length of 82.22 feet, the initial radial line bears North 43' 53' 17" East; THENCE North 48° 39' 30" West, continuing along said Northeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 38.15 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 0.035 acres more or less. See Exhibit "D", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 1 I Exo~6 _ . J2 ~EXHIBIT "6" VACATION ER/ N. 987 E. GO. 17' PARCEL I - 13%, w Iz- ,n ~J - X/ A R/46'39'30!. /57,521' T,PUE PA'Nr Of BEG/,LINING / ~ \ v~ ~V 1961' 3'1 '307f/ 4b. b0' \ \ o\ F ✓EFfEPSO~V A4E \ ~ ~ \ / ~.1~``' GARf/ELD AliE J f j~\\ ~p j CON MIA117 65 14 C. t \ WEBB, HAWKINS & ASSOCIATES C7-'X, Er' i ERG • LAND OLS"YOFb l7" t Q 28481 Rancho CeNforrwe Flood • Butts 109 Flencho Cs%fomin, Cellfor Ne 92380 • (1141 e7e-2443 / 4~~aC hO C IT Y OF TEMECULA , CALIFORNIA ROAD AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT S. PROJECT : E,('/STG(/G uf1F6A0S0A1 91E- etfC'A7FD PREPARED BY SCALE: Y~ 1; 7717 DATE: &Wr 2./990 0 5 10 7 W.O. NO.: /OGB APROVED BY: SHEET S OF 7 DATE: 1 I I r~ N48'J9'J0'&1 54 ?0 ' c,W;wyX , Sr,PEET I $0' t~ I I~ I` R 011 1 t~ I~ I? I I I j i (1~ I L ~ I I X31 /6d CHERRY STREET C f/lICA7E0) 278.8/' o ~ T.P.D B. PARCEL 2 50 ' Q i V s'sr. \ \ ~ I ~ 1 1 ~s c. V ~I 3 I 0 A C, I N CR. ~ I zo ~Q LLB 50 30' I T I \il ~\l 0, 21 .J 1 fJEFFERfOA/AY! I rn T--- f ¢9'0/'07 Al I 30.09 , M I .~a 3D•1 1~ \ I \ I ~ I-- ~y I I J ,f QII o~ I QII ~I E3 I JIJ 1 J EXHIBIT "C 11 WEBB, HAWKINS 6 ASSOCIATES w awv..w eeee. ,i.~+o c.nv,.s •a..e • e.,e. +oe CM ft O W300 • 17141 076- 443 . Li l ti VACATION PARCEL 2 C I T Y OF TEMECULA., CALIFORNIA ROAD AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT PROJECT: J(ffFeg,%#.4W.lllef/7e& PREPARED BY I S. SCALE I / r a BO DATE I NAY. P, /VfO W. 0. NO. I /OGP APROVED 9Y1 SHEET ~p OF 7 nATC' , 50' 50' 30' .50 IVESTERLY COR )TI. B n I ~a o~ g I _ 4(-q IS 117 E t- a O lli ~R. J I I v I ^I ' Z" ~o 1.0 EXHIBIT VACATION o'l PARCEL 3 o D- ,9' SO' X00' \ ~ -L-L, W1NC11E5TER FORAILet Y ROAO ~GARFIRD A B /A/T. ✓FFFEPSOV Af/E. ~ R.tIER~YeTA gNA~gV6 C I T Y OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA ROAD AND SURVEY DEPARTMENT I PROJECT : IV A[/GNNE~V7" L1br1F,QS'Od1 A!/E" PREPARED BY i S. I\ SCALE: ~,rA 10 DATE ti1,gY, 1990 z CA 1W.O. NO., /0&8 APROVED BY: SHEET 7 OF 7 DATE: _ I ~ co LO O U w ~ 2 n d' , 0. oil, 1 Z 7 1114 o o J a < c N J z W U cc Q a Q mJ 0 O Q > W ~ o H Q Z T w t- r It h 1 `Y1 M~ G 3(1N3~~V`~ Hv ! 3nv i ssWvov d CO.~ o 13 LI':t I g 177i' Y11111 f ! r~rr I ~V1' I~i~~~,' I:. Q g' \ o I r$ E B V a p f iy I~ I N/YW~✓~ Ij ~ ~ I :~t h ~ ! SaAS/~ 1, `tom N1 I ~0 N1~1 r.l r n ' _ j , S I ~6 W E r ~ 1~ 1~ - ~ I a did 41 41 -gu v I~11~ ~til ~r ~ `11~~1 mY~1~•~~'y((~~ m ~ .y~ I 1 l ll!!11 L'i I 1.4 f- y ~ I I , del : ~ ~ I J:q 1 1 I 1 I .I -a I•r i~ 4. Ilk r \ _ rv N fla V1N1TY MAP P.M. 235Co1 - 2 ITEM NO. 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER /1 , CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Engineering Department DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Final Parcel Map No. 23561-2 PREPARED BY: Robert Righetti RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Final Parcel Map No. 23561- 2, subject to the Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Parcel Map No. 23561 was originally submitted to Riverside County Planning Department on March 9, 1988. The Tentative Parcel Map was approved by the Board of Supervisors October 24, 1988. Riverside County Planning Department approved the Unit Two Phasing for the project on January 26, 1990. Although an application for time extension was submitted by the applicant, the map was submitted to the City Engineer for recordation prior to its expiration date. Parcel Map No. 23561-1 was approved for recordation by the Board of Supervisors on June 13, 1989. This project contains 23 industrial lots on 35.47 gross acres. The property is located westerly of 1-15, south of Date Street, and north of Santa Gertrudis Creek. The developer is Bedford Properties. The following fees are required for the development of this project: Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee: (Deferred) $ 62, 072.50 Area Drainage Fees: (Deferred) 36, 285.81 STAFFRPT\PM23561.-2 1 The following bonds have been posted for this project: Faithful Performance Streets $ 842,000 Water 142,000 Sewer 173,000 Survey Monuments $ 10,500.00 Traffic Signal 62,072.50 FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined. Labor and Materials $ 384,500 67,000 86,500 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Parcel Map No. 23561-2 per the Conditions of Approval. RR:ks Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Parcel Map 23561 3. Vicinity Map 4. Fees and Securities Report STAFFRPT\PM23561.-2 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: PM *Z S.%l -2 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Condition of Approval Condition No. NL)NF Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition No. NONE Condition No. 9 Condition No. 9 I rF-,n 15 0r- RD X49 t IETTF~e. Condition No. (`LONE Condition No. 12- Condition No. ( Forms/Ping-M9 JC:rs W 10-14-88 FORM 11A 1121!7) SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS or COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CAUFORNIA V 1 ~ FROM: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTALDATE: October 18, 1988 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23561, CORRECTED AMD. #1 - KAISER DEVELOPMENT CO. - First Supervisorial District - Murrieta Area - 72.6 Acres - 43 Lots - Schedule E - M-SC Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: RECEIVE AND FILE the above referenced case acted on by the Planning Commission on September 28, 1988. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32703 based on the findings incorporated in the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23561, CORRECTED AMD. #1 subject to the attached conditions and based on the findings and conclusions incor- porated in the Planning Commission minutes dated September 28, 1988. > Roger tree er, P anm ng Director On motion of Supervisor Younglove, seconded by Supervisor Abraham and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above report of approval is received and filed as recommended. Ayes: Abraham, Dunlap, Ceniceros, Younglove and Larson Noes: None Gerald A. aloney Absent: None le f e Board Date: October 25, 1988 xc: Planning, Land Use, Applicant puty Prev. Agn. ref. Depts. Comments Dist. AGENDA t 110 18 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA o • FROM: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL DATE: October 18, 1988 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23561, CORRECTED AMD. #1 - KAISER DEVELOPMENT CO. - First Supervisorial District - Murrieta Area - 72.6 Acres - 43 Lots - Schedule E - M-SC Zoning RECOMMENDED MOTION: RECEIVE AND FILE the above referenced case acted on by the Planning Commission on September 28, 1988. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVED OCT 2 2 1988 ADOPTED the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32703 ased on the findings incorporated in the environmental assessment and the conclusion that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 140. 23561, CORRECTED AMD. #1 subject to the attached conditions and based on the findings and conclusions incor- porated in the Planning Commission minutes dated September 28, 1988. Roger tree er, P anning Director JC:rs ,$10-14-88 r Prev. Agn. ref. Depts. Comments Dist. AGENDA NO. FORM 11 A (121!21 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 (AGENDA ITEM 3-4 - REEL 1002, SIDE 1 - TAPE 2, SIDE 2) PARCEL MAP 23561 CORRECTED AMENDED NO. 1 - EA 32703 - Kaiser Development Company - Murrieta Area - First Supervisorial District - westerly of I-15, south of Date St and north of Santa Gertrudis Creek - 43 lots - 68.991 acres - Schedule E The hearing was opened at 12:01 p.m. and closed at 12:12 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 32703 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23561 Corrected Amended Map No. 1 subject to the proposed conditions, amended by the deletion of Condition 29. The subject site was located within the industrial park land use designation, Planning Area H of the Rancho Villages Policy Plan. Surrounding land uses included a horse ranch, vacant properties, and established industrial and commercial uses. Staff felt the proposal would be consistent with the intent of the Rancho Villages Policy Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. Chris Hofer, representing the applicant, questioned Conditions 5 and 6 of the July 20, 1988 letter from the Transportation Planning section of the Road Department. Condition 5 required them to establish a mechanism for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of Date Street and I-15 and to participate in the funding; the applicant was willing to participate but was concerned about being delayed in his development because of this require- ment. Condition 6 required them to initiate a general plan amendment for the realignment of Jefferson Avenue; since they were only taking the "S" turn out of the road, Mr. Hofer could see no need for the general plan amendment. Mr. Hofer requested that Parcel 15 be deleted from Road Department Condition 28 (Road Department letter dated August 3, 1988. When Mr.Hofer showed the location of this lot on the exhibit map, Mr. Lee Johnson agreed to this request. John Johnson (Road Department Transportation Planning Division) advised Condition 5 was a standard condition used to obtain funding for road improvements needed for the regional system. The Road Department was trying to obtain an interchange at Date Street and I-15, and was requesting that the mechanism be established prior to the issuance of building permits. They felt the properties in this area could not be serviced properly without that connection. The Road Department therefore felt the mechanism for funding this intersection should be in place prior to the issuance of building permits. There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 12:10 p.m. Commissioner Bresson stated he would support the Road Department's position, as he felt the applicant's request would only cause problems. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The applicant proposes to subdivide 72.6 acres into 43 industrial lots; the project site is presently vacant; surrounding land uses include a horse ranch, vacant properties, and established industrial and commercial uses; the property is zoned M-SC; surrounding zoning includes A-1-20, A-1-10, R- R, I-P, C-1/C-P, C-P-S and M-SC; the subject site is within 18 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 the industrial park land use designation within Planning Area H of the Rancho Villages Policy Plan; and all environmental concerns will be mitigated at the development stage through compliance with the conditions of approval. The proposed project is consistent with surrounding land uses and zoning; consistent with the intent of the Rancho Villages Policy Plan and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; is consistent with the applicable provisions of Ordinances 348 and 460; and will not have a significant effect upon the environment since all potential impacts will be mitigated at the development stage. MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative declaration for EA 32703 and approved Tentative Parcel Map 23561, Corrected Amended Map No. 1, subject to the proposed conditions, amended as follows, and based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommendations of staff. Delete Planning Department Condition 29. Delete Parcel 15 from Road Department Condition 28 (Their letter dated August 3, 1988) 19 Zoning Area: Murrieta First Supervisorial District E.A. Number: 32703 Regional Team No. 1 RIVERSIDE OMKff PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT q 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer/Rep.: 3. Type of Request: 4. Location: 5. Existing Zoning: 6. Surrounding Zoning: 7. Site Characteristics: 8. Area Characteristics: 9. Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: 11. Agency Recommendations: 12. Letters: 13. Sphere of Influence: ANALYSIS: Project Description INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23561 CORRECTED ANENDED NO. 1 Planning Commission: 9-28-88 Agenda Item No. 3-4 Kaiser Development Company Webb, Hawkins and Associates To divide 72.6 acres into 43 lots. Westerly of I-15, South of Date Street and North of Santa Gertrudis Creek. M-S C A-1-10, A-1-20, R-R, I-P, C-1/C-P, C-P-S, and M-SC. Vacant Commercial, Office, Industrial Park, Horse Ranch, and vacant parcels. Land Use: Rancho Villages Total Acreage: 72.6 Total Lots: 43 Proposed Min. Lot Size: 0.9 See letters dated: Road: 8-03-88 Health: 5-05-88 Flood: 5-04-88 Fire: 5-03-88 Bldg. b Safety: 5-27-88 Grading: 5-05-88 5-31-88 County Transportation Ping.: 7-20-88 CALTRANS: 4-19-88 EMWD: 4-12-88 Rancho Ca. Water Dist.: 6-04-88 San Bernardino Museum: 7-01-88 Opposing/Supporting: None received Not within a City Sphere The applicant is proposing to develop an industrial subdivision of 72.6 acres into 43 parcels ranging in size from 0.9 acres gross to 2.2 acres gross. INDUSTRIAL PARCEL NAP NO. 23561 CORRECTED AMENDED NO. 1 Staff Report Page 2 The project site is located westerly of Interstate 15, South of Date Street and North of Santa Gertrudis Creek within the Murrieta zoning District. This subject Tentative Parcel Map No. 23561 is a Schedule "E" subdivision and represents a re-subdivision of parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 19581. Tentative Parcel Map No. 19581 was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on June 11, 1985 for a subdivision of 88 acres into 5 lots. Tentative Parcel Map No. 19581 has not been recorded. Surrounding Land Use/Zoning The subject site is presently vacant. Land uses to the north and east of the subject site are predominately vacant properties. To the west of the subject site is a industrial park and a horse ranch. Immediately south of the subject site are predominately commercial land uses. Surrounding zoning includes a variety of zoning designations including various commercial, manufacturing, industrial and agricultural zones. The existing pattern of zoning in the area indicates a transition from predominately agricultural uses towards manufacturing and commercial uses. General Plan Consistency/Compatibility The project site falls within the Rancho Villages Policy Plan of the County Comprehensive General Plan. More specifically, the subject site falls within Planning Area "H" of the Rancho Villages Policy Plan - Planning Area "H" is designated for a combination of industrial and commercial land uses. The area within Tentative Parcel Map No. 23561 is designated for industrial park land uses. The Rancho Villages Policy Plan implements the goals and objectives of the Riverside County General Plan, projects found consistent with the intent of the Rancho Village Plan are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan. Since this Tentative Parcel Map is found consistent with the Rancho Village Policy Plan, it is therefore consistent with the General Plan. Environmental Analysis The initial study conducted for Environmental Assessment No. 32703 has identified the following environmental concerns: traffic, liquefaction, flooding, Stephens Kangaroo Rat, and lighting. Nevertheless, specific mitigation measures of these concerns will be implemented through the conditions of approval at the development stage. INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23561 CORRECTED AHMED NO. 1 Staff Report Page 3 FINDINGS: 1. The applicant proposes to subdivide 72.6 acres into 43 industrial lots. 2. The project site is presently vacant. Surrounding land uses include, a horse ranch, vacant properties, and established industrial and commercial uses. 3. The property is zoned M-SC. Surrounding zoning includes A-1-20, A-1-10, R-R, I-P, C-1/C-P, C-P-S, and M-SC. 4. The subject site falls within Planning Area "H" of the Rancho Village Policy Plan. 5. The subject site is within the industrial park land use designation within Planning Area "H" of the Rancho Villages Policy Plan. 6. All environmental concerns will be mitigated at the development stage through compliance with the conditions of approval. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding land uses and zoning. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Rancho Villages Policy Plan and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable provision of Ordinance No. 348 and Ordinance No. 460. 4. The proposed project will not have a significant effect upon the environment since all potential impacts will be mitigated at the development stage. RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32703 based on the conclusions that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and, APPROVAL of TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP 00. 23561, CORRECTED AMENDED NAP NO. 1, subject to the conditions of approval and based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in this staff report. JC:sc 9/14/88 OA~ROBD , / \ VAC. • • . vac. GRADED • soy D 15 c GRAD u~ J INDUST• PARK . ~ CpvN :.e Ac• . VAC. . VAC. G~ 7a ~ ~~5 VAC. VAC. VAC.; C JR. • p VAC. ` 0t. cnuu App. KAISER DEVELOPMENT CO. LOCATIONAL YAP Use ,s Area MURK ETA Sup.Dist. lst sirE Sec. T.T Sjt3 W. Assessor's Bk. 910 Pg. 20 Circulation JEFFERSON AVE. MAJOR 100' Ebffwnt t B FREEWAY VARIABLE Rd W Aj. WC mats, 8/26 /88 Drawn By j c w /SRS AN ! 800" R AAER1SM COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO SCALE rm e-j%)Ul rmvruQtu LVvwi%j ~ loo~ I-P 1 R-R , M-SC i t • • o .of I-P 15 J $ S :'r:•iti•:.• M Y N~lY : •A'•• Wtsc • :.iii. 1 11-P R R ~4, U-sc o ice'. R-I AN, App. KAISER DEVEU"ENT CO. LOCATIONAL MAP Usel ' Area MURRIETA sw Id sire Sec. T.TSjL3M1 Assessor's W 940 Pig. 20 f CkcUlation JEFFERSON AVE. MANOR wo' Ehwnw t s FFEEWAlY 1pf"A0LE Rd. W Fb.55C Ord G26/G Drawn ;By ijow ~c• 0 - goo, NVER&W C0411M11'1r 'PLANNING (DEPARTMENT NO SCALE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPART11ENT CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23561, CORRECTED AMENDED NAP NO. 1 `3~. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside its agents, officers, or employees to attach. set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Industrial Parcel Map No. 23561. Corrected Amended Map No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in California Government Code Section 66499.31. 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 parcel map shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E unless modified by the conditions listed below. This approved tentative parcel map will expire two years after the Board of Supervisors approval date unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The final map shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor subject to all the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Act, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance 460. All road easements shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the governing body accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the County Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to approval of the Road Commissioner. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication shall provide for nonexclusive public road and utility access. All easements, offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Riverside County Surveyor. Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the parcel map boundary to a County maintained road. All delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23561 CORRECTED AMENDED MAP NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 2 ePrior to any grading, a Grading Plan in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457, shall be submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the County Road Department's letter dated-B-0.3-B& 9-28-88, copy of which is attached. (Amended at Planning Commission 9-28-88) ,10. The subdivider shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated 5-05-88, a copy of which is attached. 11. The subdivider shall comply witt outlined in the Riverside County 5-04-88, a copy of which is attachec adopted flood control drainage area County Land Division Ordinance 460, of area drainage facilities shall prior to recordation of the final ma the flood control recommendations Flood Control District's letter dated If the land division lies within an pursuant to Section 10.25 of Riverside appropriate fees for the construction be collected by the Road Commissioner p row waiver of parcel map. ,12. The subdivider shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined in the County Fire Department's letter dated 5-03-88, a copy of which is attached. ,13. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Land Use Section's transmittal dated 5-27-88, a copy of which is attached. 44. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Building and Safety Department: Grading Section's transmittals dated 5-05-88 and 5-31-889 copies of which are attached. k15'. All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations dated 4-19-88, a copy of which is attached. 16. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Road Planning Division - Transportation Planning Section transmittal dated 4-24-N 10-12-88, a copy of which is attached Amended at Planning Commission 9-28-88) ,11. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the California Department of Transportation transmittal dated 4-19-88, a copy of which is attached. INDUSTRIAL PARCEL Nib NO. 23561 CORRECTED AMENDED MP NO. 1 Conditions of Approral Page 3 18. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated 4-21-88, a copy of which is attached. J9: The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated 6-04-88, a copy of which is attached. '26. The subdivider shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the San Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated 7-01-88, a copy of which is attached. GRADING: 21. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the land divider 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. 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, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 22. Grading plans shall conform to the following criteria: a. The applicant and/or developer shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of all planting and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibility of other parties. b. Angular forms shall discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain. c. Graded slopes shall be oriented to minimize visual impacts to surrounding areas. d. The overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in concert with the existing natural contours and scale of the natural terrain of a particular site. e. The toes and tops of all 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 slope where drainage and stability permit such rounding. INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP NO. 23561 CORRECTED AMENDED MAP NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page .4 f. Cut or fill slopes exceeding one hundred feet in horizontal length, shall be graded to meander the toe and top of the slope. g. Natural feature shall be protected to the greatest extent feasible in the siting of individual lots and building pads. h. Building shall be located a minimum of ten feet from the toes and tops of all slopes over eight feet in vertical height. i. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and planted with interim landscaping. X23. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the M-SC zone. '-24. All lot length to width ratios shall be in conformance with Section 3.8C of Ordinance 460. ,25. Corner lots shall be provided with additional area pursuant to Section 3.8B of Ordinance 460. 26. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in this subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461. ,27. 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. 28. Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety to acoustical study shall be performed by an acoustical engineer to establish appropriate mitigation measures that shall be applied to individual buildings within the parcel map to reduce ambient interior noise levels to 45 Ldn. 39. Rr4er-te-the-reeerdat4on-of-the-f4ma4-map;-the-4and-d4v4der-sha44-reta4fl-a gualtf4ed-btoleg4st-te-smbmtt-a-B4e}eg4sal-Resouree-M4t;gat4on-P4an-to-the- Plann4ng-Department-€er-approval.--The-plan-sha44-be-sever-the-eflt4re-area- of-Pareel•-Map-33664T-6errested-Ameflded-Map--Nov--4i*--and--sha44--reeemmend mit4gat3en---measures ---necessary--te--m4n4m4ae--tae--4ess--ef--b4e4egieaa ressurees. (Deleted by Planning Commission on 9-28-88) INDUSTRIAL. PARCEL MAP NO. 23561 CORRECTED AMENDED MAP NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 5 PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL NAP X30. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the following condition(s) shall be complied with: a. A copy of the Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT SHEET CONDITIONS An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the Office of the County Surveyor. Prior to the recordation of the final map, a copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. a. "County Geological Report No. 516 was prepared for this property on 7-12-88 by Schaefer Dixon Assoc. and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department." Specific items of concern in the report shall be noted on the Environmental Constraints Sheet. ~32'. 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. X33. The developer shall incorporate all mitigation measures relating to paleontological, biological, and geological impacts into the design of all applicable development plans including grading, building and landscaping as necessary. JC:sc 9/14/88 sv..• J~ <,4 ,~•y~ OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR ~~It RIVERSIA .,I , September 28, 1988 Aa9a9t-3s4988 LeRoy D. Smoot COUNTY AOMINI/TIIATIVt CtNTCPI MAILING ♦000t«I •.O. MOi 10.0 ROAD COMMISSIONER COUNTY SURVEYOR AI V tl1810C. CALI ROAN, ♦ ,7,07 • TtItRNON[ 47141 161•6864 Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Parcel Map 23561 - Amend #1 Schedule E - Team 1 Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88 Ladies and Gentlemen: With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map, the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with Ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., 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. HHERE oCr1t1988 RIVERSIUt COU14TY nLANNING DEPARTMENT Parcel Map 23561 - Amend #1 Adgdst-JI-4988 September 28, 1988 Page 2, Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88 3. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. ,,4-.--"Adams Avenue and lot "A" (between Date Street 6 Adams Avenue) Including offsite right of way shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101, (16'/100'). \,5. Date Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101, (381/501). 6. Lot "A" (sly of Adams Avenue), lot "B" and lot "C" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 111, Section A. (561/781). 7. The landdivider will provide a left turn lane on Jefferson Avenue ' at the intersection with Adams Avenue b lot "C" as approved by the Road Department. The landdivider shall comply with the Caltrans recommendations as outlined in their letter dated April 19, 1988 (a copy of which is attached), prior to the recordation of the final map. ,9. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho Calif. Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. 10. A copy of the final map shall be submitted to Caltrans, District 08, Post Office Box 231, San Bernardino, California 92403; Attention: Project Development for review and approval prior to recordation. 11. The minimum centerline radii shall be 500' or as approved by the Road Department. x.12. Jefferson Avenue shall be improved with concrete curb and gutter located 38 feet from centerline and match up asphalt concrete paving; reconstruction; or resurfacing of existing paving as determined by the Road Commissioner within a 50 foot half width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101. Vf. All driveways shall conform to the applicable Riverside County Standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans. Parcel Map 23561 - Amend #1 kr9ast-3r-i988 September 28, 1988 Page 3 Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88 14. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). 15. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $1,750 per gross acre 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. 14 16. 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. \117. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. ,18. Asphaltic emulsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than fourteen days following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall be applied at a rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard. Asphalt emulsion shall conform to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State Standard Specifications. ,19.' Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. X20: Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. \,2f. Lot access shall be restricted on Jefferson Avenue and Dale Street and so noted on the final map with the exception of 40' openings at the northerly boundary of parcel 16 between parcels 20 and 21, a 40' opening centered in parcel 30 and a 40' opening at the northerly boundary of parcel 31 all as approved by the Road Commissioner. ,22: 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. 23." All centerline intersections shall be at 90° with a minimum 50' • tangent measured from flow line. 240 J The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with PM 235949 PM 204909 PP 103709 PP 10202 and PM 19582. Parcel Map 23561 August-3v-1988- Page 4 - Amend #1 September 28, 1988 Amended by Planning Commission 9-28-88 25. 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. 26-~ All private and public entrances and/or Intersections opposite this ~J project shall be coordinated.with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. 21. A striping plan is required for Date Street and Jefferson Avenue. The removal of the existing striping shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Traffic signing and striping shall be done by County forces with all incurred costs borne by the applicant. X28. Prior to recordation of any phase which encompasses any portion of parcels 4-6, 19, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, 31, 34 and 35 (encumbered by existing maintained Jefferson Avenue) the new Jefferson Avenue alignment must be fully improved and accepted into the maintained system. Only then, may the applicant apply for the termination of maintenance and the vacation of existing Jefferson Avenue. Prior to recordation of the final map, or any phase thereof, the developer shall participate in the reconstruction and widening of the Jefferson Avenue Bridge (58136). The developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department the sum of.;1,300 per gross acre for parcels 1, 2, 3 4, 39, 40, 41 and 42-for its proportionate. Very truly yours, Gus Hughes Road Division Engineer GH:lh .*Deleted by Planning Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY r`te` ~ jT 7 FIRE DEPARTMENT ' IN COOPERATION WITH THE 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RAY HEBRARD ~a w FIRE CHIEF L~ Planning & Engineering Office 5-3-88 4060 Lemon Street, Suite 11 Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 7874606 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: TEAM I RE: P14 23561 - AMENDED /1 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognozed fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION 1. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 5000 GPM and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 2500 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. 2. Approved super fire hydrants, (V xVW-2~") shall be located at each street . intersection and spaced not more than 165 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 330 feet from a fire hydrant. 3. The applicant/developer shall provide written certification from the appro- priate water company that the required fire hydrants are either existing or that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 4. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, loc- ation and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 5. The required water system including fire hydrant shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any conbustible building material being placed on an individual lot. All questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff. v l George Tatum, Fire Department Planner J hw 11 'COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SAL t AON[R, Y.O,Y.PB OAIECTOR 0/ Ml AL1N aPOni P aas31 1LY N.A. PENf01Al MTAl1N 6[AIVQG aY. FANNING R.f E A. OEPVIT PN1CS. dYr HEALTH EMVwOMMCNIAL HEALTH GENV=s M.C. HOTS V Y., Y.►M. OENVIT WCVIC N 07 NEALIN 6/lCML KOVCE6 E. R. COT" Y.3. K PUTT OINK 1011 a HEALTH AOMINIGTNAI ON A SA7P01TT GEAVQG STEALTH 61907909 BAMMO 1015 RAMSET STREET BANNING, CA 62220 AE ORTH BROADWAY HE. CA 92225 CASA BLANCA 7240 MARGUERITA RIVERSIDE. CA 02604 CORONA 505 SOUTH BUENA VISTA CORONA. CA 51720 "BEET 960 NORTH STATE $T. HEMET. CA 02341 M01e 49.206 OASIS STREET SHOW. CA :2301 LAME SLSISIONE 30165 $MASER OR. LAKE ELSINORE. CA. 92330 VALE BPRIROS 3255 TA"OU ITZ-4CCALLM4 PALM SPRINGS. CA 02262 Panels 237 NORTH 'D' STREET PERRIS. CA 03370 n1VERBlss 1520 LINDEN STREET RIVERSIDE. CA. 92601 e00160ss 6666 MISSION BLVD. RIVERSIDE. CA 041509 May 5, 1988 II TM STREET MALL (POST OFFICE SOX 13701 - It IVERSIOE, CA. Yt60! RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 Attn: John Chiu RE; Parcel Map 23561; Being portions of Lots 110, 111, 112, 113 8 1145 of the Map of the Temecula Land and Water Company as shown by map on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County California, lying within Rancho Temecula. (4 3 Lo t s) Ca ~~-•d / . Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 23561 and recommends that: A water system shall be installed according to plans and specification as approved by the water company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the original drawing to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location of 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. R901r t0 : Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Two Attn: John Chiu May 5. 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 Parcel Map 23561 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 parcel. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such parcel at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. lhg ins must be submitted to the County_Suryeyor_s_Office _to_review at least _tw_ow_eeks_prior_to_the_reguest_for_the_ recordation_of_the_final_map. This Department has a statement from the Rancho California Water District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for the financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of 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 nanholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall. be signed by a registered engineer and the sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in Parcel Map 23561 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed parcel." i r Riverside County Planning Dept. Page Three ATTN : John Chi u May 5, 1988 The_plans_must_be_submitted _to_the_County_Suryeyor_s_Office _to_review_at least _two_weeks_prior_to_the_reguest_for_the recordation_of_the_final _map. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be made prior to the recordation of the final map. It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. Sincerely, ~S S arti ez, S Marian Environmental Health Services SM:tac KENNETH L. EDWARD! CHIEF ENGINEER RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 412X02 May 4, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attention: Regional Team No. 1 John Chiu 1414141 MARKET STREET P. O. Sox 1OSs TELEPNONR (714) 7417•1018 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Parcel Map 23561 Amended Map No. 1 Reference is made to tentative Parcel Map 23561, located in Santa Gertrudis Valley along the southwesterly side of Interstate 15, on the northwest side of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Our review indicates that the topography of the site consists of rolling hills and natural watercourses which traverse the site. Three of these watercourses are relatively substantial in nature. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has mapped and published the flood plain of the largest of these, Santa Gertrudis creek, for flood insurance purposes. Some of the south portion of this property is within this flood plain. The applicant has proposed to subdivide the property into small lots ranging from 0.9 acres to 2.2 acres in size for commercial/ industrial purposes. It is necessary that a number of substan- tial improvements be constructed for development to such a densi- ty. These include the construction of an improved channel for Santa Gertrudis Creek which will provide full containment of the 100 year storm flows throughout the project site. A new bridge for Jefferson Avenue which would span the new channel should also be provided. In addition, the applicant has proposed to inter- cept all flows from the two major watercourses located westerly of Santa Gertrudis Creek as they cross the freeway. From this point, the water would be conveyed southeasterly along the free- way and discharged into Santa Gertrudis Creek. Following are the District's recommendations: 1. This parcel map is located within the limits of the Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set forth under the provi- sions of the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plans", amended February 16, 1988: Riverside County -2- May 4, 1988 Planning Department Re: Parcel Map 23561 Amended Map No. 1 as 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 b. 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 Building Director at the time of issuance of a grad- ing permit or building permit for each approved par- cel, whichever may be first obtained after the recording of the subdivision final map or parcel map; provided however, this option to defer the fees may not be exercised for any parcel where grading or structures have been initiated on the parcel within the prior 3 year period, or permits for either ac- tivity have been issued on that parcel which remain active. /2. Prior to initiation of the final construction drawings for those facilities required to be built as part of the Murrieta Creek/Santa Gertrudis Valley Area Drainage Plan, the developer should contact the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to ascertain the terms and conditions of design, construction, inspection, transfer of rights of way, project credit in lieu of fees and reimbursement schedules which may apply. Title re- ports and title insurance must be provided for all right of way to be transferred to the District. The developer should note that if the estimated cost for required area drainage plan facilities exceeds the required drainage fees and the developer wishes to receive credit for reim- bursement in excess of his fees, the facilities will be constructed as a public works contract. Scheduling for construction of these facilities will be at the discre- tion of the District. 3. The reach of the Santa Gertrudis Creek between Interstate 15 and Jefferson Avenue should be constructed according to the Murrieta Creek Master Drainage Plan. The 100 year flow rate in this reach of the Santa Gertrudis Creek is estimated as 11,300 cfs. The new channel should tie in with the existing bridge section of Interstate 15. 4. A new bridge for Jefferson Avenue which would span the new channel should be constructed with 100 year storm flow capacity. Riverside County -3- May 4, 1988 Planning Department Re: Parcel Map 23561 Amended Map No. 1 5. Where flows are collected or conveyed offsite, or where offsite construction is required for these purposes, re- corded drainage easements should be secured from the af- fected property owners. Hydraulic calculations should be submitted for District review which show that no adverse impacts are occurring upstream of the freeway bridge as a result of the channel improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek. Any adverse impacts identified should be either mitigated or appropriate easements should be obtained. Copies of these easements should be submitted to the District prior to the recordation of the final map. 6. If the improvements required with this parcel map are constructed prior to the adjacent downstream tentative map (Parcel Map 19582) with its associated improvements, additional work will be required to safely discharge the Santa Gertrudis Creek flows from the improved channel. At the downstream limit of this parcel map, the proposed alignment for the new channel is approximately 150 feet east of the existing streambed. As a result, a temporary channel will be required on Parcel Map 19582 to convey these flows back to the existing streambed. '7. Drainage facilities located outside of road right of way should be located along lot lines, where possible, and be within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, "Drainage ease- ments shall be kept clear of buildings and obstructions". Appropriate drainage facilities should be provided to safely collect, convey and discharge the 100 year tribu- tary flows from the two major watercourses located west- erly of Santa Gertrudis Creek. A recorded easement should be obtained from the affected downstream property / owner for the increased flows in Santa Gertrudis Creek. -g. Lots abutting the Santa Gertrudis Creek should be at least 1 foot above the 100 year water surface elevation in the creek. X10. Concrete brow ditches and terrace drains should be in- stalled on all major cut and fill slopes to provide prop- er erosion protection. .11. Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent deposition of debris onto downstream properties or drainage facilities. Riverside County -4- May 4, 1988 Planning Department Re: Parcel Map 23561 Amended Map No. 1 ,12. 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. 3. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final Questions concerning this matter may be referred to Robert Chiang of this office at 714/787-2333. 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. Very truly yours, cc: Webb, Hawkins & Associates KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer iA~W w ~4$ JOHN H. KASHUBA Senior Civil Engineer RC:pln 8.0- 1.1' co~NrY Tepahtment olTuOding and Safety RIVERSIDLt':; County Administrative Center • 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor • Riverside, California 92501-3661 May 27, 1988 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: John Chiu County Administrative Center Riverside, CA 92501 RE: Parcel Map 23561 ANEti C L'D Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off- site signage advertising the sale of the parcel map pursuant to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. Very truly yours, Thomas H. Ingram, Director DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY By: NormahY A. ostbom, Deputy Dire or Land se Division Building Inspection (714) 787-6480 9 Administration (714) 787.2020 Land Use Enforcement (714) 767-4079 • Engineering Plan Service (714) 787.2011 COUNTY nF R 1 VFRS I DE Department of Bui ldirig and Safety TO: Planning - MOM: Grading Section RE: & ,a-A in ~ .0 f-- p~-, 2 3 s 6 / DATE: S-5 2 INITIAL: 71Y Plea-.,e make the following a concli Lion of approval: a. Prior to commencing any grading exceeding 5E cubic yards, the owner of that property shall obtain a grading permit from the Department of Building and Safety Prior to. approval of Lhir, use/Subdivision a grading l')er m i t and approval of the rouyh grading sha 11 be ob La i ned from the Building and Safety Depar- Lment . Prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner Thal1 obtain a Urading permit and approval to construct from the Building and Safety Department. rL)n--: Lrue t i ng of material permit. a road, where greater than 50 cubic yard: is placed or moved, requires a grading r I , • TO: / M Z -S FROM: C."-A RE: ~9tr+`er1i, d DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE O'o PA-7 2 3 SLI DATE : 5, 5A9 G INITIAL: i The following 'X ' marked comments pertain to this project. 1. Refer to the attached standard vesting tract comments. 2. The information submitted is too vague for specific comment. _ _3. Please refer to departmental forms 284-469 284-21, 284- )(.-4. 86, b 284-120 when preparing a grading plan. _ In order to permit your grading plan, the following items will be needed. a. Obtain grading plan review. b. Provide 3 copies of Preliminary Soils Report C. Provide 1 copy of each of the hydrology - hydraulic review, standard improvement plan, and d. Provide clearances from the following department. _ __Planning _Flood Control ___Road Department e. Provide copy of Planning Department conditions of approval for the approved or tentative approved case. f. Provide an erosion control plan prepared by licensed landscape architect. __X-5. Provide a conceptual grading plan. _____6. Observe slope setbacks from permit areas and/or structures per section 7012 and figure 29-1 of the Uniform Building Code as modified by Ordinance 457. _____7. Driveway grades shall be 15iC or less. When obtaining a plan review permit, submit 5 copies of grading plan to Building and Safety for distribution and plan review. _____9. Show street and pad elevations. Insure that a 1% grade can be maintained from back of pad to street. 101. Design V-ditches at top of slopes to handle the 01001 year storm flow. Provide (1) one copy of the hydrologic/hydraulic talc's and drawings. _____12. Provide recorded drainage easements for the proposed lot to lot drainage. __X_13. Show the (210 and (2100 flows at the inlet and outlet to all properties and at all drainage structure inlets and outlets. -)(_14. Provide building footprints on lots. 15. This property is located in the Rancho California Potential Subsidence area. Per Board Resolution 88-61, additional geotechnical information is required. _____16. Including the asphaltic concrete, base material, and earth moved this project will exceed 50 cubic yards. Therefore, a grading permit is required. _____17. Design each lot to drain separately. Do riot use comma n swales. Projects having an imbalance between the cut arid '-fill shall specify the location of their import or export. _____19. ReFer to form 284-120 for additional comments. 20. Show slopes, including terraces, to scale. 21. Proposed off-site grading will require written notarized permission from the affected property owner. _ _22. No obstruction or diversion of natural water courses 14 - shall be permitted. _ _23. Provide topography beyond permit area, especially where adjacent property is developed or being developed. _24. Slope height may affect adjacent properties. 25. On flag lots show the location, grade, cut fills to scale that will be required to construct the drive way/access. ~a~.n-~sr o~ R~igers~t~e ror Planning - John Chiu >naT31 r May 31, 1988 FROMr - - 74 F, Abe R ICS 41-PM 23561 and Amendments The conceptual grading plan is adequate. Please make the following a condition of approval: "Prior to commencing any grading exceeding 50 cubic yards, the owner of that property shall obtain a grading permit from the Department of Building and Safety." Thank you. ?H. F7RN4 4. 3 0, t f • . + • :uva.Noc counry PLAnninc i mcpAnmrcn: DATE: March 9, 1988 TO: Assessor Building and Safety ~E Surveyor - Dave Duda APR 2 01988 Road Department R VC' Health - Ralph Luchs RIVc,~G' _ ,"-,(_Ivry ' e'VED Fire Protection P~ANPJ!!VG DEPARTMENT APR ~ 9 Flood Control District 1988 Fish 6 Game PA1pMAR LAFCO, S Paisley OBSFR':~TORY U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson UCR Archo Unit Rancho Calif. Water Eastern Municipal Water Southern Calif. Edison Southern Calif. Gas Dept. of Trans. #8 Temecula Union Elsinore Union Elisnore Union High Mt Palomar Calif. Native Plant Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Commissioner Bresson PARCEL MAP 23561/CHANGE OF ZONE 5224 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32703 - Kaiser Development Company - Webb,Hawkins 6 Associates - Murrieta Area - First Supervisorial District - Westerly of I-15, South of Date Street - 68.99 acres - 43 lots - M-SC Zone - Schedule E - REQUEST Change Zone from M-SC to C-P-S - Mod 119 - A.P. 910-200-005.,007,008-058 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for May 5, 1988. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. • Tour comments and recommendations are requested prior to April 21, 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 John Chiu at 787-1363 Planner COMMENTS: DATE: APR 19 Im SIGNATURE Observatory 105.24 is Institute of Technology California 91125 PLEASE print name and title 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (714) 787-6181 rat o1 1d9.a777 CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR PALOMAR OBSERVATORY 10!•34 Although the proposed project is more than 30 miles from Palomar Observatory, we request that any outdoor lighting conform to the following guidelines which are formulated to minimize the adverse effects of light pollution: 1. Use the minimum amount of light needed for the task. 2. Orient and shield light to prevent direct upward illumination. 3. Turn off lights at 11:00 p.m. (or earlier) unless, in commercial applications, the associated business is open past that time, in which case the lights should be turned off at.closing. 4. Use low-pressure sodium lamps for roadways, walkways, equipment yards, parking lots, security and other similar applications. These lights need not be turned off at 11:00 p.m. Adoption of these guidelines will help preserve the conditions needed for the continuation of research at Palomar Observatory. For further informa- tion, please call (818) 356-4035. Robert J. Brucato Assistant Director PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 01125 TELEPHONE lots) 2$6.4;SS TELEX 675425 CALTECH PSD COUNTY RIVEisurt LeRoy D. Smoot ROAD COMMISSIONER L COUNTY SURVEYOR COUNTY AWAIN10T11ATIVE CENTER YAILIN{ A0011<R01 t+.0. Solt 1000 AIVE11010E. CALIFORNIA 02002 TI ILPHON9 47141 107•0004 July e0, 1988 Revised - October 12, 1988 TO: Roger Streeter, Planning Director ATTNt John Chiu, Team No. 1 RE: Parcel Map No. 23561 The Road Department has reviewed the above referenced proposal. We generally concur with the analysis relative to traffic and circulation. Based upon our review of this proposal, the Road Department recommends the following conditions of approval. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All road improvements within the project boundaries shall be constructed to ultimate County Standards in accordance with Ordinance No. 460 and 461 as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions for the Specific Plan, subject to approval by the Road Commissioner. 2. The project proponent shall participate in the Traffic Signal Mitigation Program as approved by the Board of Supervisors. 3. 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 mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. 4. Right-of-way shall be dedicated for Date Street to provide for an Arterial Highway (110' R/W), and constructed to an interim half width fronting on the project boundary. The Road Department is currently proposing a Comprehensive General Plan Amendment (No. 117) which would add Date Street to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUNTY SURVEYOR ROAD PLANNING DIVISION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SECTION Roger Streeter, Planning Director July 20, 1988 Revised - October 129 1988 Page 2 5. The project proponent shall, prior to obtaining building permits, establish a mechanism for the construction of an interchange at the intersection of Date Street and Interstate 159 and participate in the funding of said construction at a fair share level as approved oy the Road Commissioner. 6. The project proponent shall initiate a Comprehensive General Plan Amendment for the realignment of Jefferson Avenue, to be processed through the Planning and Road Departments. Sincerely, _,1_ John Johnson Associate Planner JJ:Ig cc: Lee Johnson Subdivision File E L09 E ~ W E OUT 13 1988 RIVErioiur_ UUUN T Y ,!_.ANNING DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION ANO HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN. Go~rno DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT B, P.O. Box 231 a SAN BERNARDINO, CA 97102 TOO (711) 383.1609 April 19, 1988 Development Review 08-Riv-15-6.62/7.35 Your Reference: TPM 23561 CZ 5224 Planning Department r=' r' Attention Mr. John Chiu +.%uG County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street ~•L; Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Mr. Chiu: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Change of Zone 5224 and Tentative Parcel Map 23561 located adjacent to the westerly side of I-15 between Date Street and Santa Gertrudis Creek in Rancho California. Please refer to the attached material on which our comments have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items noted under additional comments. If any work is necessary within the state highway right of way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Patrick M. Connally at (714) 383-4384. Very truly yours, * ~VT5 H. N. LEWANDOWSKI District Permits Engineer Att. cc: Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FORM ✓ S _~?5 o Rte em) our eference~ - WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE: Although the traffic generated by this proposal dAnot 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 should be provided prior to or with development of the area that necessitates them. It appears that the drainage generated by this proposal could have a significant effect on the state highway system of the area. Any measures necessary to mitigate the drainage impacts should be included with the development. This portion of state highway is included in the California Master Plan of State Highways Eligible for Official Scenic Highway Designation, and in the future your agency may wish to have this route officially designated as a state scenic highway. This portion of state highway has been officially designated as a sate scenic highway, and development in this corridor should be compatible with the scenic highway concept. It is recognized that there is considerable public concern about noise levels adjacent to heavily traveled highways. Land development, in order to be compatible with this concern, may require special noise attenuation measures. Development of property should include any necessary noise attenuation. WE RECOMMEND: 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 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. standard wheelchair ramp must be provided in the returns. A positive vehicular barrier along the property frontage be provided to limit physical access to the state highway. Vehicular access not be developed directly to the state highway. Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by existing public road connections. Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by standard driveways. Vehicular access shall not be provided within of the intersection at Vehicular access to the state highway be provided by a road-type connection. Form B-PD19 (Rev. 5/8T) (Continued on reverse) 020/8/eg astern MunicipalWaterDistrict Gewwd Maorm D. Jens UUsh in Chwf Ewrr- and Depurr G~ W M-r- Jame H. 9unri Jr. Lew CM4M Redwwr ud ShemU Dire tr o/ TXF MeneomM- 611.r1 AW111 r of SauArm C.u/- Doyle F. goer April 21, 1988 ' !.,':NY 4 1988 Riverside County Planning Department RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor PLANNING DEPARTMENT Riverside, California 92501 SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP 23561/ZONE CHANGE 5224 aavd olD+mmm John M. Cowures. President Richey C. Kelkv. Vtce President Wm. G. Aldndle Chore C. Gilbert Roder D. Siena SNSeOf Large C. Konen rnttra,e. Rosen M. Coe The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project(s) relative to the provision of water and sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: Is not within EMWD's: 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. X Will be required to construct the following facilities; J z 6- D~ CIrA , a.) Water Service All onsite and any offsite water mains, regulators, pumping plants, storage tanks, and appurtenant facilities and works. All mains and facilities are to be regionally sized. Participation in Regional Water Facilities and Fees must be met. Water mains will not be allowed along lot lines/private lands. Fire flow requirements and backflow prevention requirements must be met. b.) Sewer Service Any and'all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite grav ty 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 participation in regional sewers, treatment and effluent disposal must be met. Only wastes acceptable to EMWD regulations will be allowed. ` A , - 24550 San.Jaeinto Strut + Pop. OMce Box $50 • Mmrtet. California 92343 9 Teleohone (714) 925.7676 (ID Rw4k water June 4, 1988 Board of Directors: Richard D. Steffey Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 President Subject: Water Availability James A. Darby Sr. Vice President Reference: Parcel Map 23561 Change of Zone 5224 Ralph Daily Doug Kulberg Gentlemen: Jon A. Lundin Please be advised that the above-referenced Jeffrey L. Minkler property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, T. C. Rowe would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Officers: Stan T. Mills Water availability would be contingent upon the General Manager property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to kCWD. Phillip L. Forbes Director of Finance - If RCWD can be of further service to you, please 7}easurer contact this office. Norman L. Thomas Director of Engineering Very truly yours, Thomas R. McAliester Director of Operations RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT & Maintenance Barbara J. Reed Director of Administration . District Secretary Senga P. Doherty Legal an and Counsel 'flicker Engineering Services Representative Legal F012 R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C T 28061 DIAZ ROAD • POST OFFICE BOX 174 • TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 0 (714) 676.4101 • FAX (714) 676.061 BERNARDINO COUNTY MUSE U M y~ CGENE ALSEvI B AEN( ~ VICES AG "n24 Orange Tree Lane • Redlands. CA 92374 DR. ALLAN D. GRIESEMEf 41792-1334 • 792-0052 • 825.4825 • 825-4823 Director July 1, 1988 Hawkins, Robertson and attn: Debbie Melvin 3764 Elizabeth Street Riverside, CA 92506 Dear Ms Melvin, Associates, Inc. 10) glay J U L O5 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT At your request, I have performed a review of Tentative Parcel Map 23561 relative to its potential to porudce paleontologic resources. Parcel 23561 consists of 77 acres bounded by Interstate 15 on the north, Jefferson on the south, Date on the west, and San Grutrudis Creek on the east, between Murietta and Temecula. A review of available geologic literature and site records in the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory at the San Bernardino County Museum indicates that the 77-acre parcel is located on the fossiliferous Pauba Formation and the fossiliferous Unnamed Sandstone within the Murrieta-Temecula area. The sedimentary formations are known to contain 68 paleontologic resource localities which have produced a minimum of 24 taxes of fossils including mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, antelope, rabbit, rodent, insectivores, birds, reptiles, and fish. Field inspection of the parcel took place on June 30, 1988. The site was inspected by foot traverses 50-m apart with intuitive deviations to inspect exposures created by grading and by erosion. Field inspection noted green and brown silty sandy siltstone and tan silty sandstones, consistent with the lithologies described in the literature for the Unnamed Sandstone and the Pauba Formation, and similar to exposures of these fossiliferous sediments elsewhere in the area. The field survey also located a fragment of fossil limb from a large artiodactyl in exposures on the site. The presence of vertebrate fossils reinforces the need for mitigation of impacts to nonrenewable paleontologic resources during construction-related excavation. I recommend that the following measures of mitigation be implemented: 1. On-site excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor to salvage fossils; 2. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification; 3. Identification and curation of specimens into the permanent collections of an established institution with retrievable storage; 4. Preparation of a report of findings and significance, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens. If I can offer any further information or assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert E. Reynolds Curator, Earth Sciences RER/jr . RivF.RjDE counn! manninc iDEPaREnEnz DATE: March 9. 1988 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish & Game LAPCO, S Paisley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. UCR Archo Unit Rancho Calif. Water Eastern Municipal Water Southern Calif. Edison Southern Calif. Gas Dept. of Trans. !8 Temecula Union Elsinore Union Eliinore Union Nigh Mt Palomar Calif. Native Plant Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Commissioner Bresson APR 2 0 1088 PLAN I~Pti:vu G iiT~! z i T Davidson IN ARU APR 181988 PARCEL MAP 23561/CRANGE OF ZONE 5224 - (Tai1) - E.A. 32703 - Kaiser Development Company - Webb,flawkins & Associates - Murrieta Area - First Supervisorial District - Westerly of 1-15, South of Date Street - 68.99 acres - 43 lots - M-SC Zone - Schedule E - REQUEST Change Zone from M-SC to C-P-S - Hod 119 - A.P. 910-200-005.,007,008-058 please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for May 5, 1988. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Tour comments and recommendations are requested prior to April 21. 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 John Chiu at 787-1363 Planner COIrII WS: col-} aJ ~esau.~c a~ sc~~u kas o,~r b- -n - -~.,•S -prD,pef' EASTERN INFORMATION CENTER Archaeolapical Research Unit { Univerellty of California DATE: ( SiGNATIRE Alversidq CA 92521 { PLEASE print name and title 4080 LEMON STREET. 9m FLOOR 46.209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (714) 787.6181 (619) 342-8277 ~r c .E :IVERYDC COUniv ?Lanninc DE?WiEnEnr July 26, 1988 Schaefer Dixon Associates 2168 South Hathaway Street Santa Ana, California 92105 Attention: Mr. Paul Davis Mr. James J. Weaver SUBJECT: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Liquefaction Hazard Job 80-245 Parcel Map No. 23561 County Geologic Report No. 516 Rancho California Area Gentlemen: We have reviewed your report entitled "Geotechnical Investigation, A Portion of North Jefferson Business Park (Phase 4), P.M. No. 23561 (Formerly P.M. 19581-1), Rancho California, CA," dated June 1, 1988, and your revised report dated July 12, 1988. Your report determined that: 1. The faults encountered in trenches along the western part of the property are considered to be intra-Pauba (Pleistocene age) displacements and are considered to be inactive, in accordance with criteria of the California State Division of Mines and Geology. 2. The 100-year probable earthquake affecting the site resulting from an event on the Whittier-Elsinore (Wlldomar) fault is expected to be 6.0 magnitude, with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.35g. 3. The likelihood of liquefaction related ground movement during a Magnitude 6.5 event is considered to be low. The liquefaction potential is considered to be very low for site soils considering Magnitude 6.0 design earthquake. 4. The potential for seismic settlement and differential compaction is considered very low. 5. The potential for landsliding is considered to be very remote. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR 46.209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (714) 787-6181 (619) 342-8277 Schaefer Dixon Associates - 2 - July 26, 1988 6. The potential for earthquake induced flooding, tsunamis and seiches is considered to be very low. 7. The potential for sympathetic fault movement on the zone of inactive faults encountered in the trenches, as a result of seismic event on the nearby Wildomar fault, is considered to be low. 8. The potential for lurching and lateral spreads in the areas adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek may exist at the southeasterly property boundary. Your report recommended: 1. No setback zone for human occupancy structures is recommended within the boundaries of the subject property. 2. The potential for liquefaction-related ground movement on the site should be mitigated by the placement of engineered fill within low lying areas during site grading. 3. The potential for lurching and lateral spreads in areas adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek should be mitigated by channelization of the stream and use of standard building setbacks. 4. The exploratory trench backfill should be considered during future site development. The trench locations were determined by the project engineer. It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner and satisfies the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the associated Riverside County Ord. 547, and the additional information requested under the California Environmental Quality Act review. Final approval of the report is hereby given. We recommend that the following note be placed on the Final Map prior to its recordation: Schaefer Dixon Associates - 3 - July 26, 1988 'County Geologic Report No. 516 was prepared for this property on July 12, 1988 by Schaefer Dixon Associates, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. The specific items of concern are inactive faults, liquefaction, lateral spreads, and uncompacted trench backfill. Very truly yours, Jteven A. K Engineering CEG-1205 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter - Planning Director e rmapr ologist SAK:rd c.c. Bedford Properties - Applicant Earl Hart - CDMG Roy Shlemon 8 Assoc. Norm Lostbom - Building b Safety (2) John Chiu - Team 1 OuNry . Tepahtment olTuOdtng and Safety RIVERSID..County Administrative Center * 4080 Lemon Street, 2nd Floor Riverside, California 92501.3661 May 5, 1988 RECEIVED MAY 0 7 WA Mr. Joe McGee Webb, Hawkins and Associates 28481 Rancho California Road Suite 106 Rancho California, CA 92390 (714) 676-2443 Re: Parcel Map 23561 Dear Mr. McGee, I have reviewed the above referenced parcel map with regard to Board Resolution 88- 61. Your project is not within the described Subsidence zone. Sincerely, 4W~l . • Eric A. Traboulay, Jr. Deputy Director-Engineering i JUL I aoti RIVERSIOL OOUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEN'T' BuNding Inspection (714) 787-6480 • Administration (714) 787-2020 Land Use Enforcement (714) 787.4079 • Engineering Plan Service (714) 787.2011 puczz 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Michael Brandman Associates Environmental Research ■ Planning and Processing ■ Resources Management August 15, 1988 Planning Department County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street, 9th floor Riverside, California 92501 Gentlemen: This letter is to verify that the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat study on Parcel Map 19581, Rancho California, Riverside County, California, performed by me when working for Friesen Biological Surveys, and reported on 9 April 1984, does cover the same land, and is applicable to Parcel Map 23561 dated March 1988, revised April 1988, and reported on a Road Connection Map dated 28 July 1988. If you have any questions or need any further information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Si ely, Richard Dean Friesen, Ph.D. Senior Ecologist RDF:ls Corporate: Cstnegle Centre, 2530 Red Hill Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 250-5555 Fax: 250-5556 Regional: 411 West 5th Street, Suite 1010, Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 622.4443 Fax: 228-8959 :tivsimE COUnry ?Unninc Dr:?.a:tznEnr DATE: March 9, 1988 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District Fish b Game LAFCO, S Paisley U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson UCR Archo Unit Rancho Calif. Water Eastern Municipal Water Southern Calif. Edison Southern Calif. Gas Dept. of Trans. #8 Temecule Union Elsinore Union Elisnore Union High Mt Palomar Calif. Native Plant Murrieta Chamber of Commerce Commissioner Bresson v~ APR 2 5 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PARCEL MAP 23561/CHANGE OF ZONE 5224 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32703 - Kaiser Development Company - Webb,Hawkins 6 Associates - Murrieta Area - First Supervisorial District - Westerly of I-15, South of Date Street - 68.99 acres - 43 lots - M-SC Zone - Schedule E - REQUEST Change Zone from M-SC to C-P-S - Mod 119 - A.P. 910-200-005.,007,008-058 Please review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for May 5, 1988. If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to April 21, 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 John Chiu at 787-1363 Planner COMMENTS: The Elsinore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing student population caused by new residential, commercial and industrial construction. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327. this district levies a fee against all new development projects within its boundaries. DATE: SIGNATURE PLEASE print name and title Joseph P. Enserro. Asst. Superintendent 4080 LEMON STREET, 9T" FLOOR 46.209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 171417A7--A1A1 1&4fm ewe_0 f177 ~ r e.retraaa r~/r/ •r • punnirp DroArLmEnr APPLICATION FOR LAND USEAND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF ZONE NO. O CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. V PARCEL MAP NO. O PLOT PLAN NO. DATE: March 15, 1988 O PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. O TRACT MAP NO. O TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. O VARIANCE NO. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS MALL NOT BE ACCEPTED. A. APPLICANT INFORMATION /n~r-+L..+b lG+ 1C+ APPR 8 1988 RIVERSIDE ODUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. AXOmfeName: Raiser Development Company Mailing Address: "I A_ RnY 755 Ranehn ral i forni s . rA g23gf1 Telephone No.: I 71A 1 676-5611 118 Lin, pma Z OwnsesName: Kaiser Development Company MaRkng Address: "I _ Rnr 755 Ranelia ra l i rni n . CA 023gn Telspho s Na: I 714 1 676.5641 (6 eRL-6 pny 1 Representative: Yahh- Hawkins and Asseriatat_ Mailing Address: _ 01 Ranehn ralifornia Read. Suite 10,b~Incho California. CA Telephone Na: TI 71A 1 01;-2113 (8 a.rn.-6 p.m.) NOTE :lf more than one person Is Involved In the ownership of the property being developed a @operate page must be attached to this application which Iist• the names and addresses of all persons having an Interest In the ownership of the property. B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. PurpaeofRequest (deserlbsproject). To change the existing zone from H. S.C. to C. P. S. on approximately 72.6 acres. The proposed change of zone is in the Rancho California area of Riverside Count, 2. Related oases filed In conjunction with this request: C. PROPERTY INFORMATION Parcel Map 23561 (submitted concurrently) 1. AsseeWs Parcel No(e), 910-200-005. 910-200-007. 910-200-008. 910-200-058 2. General location (street address. etaa Westerly of I-15. Southerly of Date Street. Northerly of Winchester Road 3. The project is located in the Rancho Temecula 9. Section Township L AMOX11eate Oroee Aeleage: 72.6. Range S. Legal deualplloe bin exact legal deseAptlon as recorded In the Offl" of tin County Recorder} Maybe attached. (attached) SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE Aultha t lair MIa application Is hereby given: MONATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER0) Y pfivmx W A-tEA mae q, ar-er -o✓ -4-",owlet /l -rwa r,;- Ass-' vq&- /ff /JCr Qt K %~w. e. 7 Cs •.~I • sr 4080 LEMON STREET, r FLOOR 46.209 OASIS STREET, ROOM RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 82501.3657 INDIO.CALIFORNIA 92i (714) 787.8181 (619)342-a2 cAsr EJL N~.. _ 370 3 STAFF USE ONLY ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Please complete Parts 1 and II of this form and provide L of the additional materials requested In Part III. Failure to do so may delay the review and process of your project 11 you are unable to provide the information, or you need assistance, please Iasi free to contact the Planning Department at (714) 787.6415. PART 1: General Information 1. What is the Total Acreage involved? 72.6 Acres 2. Is there a previous application filed for the same site? YES 6 NO O If'Yes,' provide Case Number. Also provide the Environmental Assessment Number, If known, end Environmental Impact Report Number, If applicable. CASE NO. PM •1 Q;A1(C7 4077 (Parcel Map, Zone Change, etc) E,k NO. 11tom If Known), EIR NO. None (If applicable) 3 Additional comments you may wish to supply regarding your project (Attach an additional sheet If necessary.) PART It: Envlronmentat Questionnaire 1. Is the project within an Aiqulst•Prlolo Special Studies Zone? YES D NO IN To determine It your project Is located In a Special Studies Zone, contact the Public Information Section, or refer to the Special Study Zones Maps available at the Public Information Counter of the Planning Department If the project Is within a zone, refer to Ordinance 547.1, or discuss the situation with the Planning Department Geologist If a fault hazard report Is necessary, complete the Investigation prior to submitting your application and provide 8 copies of the report with this tons If a waiver of the requirements Is granted, submit a copy of the waiver with this form 2. Is the profecl located within a hazard management zone or liquifaction area as shown on maps of the 'Seismic Set" Ele- menl Technical Report'? YES O NOD To determine If your project Is subject to the geologic hazards noted above you should consult the'Seismic Safety& Safety Element Technical Reporr which Is available at the Public Information Counter of the Planning Department M the answer to question 02 is 'Yes,' contact the appropriate Geographic Planning Team Section to discuss appropriate measure to minimize the hazard Incorporate any mitigation measures Into the project design prior to submitting the applica- tion or indicate In the space provided below the results of your discussions with the Planning Team 3 If your project Is in the desert area, Is It within a blowsand hazard area? YES O NOD The Planning Offices In Indio and Riverside will provide you with Inlormalton concerning blowsand hazards You may also wish to contact the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. If your project la subject to blowsand hazards, submit a blowsand control plan with the application (Also refer to Section 14.1 of Ordinance 460, If your project Is a parcel map or subdivision). 4. Is water service available at the project site? YESb NOD If "No: how far must the water line(s) be extended to provide service? Number of feet or miles Further explanation: 8, IS newer service available at the 111111141? YES)93 NO 13 It' NW how for must the water "a) be extended to provide service? Number of feet or miles 1111, Additional Conownts: PART 111: Additional Mstuiale The follotelrtg hares must be submitted with this form: 1. At least three M panoramic photographs teolor prints) of the project alts, or an aerial photo of the site. It color photographs are utIVzad, Include a map Ident": a The posNlon from which each photograph was taken ti The area of coverage of oath photograph ' 2, A clear photosepy (Xerox or similar copy) of the appropriate portion of the U.S. Geological survey quadrangle map delim eating IM boundaries of the projectalle. Also note the title of the map. I tertUy that I have bwMigeled the questions in Parts I and If and the answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge Deborah L. Melvin. Project Coordinator NAME 9 TITLE PERSON COMPLETING M aI NATU A asp t 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Being portions of Lots 110, 111, 112, 113 b 114 of the Map of the Temecula Land and Water Company, as shown by Map on file in Book 8, Page 359 of Maps, Records of San Diego County, California. Lying within Rancho Temecula. iav-L114-W14 Hobie Rawlings Co. 9U9-Z81-U16 Bedford Properties 26820 Jefferson 27405 Ynez Road • Murrieta, CA 92362 Temecula, CA 92390 910-200-057 909-281-013 R.P. McAlister Bedford Properties 25725 Hayes 27405 Ynez Raod Murrieta, CA 92362 Temecula, CA 92390 910240-002 909-281-014 Hobie Rawlings Co. Bedford Properties 26820 Jefferson 27405 Ynez Road Murrieta, CA 92362 Temecula, CA 92390 910-200-070 909-281-015 Marlene b James Port Bedford Properties 4 N. Jib Street 27405 Properties Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Temecula, CA 92390 P10-200-$69 Marlene James Port 909-120-038 4 N. Jib Street Bedford Properties Marina Del Rey, Ca 90292 27405 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92390 910-200-063 Marlene b James Port 4 N. Jib Street Marina Del Rey, CA 92092 r- 910-200-064 Marlene 6 James Port 4 N. Jib Street Marina Del Rey, CA 92092 910-200-032 Stretch Partners P. 0. Box 686 Murrieta, CA 92362 910-200-036 James Cooksey 23191 Peralta Drive Laguna Hills, CA 92653 910-200-049 Harold Brown 5729 Madrid Lane Long Beach, CA 90802 910-200-048 Bob A Eleanor. Schostag 14621 Holt Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 L . OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE RIVERSIDEYCOUNTY PLANNING DEPJ[RTJNE Y COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER, NINTH FLOOR 4080 LEMON STREET RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the application(s) described below. The Planning Department has tentatively found that the proposed project(s) will have no significant environmental effect and has tentatively completed negative declaration(s). The Planning Commission will consider whether or not to adopt the negative declaration along with the proposed project at this hearing. Place of Hearing: Board Room, 14th Floor, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA Date of Hearing: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 The time of hearing is indicated with each application listed below. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Department before the hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the adoption of the negative declaration and/or approval of this project at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. The environmental finding along with the proposed project application may be viewed at the public information counter Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. PARCEL MAP 235619 E.A. 32703, is an application submitted by Kaiser Development Company for property located in the Murrieta Area and First Supervisorial District which proposes to divide 68.991 acres into 43 lots on property generally described as westerly of I-15, south of Date Street and north of Santa Gertrudis Creek. TIME OF HEARING: 10:00 a.m. RIV`.R.NiDE COUnLV nAnnlnc DEPAnmEnr ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA.) NUMBER: 3 270 3 MODULE NUMBER(s): 1 PROJECT CASE TYPE(s) AND NUMBERS(s): PM 2 35 W1 Ar1 n CZ ff 2?q APPLICANT'S NAME: KAI SEZ ~EVf i.OPMatJT` GOM✓ ?,r, f ! NAME OF PERSON(s) PREPARING EA.: 1 1. PROJECT INFORMATION A. DESCRIPTION (include proposed minimum lot size and uses as applicable): B. TOTAL PROJECT AREA: ACRES or SQUARE FEET C. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.(s): ' I C► " LOJ - } = q 10 - 2 O'.- 0 7 AND 10 'Z ~O - O 51;~ D. EXISTING ZONING: IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? E. PROPOSED ZONING: C P S IS THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? - F. STREET REFERENCES: W 1 =tz L',/ CE S- L) 50~J1 G. SECTION, TPWNSHIP, RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: . P9 5`:-1-;T10W L9,21,35-, 7DWr15I4,,P 75 R~► I~ 7~~ 3 W H. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS: It. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION Check the appropriate option(s) below and proceed accordingly. An or part of the project site is in "Adopted Speciflc Plans" "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Commun!!Y_ Policy Complete Sections III, IV (8 and C only), V and VI. ❑ All or part of the project site Is in "Areas Not Designated as Open Space". Complete Sections III, IV (A, B and D only), V and VI. ❑ All or part of the project site has an Open Space and Conservation designation other than those mentioned above. Complete Sections III, IV (A, 8, and E only), V and VI. 2W70 Pbw 12M7) I I 111. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT A. 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 Information 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) jg, Indicate with ayes (1) or no (N) whether any environmental hazard and/or resource Issues may significantly affect or be affected by the proposal. All referenced figures are contained in the Comprehensive General Plan. For any Issue marked yes (Y) write additional data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact and any mitigation measures under Section V. Also, where Indicated, circle the appropriate land use suitability or noise acceptability rating(s). (See definitions at bottom of this page). HAZARDS 1* 24 3.-..N-- 4~L 5 N 6 N 7.-S- f- 9--4- 10 11 Alqulst-Priolo Special Studies or County Fault Hazard Zones (Fig. VIA) NA PS U R (Fig. VI.3) Liquefaction Potential Zone (Fig. VIA) 131 r B NA S PS U R (Fig. Vi.4) Groundshaking Zone (Fig VIA) CL455 7~: NA S PS U R (Fig. VI.5) Slopes (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps) Landslide Risk Zone (Riv. Co. 800 Scale Seismic Maps or On-site Inspection) NA S PS U R (Fig. VIA) Rockfall Hazard (On-site Inspection) Expansive Soils (U.S.DA. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys) Erosion (U.S.DA Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys) Wind Ersosion 8 Blowsand (Fig. VIA, Ord. 460, Sea 14.2 b Oro. 484) Dam Inundation Area (Fig. VI.7) Floodplsins (Fig. VI.7) NA U R (Fig. V1.8) 112.14- Airport Noise (Fig. 11.18.5,11.18.11 8 VIA 2 81984 AICUZ Report, M.A.F.B.) NA A B C D (Fig, VIA 1) 13..'1 Railroad Noise (Fig. V1. 13 - VI. 16) NA A B C D (Fig, VIA 1) 14. Highway Noise (Fig. VIA 7 - V1.29) NA A B C D (Fig, VIA 1) 15. Other Noise ~~iI NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11) 16. 1- Project Generated Noise Affecting . Noise Sensitive Uses (Fig. VIA 1) 17.-4- Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VIA 1) 18. -14 Air Quality Impacts From Project 19.11- Project Sensitive to Air Quality 20. IL Water Quality Impacts From Project 21. _N_ Project Sensitive to Water Quality 22. IL Hazardous Materials and Wastes 23.-&- Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 - VI.31) 24. Other 25. Other RESOURCES 26 Agriculture (Fig. VI.34 - VI.35) I-IF 27 In or Now an Agricultural Preserve (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conversation Contract Maps) 28- Wildlife (Fig. VI.38 - V1.37) 29 Vegetation (Fig. VIM - VI.40) 30-9- Mineral Resources (Fig. VIA1 - VIA2) 31 + Energy Resources (Fig. VI.43 - VI.44) 32* Scenic Highways (Fig. V1.45) 33_~N Historic Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33) 34* Archaeological Resources (Fig. VI.32 - VI.33 8 VIA6 - VI.48) 35_~_ Paleontological Resources (Paleontological Resources Map) 36._ Other 37- Other Definitions for Land Use Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings NA - Not Applicable S - Generally Suitable PS - Provisionally Suitable U - Generally Unsuitable R - Reabi ted A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 395-70 iNsw 14fin 9 IV. LAND USE DETERMINATI(M A. Complete this part unless the protect Is located In "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas." 1. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP DESIGNATION($): 2. LAND USE PLANNING AREA 3. SUBAREA, IF ANY: 4. COMMUNITY POLICY AREA, IF ANY: 5. COMMUNITY PLAN, IF ANY: 6. COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION(S), IF ANY: 7. SUMMARY OF POLICIES AFFECTING PROPOSAL B. For all projects, Inidcate with ayes (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 Plan. For any issue marked yes (Y), write data sources, agencies consulted, findings of fact, and mitigation measures under Section V. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Circulation (Fig. IVA-IV.11. Discuss in Sec. V Existing, Planned 8 Required Roads) 2-h- Bike Trails (Fig. IV.12 - IVA 3) 3-1,-/ Water (Agency Letters) 4!= Sewer (Agency Letters) 5~ Fire Services (Fig. IVA 0 - IV18) a- Sheriff Services (Fig N.17 - N.18) Schools (Fig. N.17 - rv 9) 8-~- Solid waste (Fig. N.17 - N.18) 9-N Parks and Recreation (Fig. IV 18 - IV20) 10.~ Equestrian Trails (Fig. IV. 19 - IV.24/ Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps) I 11, Utilities (Fig. IV.25 - IV.26) 12.9 Libraries (Fig. IVA 7 - IV. 18) 13' - r ~ Health Services (Fig. IVA 7 - IVA 8) 14- Airports (Fig. 11.18.2 -11.18.4, 11.18.8 -11.18.10 3 IV.27 - IV.36) 15 f~ Disaster Preparedness 116-4 City Sphere of Influence 17* Other mr• C. If d or part of the project is located In "Adopted Specific Plans", "REMAP" or "Rancho Villages Community Policy Areas", review In detail the speoft pokles applying to the proposal, and complete the following: 1. State the relevant land use designation(s): ~EMP LQ. 4 Mcr .T- " L:FW T';': Fi W c'5~ - 1% Y6-?.tL 2. Based on this initial study, Is the proposal consistent with the policies and designations of the appropriate document, and therefore consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? If not, explain: zVG 2W70 PftW12M71 IV. LAND USE DETERMINATi(M (continued) D. If all or part of the project she is in "Areas not Designated as Open Space", and is not in a Community Plan, complete questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. Complete questions 4, 5, 6 and 7 If It Is in a Community Plan. 1. Land use ca%gory(les) necessary to support the proposed project. Also Indicate land use type (i.e. residential, commercial, etc.) 2. Current land use category(ies) for the site based on existing conditions. Also Indicate land use type (Le. residential, commercial, etc.) 3. If DA differs from D.2, will the difference be resolved at the development stage? Explain: 4. Community Plan designation(s): 5. Is the proposed project consistent with the policies and designations of the Community Plan? If not, explain: 6. Is the proposal compatible with existing and proposed surrounding land uses? If not, explain: 7. Based on this initial study, Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan? M not, reference by Section and Issue Number those Issues identifying inconsistencies: IE If all or part of the project alts is in an Open Space and Conservation designation, complete the following: 1. State the designaftX# 2. Is the proposal consistent with the designation(s)? If not, explain: 3. Based on this Initial study, Is the proposal consisent with the Comprehensive General Plan? M not, reference by Section and Issue Number those Issues Identifying Inconsistencies: 2W7D rwr 1 zwr A. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN BE COMPLETED: SECTION/ INFORMATION ISSUE NO. REQUIRED z ~~c.oG(caL 1f= ~iRr B 2 L10 (,uFAr nrJJ Fi- Pgf::T- B. 34 d810Lp~~ ~'C lTi,'tit )Ir2i tit DATE DATE ADEQUACY INFORMATION INFORMATION DETERMINATION REQUESTED RECEIVED (YES/N0,DATE) ? 2~! 7 T14? B. For each Issue marked yes (Y) under Sections III.B and 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 Impact report (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: 8 T~ l E 'PP 2E9:P Ty FR I-L-'S Inl f14 Tf-) tr L-f' T AIL 5.2 QQLUFACTroN 501 LS IXE5^C MON 5LOPA tZ' QtJ-OFr Gfi7~;~J ~r if. CntA 6iH-AJGQJiLL.E 0 foZto SLOW SUG'; fl G G ~IAh1fOPI D 2 to J;~/ 1 c, T;~ J~ A'Ino-rG ~ l T1 4 A HA FaPID - 0+.02-10 L!!W `)Ll;4_ 1! 71 PArvajA e 7, PA Pi E3 13 u.r-E,-~1 +4 2W70#*w 1?J57) 5 STEPHENS' KANGAROO RAT (Dipodows stephensi) CLASSIFICATION: State - Rare Federal - Not Listed DESCRIPTION: The Stephens' Kangaroo Rat is usually distinguished in the field from the very similar Pacific Kangaroo Rat by its characteristic tail markings, and in a prepared specimen by skull measurements. DISTRIBUTION: Historically, the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat vas found in the San Jacinto Valley of Riverside County, vith small populations in extreme southern San Bernardino Valley and northvestern San Diego County. Recent surveys have indicated that this species occurs in less than 20 isolated localities. Agricultural development and urbanization has destroyed much of the preferred.habitat of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, resulting in small, isolated populations vulnerable to total loss. RECOVERY EFFORT: Distribution and abundance of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat vas determined in 19T3 and 1974. An inventory of suitable habitat for Stephens' Kangaroo Rat vas conducted by the U. S. Bureau of Land Management in 1976. FUTURE MANAGEMENT: A preservation program for essential habitat thrqugh zoning, acquisition, or easement should be initiated. A comprehensive management plan for this species should be developed and implemented. Life history studies to determine the biology and habitat requirements should be conducted. A survey of apparently suitable habitat at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station - Fallbrook Annex, and March Air Force Base is scheduled for 1981. REFERENCES: Bleich, V. C. 19TT. Dipodomys stephensi. Ma-alian Species T3:1-3. Bleich, V. C., and 0. A. Schwartz. 1974. Western range extension of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi), a threatened species. Calif. Fish Game 60:208-210. Thomas, J. R. 1973. Stephens' kangaroo rat survey, 1972-73. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Spec. Wildl. Invest. Final Rep., W-54-R, II-5.6. 10 pp. 125 Appendix A. Copy of in At the Crossroads Endangered and Rare 1 of this report is sheet. Stephens' Kangaroo 1980: A Report on Fish and Wildlife. Rat status report California's The map in Figure taken from the reverse of the following 3 ~~2 33~~E Project Planner Turrini & Brink 1920 East 17th St., #200 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Subjects Rancho California Biological Assessment - Parcel Map 19581 Mr. Barry Burnell Dear Barry: Steve Nelson & Associates is happy to provide you with th lowing biological assessment of proposed development Parcel 19581. Its purpose is to' provide you and County sion-makers with an objective sions regarding the disposition derived. METHODOLOGY analysis from which sound of biological resources e fol- within deci- deci- can be The study began with a review of information sources relating to biological resources on the project site and surrounding area. Of greatest relevance to site specific resources was the biological assessment prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. for the Rancho Villages Policy Plan General Plan Amendment (August, 1980). That document is hereby incorporated by reference as background data. The area encompassing the study sites was then surveyed in the field during several visits to the area in March and April of 1984. EXISTING CONDITIONS. Based on the habitat and vegetation designations used by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, the site under study is covered by introduced grassland. These areas are the result of inten- sive grazing which has removed essentially all native plant species. These have been replaced by a cover of introduced grasses and herbs. Generally, plant species diversity is low and most species present are typical of roadside and other highly disturbed conditions. . In terms of significance, this vegetation is neither rare nor an important component of the California flora; nor are any sensitive plant species found within this vegetation. For more detailed information on this vegetation type, please refer to the previous report by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. Sandy washes traverse Parcel 19581. These areas are essentially devoid of vegetation. _I Due -to their altered conditions, large, open expanses of grassland typically support only a : limited abundance and diversity of wildlife. Based on previous study and field observations as part of this effort this is the case within each of the parcels. Several ground-nesting birds, burrowing mammals, and reptiles are present. These are inventoried in the previous study by Pacific Southwest Biological Services. Of note and special focus in this effort, was the potential presence of Stephen's kangaroo rat a state listed rare spe- cies. Extensive trapping surveys were carried out on Parcel 19581 by Dr. Richard Friesen, an authority on the species. The results of this survey (accompanying this report under separate cover) determined that Stephens kangaroo rat does not occur on Parcel 19581. IMPACTS In general, adverse impacts to biological resources can be ex- pected to occur as the result of several "causal" factors asso- ciated with the construction and long-term habitation/use of proposed land uses. The vegetation and wildlife described above comprise biotic communities which are assemblages of diverse groups of plant and animal species occurring in the same physi- cal habitat. These species are tied together in an orderly, predictable manner by a very close and complex set of interrela- tionships. As a consequence, first-order impacts resulting directly from causal factors will, in turn, result in second- order impacts which will, in turn, result in third-order im- pacts, and so on. Typically, the degree to which this chain- like reaction proceeds toward the complete breakdown and loss of community stability and integrity depends upon the intensity and extent of the causal factor. Causal factors, their associated impacts, and the determinants of their severity are discussed further below. Construction activities will result in the removal of physical habitats through cut, fill, and other grading activities within the proposed development areas. The following first-order impacts are expected to results * Direct loss of vegetation. Direct mortality of less mobile wildlife forms. * Erosion/siltaiion hazards. * Short-term interruption of normal behavioral patterns in wildlife within adjacent habitats. In and of itself, the significance of vegetation loss will depend upon the diversity and relative availability of plant communities and associations affected. From the standpoint of biological diversity, the loss of plant communities restricted in distribution will constitute inherently greater significance than the loss of more common and widely distributed communities. The significance of impacts will be further increased if, in addition to being limited in availability, vegetation which is 2 removed contains individuals of specimen quality or endangered plant species. None of these conditions exists onsite, however, and the lose of vegetation is not significantly adverse within the project area. The same determination can. generally be applied to the loss of less mobile wildlife forms as they are highly habitat-dependent and their abundance and diversity are directly related to those of their habitats. Here again, these losses are not expected to be significant. The significance of erosion/ siltation hazards will depend upon the types of communities present downstream which may be affected. Siltation of streambeds and drainage courses will bury and destroy riparian habitats. This will have the same effect as the direct removal of habitat and is assessed in the same manner. Significant riparian habitats are not present downstream, however, and erosion/siltation will not be a significant adverse impact. The impact of vegetation loss through direct removal will, in turn, exert potentially significant second-order impacts on wildlife. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated wildlife will either be directly eliminated (as indicated above for less mobile forms) or will be displaced to adjacent habitat areas where it will crowd and disrupt local populations. In the latter case, increased competition and predation will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels, and some of the displaced and local wildlife will be lost. The effect will be increased in magnitude and duration if this impact occurs in the spring when most wildlife are reproducing. Other determinants of impact severity are the relative importance of lost habitats to local and regional wildlife populations, the abundance and diversity of wildlife these habitats support, the relative availability of these habitats, and the degree of habitat dependency of the associated wildlife. For example, the loss of habitats serving as concentrated breeding grounds or situated within major wildlife movement corridors will be much more significant than habitats not serving these functions. Similarly, habitats which are highly restricted in distribution are of high significance and therefore their loss is significant. As discussed above, there are no habitats of special importance within most of the project area; therefore, no significant adverse impacts are expected. Wildlife populations adjacent to construction areas may also be adversely impacted through "harassment". Harassment is defined as those activities of man which increase the physiological cost of survival or decrease. the probability of successful reproduction in wildlife populations. The most common forms of harassment that are expected to accompany project development include excessive construction-related noise and the mere presence of man and construction machinery, both of which are short-term effects. Wildlife not tolerant of such noise will 3 V. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (continued) SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: r ~ SA M PAP~T of SLAP - -~71 - ~(7 u UI!-T, a 'DAM I N WI DA d J Ar5 EA . f I Ti Crr:T j jr J YiEt 7, F3. it 50t NEPrI PAr~ OF Su ' ~rT~ UEs Wir4itj IOJ -:1,,c FLOOD PL Art J Lim M ITI G7A%,7 [ant C!'r 17 1 T =~F` ~"77~1=.~.' I A7 P~C f L022 C THE 'PPY~Ta- T! IS I D;►.m r. f---) AS r _j t pS Z PO'1=~Ti 'iiOTI C- rMPACT5 Ta 5rTr A`_- rr i ► ~.-F -rn ~;1ir7 RrS=; Fr, U r l!`. g FL G A C= -1 ; -15 3[ r IT+E ^g L WMEF W \16 5SL O MAPPE D TD ExlS`' ~ r j:-" P- ~r -FbrYTaJ CF T?f : 51?~ • AT TN 15 -n rv = . Tr1=ri= r X See attached pages. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION: MolThe project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration may be 11, prepared. (or) ❑ The project could have a significant effect on the environment; however, there will not be a significant effect In this case because the mitigation measures described In Section V have been applied to the project and a Negative Declaration may be prepared. (a) ❑ The project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report "S•70 Oftw 12W) 6 1 . ,.,Y. INFORMATION SOURCES, FINDMS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cc-heJnued) SECTION/ ISSUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: 1jL 83~~. ~f= t Gig J~ L u~'~-- r T r ~ • -~.~r~: : , , r 32 ~iOP A DSOr N Z ~ l S ~'b E _T , -I , ~ ~ . ESr~ N A5 A ti Ej-i G L S- Wr,lU?lq-j Alip AS B:Jrj-i ± rT a 1 ~ ~ T Y 1 r' t • i . ~ J ~ $ 3 a "'f~-1~ su 8s ~r"~• r 1: ; _ C~ 5!TE If, Oh 7H' : l ' rr DIJ aI ~F '!F SaN AVE • 100' MA-S0Z 1N S'T:'C ROAD. 100 n,- 8 taC t NAM It J, -Tvi Sl s L - 1 . i. FRIESEN BIOLOGICAL fACP.AL AND ►LOAAL SURVEYS NA TwAL r1STORY EcOtOGY .E ANO ENOANGEPEO SPECIES KANGAROO PAT STUDIES STEPHENS' KANGAROO RAT STUD' PARCEL MAP NO. 19581 RANCHO CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNI PREPARED FOR STEVE NELSON AND ASSOCIATE; DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA BY RICHARD DEAN FRIESEN, PH.D 615 BERMUDA DRIVE 9 REDLANDS. CA 92373 0 (714) CERTIFICATION Tht unaersignea certifies that the attaches report is a true ana accurate bescription of the results of the hio- logical surveg bescrihea herein. Ritharil 4ea Friesen, Ph.D. • STEPHENS' KANGAROO RAT STUDY PARCEL MAP NO. 19581 RANCHO CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR STEVE NELSON AND ASSOCIATES DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA BY RICHARD DEA}1 FRIESEN, PH. D. - i: INTRODUCTION h a y f l This report discusses a focused study of potential populations of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats ( DioodomYs steohensi), a State-listed Rare species, on Parcel Map 19581, Riverside County, California, found on the northwestern corner of the junction of Highway 395 and Winchester Road (Highway 79), just north of Temecula. The parcel is found in the southcentral part of the reported range (see map on next page) of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. Well-established populations of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat are known to be scattered in the hilly countryside throughout the species' range. Accordingly, an on-site survey of the project parcel was conducted during March 1983 by Dr. Richard Dean Friesen to determine (1) the on-site presence or absence of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats and, if present, (2) the relative abundance and distribution of the population. A total of about 12 man-hours were expended on site in search of diagnostic sign and in trapping specimens of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats. The fundamental factors found in the habitats of all kangaroo rats are= (1) Arid or semi-arid climate, (2) well-drained soils, (3) any combination of soil and climate factors that provide an abundance of seed plants with light cover, (4) some provision for shelter, and (5) availibility of dusting places for at least part of the year. Thus, the ecological factors which most likely limit or determine the distribution of Stephens' Kangaroo Rat are soil types and vegetation density, or a combination of the two (Bleich 1977). On this parcel, soils are in' the Ramona, orangeville, and Hanford Series. Drainage courses on the site possess Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam and Hanford Fine Sandy Loam which consist of well-drained and excessively drained soils on alluvial fans made of granitic materials. The average annual temperature is about 62 degree F., and the average growing period is about 245 days, with an annual average rainfall of about 12 inches. Vegetation is'chiefly annual grasses, forbs, and scrub. Typically, the upper layer is grayish-brown coarse sandy or fine sandy loam about 18 inches thick. Beneath this is brown, stratified coarse sandy loam and sandy loam. The soil is well drained, with moderate permeability. Available water holding capacity is 5 to 7 inches and the effective root zone is more than 60 inches deep. Natural fertility is moderate. Ramona Series soils, occurring on convex, dissected, old STEPHENS' XANGAR00 LOS ' A N G E L E S SAN BERNARDINO J RAT RANGE / R I V E R S I ORANGE ~ C 9 z • PROJECT SITE \ 1 C1 S A N 0 1 E G 0 1 1 M P E R I A L , I do r....M E X O 4 2 At The Crossroads, 1980. Calif. Dep. of Fish and Game. 126 4b i" \ \ 1 ~ \ N, . \ \ it • gbpp" PARCEL MAP NO. 7581 Page terraces that are severely eroded on slopes up to 25 percent, consist of well-drained soils, having developed in granitic materials in alluvium. Vegetation on Romona Series soils are generally annual grasses and forbs, Chamise or Salvia, and California Buckwheat. The surface layer is typically brown sandy loam or fine sandy loam about 24 inches deep, underlain by brown loam and reddish-brown and yellowish-brown fine sandy loam to about 68 inches. Permeability is moderately slow, with available water holding capacity of about 9 inches. Runoff is medium. The effective root zone is more than 60 inches deep, and natural fertility is high. Grangeville soils occur on moderately well to poorly drained alluvial fans and flood plains. Parent material is derived from granitic rocks. The soil is generally from areas where standing water once covered the surface. Vegetation on this soil is generally annual grasses and forbs, salt-tolerant grasses and cottonwood trees. Typically, the surface layer is Grayish-brown Loamy Fine Sand and Loamy Very Fine Sand about 43 inches thick, underlain by stratified gravelly and sandy layers. The slope is less than 2 percent. Permeability is moderate. Available water holding capacity is 7.5 to 10.0 inches, with slow runoff. The water table is frequently just below three feet. METHODS A walkover survey of the parcel was conducted to locate areas where soils, slope, and vegetation are favorable for Stephens' Kangaroo Rats. All areas of Annual Grassland, Inland Coastal Sage Scrub plant communities, and cultivated fields that potentially could support kangaroo rat populations were examined for evidence of distinctive kangaroo rat burrows, fecal pellets (scats), dusting places, and markings in soft soil (tail-drag marks, footprints, and diggings). Special care was taken to examine areas where kangaroo rat scats generally accumulate, such as in small basins of washes and along rodent trails made within ground cover. Flat areas, ridges (sometimes utilized by Stephens' Kangaroo Rats), and saddles between hillocks within the parcel were sought out and-inspected. RESULTS No areas on the parcel was found to be favorable for kangaroo rats. A few areas possessed populations of California Ground Squirrels (Citellus beecheyi) and Pocket Gophers (Tho_ momvs bottao). But none of these had definitive PARCEL MAP NO. 581 Page kangaroo rat'signs. On an adjacent parcel, similar areas were trapped with Sherman Live Traps to confirm that kangaroo rats were absent from areas lacking any definitive sign. Because the presence of kangaroo rats is always indicated by diagnostic signs (scats, burrows, and other markings), it was not necessary to trap this site. In the past, Stephens' Kangaroo Rats probably were widespread throughout the flatter parts of the countryside around the project parcel. But because this species prefers flatter habitat with a topography especially well suited for field crops that require plowing and disking, agricultural use of land has largely supplanted most populations of the species. Popuations that survive such agricultural activities are those that persist on the marginal habitats at the edges of plowed fields. Several populations of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats are known to be found in abandoned agricultural fields where reinvasion from such marginal habitats likely occurred after cessation of farming activities. The margins of this parcel along Santa Gertrudis Creek and along Highway 395 were checked for signs of kangaroo rats, but none were found. RECOMMENDATIONS Because this parcel does not possess populations of Stephens' Kangaroo Rats, recommendations concerning this species are not necessary for this report. a &-Iov0 away from construction areas and not use otherwise suitable habitat there. - Long-term habitation and use of the land will also have the potential- to harass wildlife in surrounding undeveloped areas. Harassment will not be a significant impact to the project site, in general. SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS From the preceeding discussion, no significant adverse impacts site. it is concluded that there are of biological resources for this MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the adsence of significant adverse impacts, no mitigation measures are required. I hope that this report provides you with an adequate biological assessment to meet your needs. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me. Respectfully, Steven G Ne son Steven G. son & Associates SGN/can enclosures 4 11 PARCEL MAP NO. -9381 Pager LITERATURE CITED AND RESOURCE MATERIAL Bleich, V. C. 1973. Ecology of rodents at the United States Naval Weapon Station, Seal Beach, Fallbrook Annex, San Diego County, California. M.A. thesis, California State University, Long Beach, ix+102 pp. Bleich, V. C. 1977. Dipodomys stephensi. Mammalian Species 7321-3. Department of Fish and Game. 1980. At the Crossroads 1980. State of California, Resources Agency, Sacramento. Knecht, A. A. 1971. Soil survey of western Riverside area, California. US Department of Agric., Soil Cons. Serv., Washington, DC. Lackey, J. A. 1967. Biosystematics of heermanni group of kangaroo rats in southern California. Trans. San Diego Sac. Nat. Hist. 142113-144. Smithe, G. 1978. Naturalists' color guide. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Sork, V. L. 1973. A comparison of water relations and population structure in three kangaroo rats, Dipodomys aailis, P. ste2hensii (sic), and D. panamintinus. Jour. Undergrad. Res. Biol. Sci. 3= 174-195. Thomas, J. R. 1973. Stephens' kangaroo rat survey. California Dept. Fish and Game, Spec. Wildlife Invest., lob II-5.6 (final report), 10 pp. Thomas, J. R. 1973. Distribution, population densitites, and home range requirements of the Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys steyhensi). M.A. thesis, California State Polytechnic Univ., Pomona, vii+64 pp. Wachtell, J. K. 1978. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. Department of Agriculture, Soil Cons. Serv., Washington, D.C. N a 12. a eeE •E1 i~ c ~ f ?1' cii gi ~ 1 = oil 1 < o Ln m a a J W U Cr- Q ch W H Q Z W N 1 /;r 4 a ) f _ 111 ! I Il ~:le OR E51 1 0.1l 111 111., 0 0 CL a F cr m~ mF T N a u ar ~I tt2~ u: Hill Ohl!,, i; O N H I pt K \ wl ..1 14 a. ,v I'A (14 yi y i 5! 6 i L 3 'r j, I I N air ~ e 'il +'6w~~v \ :XI 9 j !1 ` i r' h ~ W i w t,•- i, TT ~ r 1 ' bj' y`ir~ I Sy t ~ I i . 'ti yae~uuy~~ ,I 11E1 E ®IH VINITY MAP P.M. lzssai - 2 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP / TRACT NO. PM 3961- DATE 10/17 90 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY SECURITY TMERQVEMENTS Streets and Drainage 842,000 s 384,500 Water 1 142,000 s 67,000 Sewer s 173,000 1 86,500 TOTAL $1,157,000 Z 538,000 *Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) $115,700 *(or Bonds if work is completed) Monument Security Inspection Fee: (Offeite Improvements) Fee paid to date (Credit) Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs Total Inspection Fees Due RCFC Drainage Fee Due Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD 0 Road and Bridge Benefit Fee Jefferson Avenue Bridge Fee-$1300/Acre $10,500 $ 76,245 $ 2,561 $ 73,684 $ $ g 73,684 $ 36,285.61 $ 62,072.50 $ 3484. ITEM NO. 6 APPBQVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM. Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the seven months ended June 30, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Receive and file DISCUSSION.- Enclosed in your packet is the City's Comprehensive Financial Report for the seven months ended June 30, 1990, including the independent auditor's report. We are pleased to note that no adjustments were proposed in the course of the audit. ITEM NO, 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT.- Approval of Bid for Legal Advertising PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION.- That the City Council approve the best low bid submitted by The Californian (a subsidiary of Times Advocate) to provide publication of the City's legal notices. BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 36933 requires publication of ordinances within 15 days after passage in a newspaper of general circulation if such a publication exists. Cities incorporated less than one year may determine to post ordinances only for the first year. Since the City of Temecula will be one year old on December 1, 1990, the City Clerk's office sent out Invitations to Bid to five of the local newspapers. Two bids were received which met all of the criteria established in the bid documents. The bid received from The Californian was $8.20 per column inch lower. This represents a substantial savings not only for publication of ordinances but also publication of Public Hearing Notices. FISCAL IMPACT: Since the City of Temecula has not been required to publish during the prior year, the fiscal impact can not be calculated at this time. ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM. City Manager DATE.- December 4, 1990 SUBJECT-- Approval of Bid for City Seal Final Art PREPARED BY.• Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Approve the best low bid submitted by BoGraphics to provide final camera ready art of the City's logo. BACKGROUND: The City requested bids from four local graphics firms to produce the final camera ready artwork of the City logo selected recently by the City Council. The bids also included production of letterhead, envelopes, business cards and decals. The lowest bid was submitted by BoGraphics, 27326 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT.- $3,700 for creation of final art, production of 5,000 each 4-color letterheads, 1 color letterheads, 4-color envelopes, 1-color envelopes, 2000/8 4-color business cards, 2000/8 1-color business cards and 500 8" round 4-color decals. ITEM NO. 9 ORDINANCE NO. 90-24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING PORTIONS OF THE NON-CODIFIED RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCES AND ADDING CHAPTER 6.14 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO NUISANCE ABATEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted by reference portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances. On the effective date of this Ordinance, the following provisions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinances, which City Ordinance No. 90-04 adopted, are hereby repealed: (a) Ordinance No. 520 relating to abandoned vehicles; (b) Ordinance No. 541 relating to removal of rubbish; (c) Sections 9 through 15, inclusive of Ordinance No. 551 relating to bees. SECTION 2. Chapter 6.14 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code, which shall read as follows: "Chapter 6.14 NUISANCES. GENERAL Divisions: Division 1 Public Nuisance Division 2 Abandoned Vehicles Division 3 Violations 2/Ord/90-24 1 November 28, 1990 Division 1 - Public Nuisance Sections: 6.14.001 6.14.002 6.14.003 6.14.004 6.14.005 16 4.006 16 4.007 16 4.008 6.14.009 6.14.010 6.14.011 14. 12 .14.01 14.014 16 4.015 6.14.001 Purpose Purpose Public Nuisances Desi ng ated Commencement of Abatement Proceeding Voluntary Abatement of Nuisances Involuntary Abatement Form of Notice Hearing Order of Abatement Areal Notice of Council Decision Abatement of Nuisance by City Cost Accounting; Notification Assessment Lien Owner's Responsibility Alternate Actions (a) In order to further the stated goals of the City of Temecula and to protect its citizens and their property from conditions which are offensive or annoying to the senses, detrimental to property values and community appearance, or hazardous or injurious to the health, safety or welfare of the general public, the City Council has determined that an Ordinance is necessary to effectively abate or prevent the development of such conditions in the City of Temecula. (b) It is the intention of the City Council, in adopting the Ordinance codified herein, to set forth guidelines for determining what conditions constitute a public nuisance; to establish a method for giving notice of the conditions and an opportunity to correct them; and finally in the event the public nuisance is not abated or corrected, to provide a procedure for a hearing and determination of the facts and manner in which the conditions shall be corrected or removed. (c) It is the purpose of this Ordinance to provide a just, equitable and practical method, in addition to any other remedy available at law, whereby lands or buildings which are dilapidated, unsafe, dangerous, unsanitary, cluttered with weeds, debris, abandoned vehicles, machinery or equipment, or are a menace, or hazard to life, limb, safety, health, morals, property values, aesthetic standards or the general welfare 2/Ord/90-24 2 November 28, 1990 of the City of Temecula, may be required to be repaired, renovated, vacated, demolished, made safe, or cleaned up by removal of offensive conditions. (d) It is the purpose of this Ordinance to provide a program for the removal and/or abatement as public nuisances of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof from private or public property. (e) In addition to the abatement procedures provided herein, this Ordinance declares certain conditions to be public nuisances and that maintenance of such conditions shall be a misdemeanor. (f) This Ordinance is not intended to enforce Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) on property, nor to supersede them. This Ordinance will be enforced uniformly within the City regardless of CC&R's. Therefore, this Ordinance does not abrogate the right of any homeowners association or private citizen to take action, legal or as otherwise provided in the CC&R's, to force compliance with the CC&R's applicable to their tract or association even though the CC&R provisions may be the same, more restrictive or may not be covered by this Ordinance. 6.14.002 Public Nuisances Designated. It shall be unlawful and it is hereby declared to be a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of any residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, business park, office, educational, religious, vacant or other property within the City of Temecula, to maintain such property in such a manner that any of the following conditions are found to exist thereon: (a) Any violation of any Section of the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 90-04, which adopted by reference portions of the non-codified Riverside County Ordinance including, but not limited to: (1) Ordinance No. 190 relating to accumulation of limbs, branches, trimmings and parts of domestic and cultivated fruit trees; (2) Ordinance No. 369 relating to the deposit or discharge of sewage and other waste matter; (3) Ordinance No. 431 relating to location and operation of hog ranches; 2/Ord/90-24 3 November 28, 1990 (4) Ordinance No. 523 and 527 relating to the control of flies; (5) Sections 1 through 8 of Ordinance No. 551 relating to control of bees; (6) Ordinance No. 627 relating to regulation of picture arcades; (7) Ordinance No. 650 relating to sewage discharge; (8) Ordinance No. 655 relating to the regulation of light pollution; (9) Ordinance No. 657 relating to regulation of collection and removal of solid waste; (10) Ordinance Nos. 348 and 348.3078 relating to planning, including zoning restrictions, related to structures on property, signs restrictions, site development standards, and parking standards; (11) Ordinance No. 457.73, as amended, relating to building, housing and electrical; (b) Land, the topography or configuration of which, in any man-made state, whether as a result of grading operations, excavations, fill, or other alteration, interferes with the established drainage pattern over the property or from adjoining or other properties which does or may result in erosion, subsidence or surface water drainage programs of such magnitude as to be injurious to public health, safety and welfare or to neighboring properties; (c) Buildings or structures which are partially destroyed, abandoned or permitted to remain in a state of partial construction for more than six (6) months, or during any period of extension, after the issuance of a building permit; (d) The failure to secure and maintain from public access all doorways, windows and other openings into vacant or abandoned (not occupied or in use for any purpose, no maintenance applied to the structure or grounds) buildings or structures; (e) Painted buildings that require re-painting, and walls, retaining walls, fences or structures, or building, walls, fences or structures upon which the condition of the paint has become so deteriorated as to permit decay, excessive checking, cracking, peeling, chalking, dry rot, warping or termite infestation; 2/Ord/90-24 4 November 28, 1990 (f) Any building or structure, wall, fence, pavement, or walkway upon which any graffiti, including paint, ink, chalk, dye or other similar marking substances, is allowed to remain for more than twenty-four (24) hours; (g) Broken windows; (h) Overgrown, dead, decayed or hazardous vegetation which: (1) May harbor rats, vermin or other disease carriers; (2) Is maintained so as to cause an obstruction to the vision of motorists or a hazardous condition to pedestrians or vehicle traffic; (3) Constitutes an unsightly appearance; (4) Creates a danger or attractive nuisance to the public; (i) Building exterior, roofs, landscaping, grounds, walls, retaining and crib walls, fences, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks or walkways which are maintained in such condition so as to become defective, unsightly or no longer viable; 0) The accumulation of dirt, litter, feces, or debris in doorways, adjoining sidewalks, parking lots, landscaped or other areas; (k) Except where construction is occurring under a valid permit, lumber, junk, trash, garbage, salvage materials, rubbish, hazardous waste, refuse, rubble, broken asphalt or concrete, containers, broken or neglected machinery, furniture, appliances, sinks, fixtures or equipment, scrap metals, machinery parts, or other such material stored or deposited on property such that they are visible from a public street, alley or neighboring property; (1) Deteriorated private streets, easements and parking lots, including those containing pot holes, or cracks; (m) Abandoned, broken or neglected equipment and machinery, pools, ponds, excavations, abandoned wells, shafts, basements or other holes, abandoned refrigerators or other appliances, abandoned motor vehicles, any unsound structure, skateboard ramps, or accumulated lumber, trash, garbage, debris or vegetation which may reasonably attract children to such abandoned or neglected conditions; 2/Ord/90-24 5 November 28, 1990 (n) (1) Construction equipment, buses, tow trucks, dump trucks, flatbed trucks, grading equipment, tractors, tractor trailers, truck trailers, or any other commercial vehicle over twenty-five (25) feet long or eight (8) feet in height or ninety (90) inches wide, supplies, materials, or machinery of any type or description, parked or stored upon any street or property within a residential zone. (2) Commercial vehicle, for the purposes of this section, shall be defined as any motorized or non-motorized vehicle used or maintained to transport property or goods for profit, or persons for hire or compensation. Any commercial vehicle, when used as the primary source of transportation by the person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge of any such vehicle, shall be excluded from the provisions of this subsection; (o) Construction debris storage bins stored in excess of fifteen (15) days on a public street or any front or sideyard setback area without the express approval of the City Engineer; (p) Any property with accumulations of grease, oil or other hazardous material on paved or unpaved surfaces, driveways, buildings, walls, or fences, or from which any such material flows or seeps on to any public street or other public or private property; (q) Any front yard, parkway, or landscaped setback area which lacks turf, other planted material, decorative rock, bark or planted ground cover or covering, so as to cause excessive dust or allow the accumulation of debris; (r) Any condition of vegetation overgrowth which encroaches into, over or upon any public right-of-way including, but not limited to, streets, alleys, or sidewalks, so as to constitute either a danger to the public safety or property or any impediment to public travel; (s) Any habitation which is overcrowded, as defined by the Uniform Housing Code, as adopted by reference by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 90-04, or which lacks adequate ventilation, sanitation or plumbing facilities, or which constitutes a fire hazard; (t) (1) The dumping of any waste matter in or upon any public or private highway or road, including any portion of the right-of-way thereof, or in or upon any private property into or upon which the public is admitted by easement or license, or upon any private property without the consent of the owner, or in or upon any public 2/Ord/90-24 6 November 28, 1990 park of any public property other then property designated or set aside for that purpose by the governing board or body having charge of that property. (2) Also, any placing, depositing or dumping of any rocks or dirt in or upon any private highway or road, including any portion of the right-of-way thereof, or any private property, without the consent of the owner, or in or upon any public work or other public property, without the consent of the state or local agency having jurisdiction over the highway, road, or property. (u) Any other condition declared by any State, County, or City statute, code or regulation to be a public nuisance. 6.14.003 Commencement of Abatement Proceedings. Whenever the Director of Building and Safety (hereinafter "Director") or his duly authorized agent or representative reasonably believes a public nuisance exists, he shall commence abatement proceedings. The Director shall have responsibility for abating such nuisances on any private property and cause a written notice to be issued to abate such nuisance. (a) The notice shall contain a description of the property in general terms reasonably sufficient to identify the location of the property. It shall refer to this section and the violation(s) of City Ordinance or the Municipal Code at issue, and shall direct compliance by removal or correction of the condition which is in violation of the provisions of this Code within a minimum of seven (7) calendar days and a maximum of thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the notice. The notice shall further describe the consequences of failure to comply as prescribed in this section. (b) The notice shall be served on the owner or his agent and the person in possession of the property by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Delivery by first class mail shall be used when delivery by registered or certified mail is refused. Such notice by mail shall be sufficient for purposes of this Chapter. (c) Failure of any person to receive a notice shall not affect the validity of any proceedings under this Chapter. 6.14.004 Voluniga Abatement of Public Nuisances. The owner, lease holder, tenant, or occupant having charge of any building, structure, or property alleged to be a public nuisance as set forth above, may abate said nuisance at any time within the abatement period by rehabilitation, repair, removal or demolition. The Director/Designee shall be advised of the abatement and shall inspect the premises to ensure that the nuisance has in fact been abated. 2/Ord/90-24 7 November 28, 1990 6.14.005 Involuntary Abatement. Upon failure of the owner or his agent or the person in possession of the property to remove or correct the conditions described in the notice by the date specified, the Director shall cause a hearing to be held to determine whether said building, structure, or property is being maintained in such a manner so as to constitute a public nuisance. The Director shall give not less than seven (7) days written notice of the hearing to the owner(s) of the affected properties as shown on the latest equalized tax assessment roll by mailing the same to the addresses as indicated thereon, to any persons holding permits to the applicable property, building or structure, and further, within the same time period, and by conspicuously posting on the affected property, building, or structure a copy of the notice. Notice may also be served on the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust or other lien or encumbrance of record; the owner or holder of any lease of record; and the holder of any other state of legal interest of record of the building or structure, or the land on which it is located. (a) The notice shall indicate the nature of the alleged public nuisance, a description of the property involved, and the designation of the time and place of the hearing to determine whether the same constitutes a public nuisance, and the manner of the proposed abatement if the same is found to be a public nuisance. (b) The notice and order of abatement shall be served on every party by registered or certified mail. Delivery by first class mail shall be used when delivery by registered or certified mail is refused. (c) The failure of any person to receive this notice shall not affect the validity of any proceedings under this Chapter. (d) Nothing hereby shall prevent any property owner or other interested person from abating the nuisance prior to the time of the hearing and notifying the City of the same. Upon confirmation by the City that the nuisance has been abated, the need for the hearing shall be deemed terminated. 6.14.006 Form of Notice. The notice given shall be provided in substantially the following format: 'NOTICE OF HEARING ON ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE A hearing will be held at Temecula before the City of Temecula Hearing Officer, to determine whether the premises at constitutes a public nuisance. 2/Ord/90-24 8 November 28, 1990 The conditions asserted to constitute a public nuisance include the following: A hearing may be avoided if the following corrections are made at least two (2) calendar days before the date set for the hearing: If it is determined that the conditions on the property constitute a public nuisance, the following abatement action may be taken by the City if the owner has not taken corrective action within five (5) days after the hearing officer's determination: If abatement action is taken by the City, all costs of the abatement will be assessed against the property and will attach as a lien until paid. All persons having an interest in this matter may attend the hearing and give testimony and evidence, which will be given due consideration by the hearing officer. Call (714) for questions regarding this notice.' 6.14.007 Hearing. (a) The hearing to determine whether a public nuisance exists shall be conducted by the hearing officer. The hearing officer shall be determined by Resolution by the City Council. The hearing officer is authorized to take testimony and in the course of so doing, is authorized to administer oaths or affirmations pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2093(a). (b) At the hearing, the hearing officer shall consider all relevant evidence, including but not limited to applicable Staff Reports. He shall give any interested person the reasonable opportunity to be heard in conjunction therewith. Based upon the evidence so presented, the hearing officer shall determine whether a public nuisance within the meaning of this Chapter exists. 2/Ord/90-24 9 November 28, 1990 6.14.008 Order Of Abatement. (a) The decision of the hearing officer shall be final and conclusive in the absence of appeal as provided in this Chapter. (b) The hearing officer shall, within five (5) working days of the date of the hearing, cause to be sent a copy of the written notice of decision by certified or registered mail to the owner, all other persons and entities who received notice of the original hearing and to any other person requesting the same. The notice shall contain an order of abatement, if a public nuisance is determined to exist, directed to the owner of the affected property or the person in control and/or charge of the property, and shall set forth the nature of the nuisance, its location and the time and manner for its abatement. (c) Where an appeal is filed as provided in this Chapter, the order of abatement shall be suspended pending the review of the determination in the manner set forth in this Chapter. 6.14.009 Appeal. Any person entitled to notice of hearing, who has participated in that hearing and who is dissatisfied by the order of the hearing officer, may appeal that order by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within five (5) days of the date of the order and by paying the appeal fee set by Resolution. The notice of appeal shall specify: (a) (b) (c) property; (d) (e) being appealed, the appeal; and (f) A description of the property; The abatement proceedings appealed; The owner, or appealing party's, legal or equitable interest in the A statement of disputed and undisputed facts; A statement specifying which portion of the proceedings that are together with any evidentiary or supporting materials that would support A verification of the truth of all matters asserted. 2/Ord/90-24 10 November 28, 1990 Upon the timely filing of a notice of appeal in the proper form, the City Clerk shall place said appeal upon the next regular meeting to the City Council scheduled to be held not less than five (5) business days after said appeal is received. The City Clerk shall provide written notice of the appeal, including the time, place, and date of the hearing on the appeal, to the appellant and any other person to whom notice of the hearing officer's order was sent. Said notice shall be sent in the same manner as notice of the hearing officer's order. The City Council may limit the issues on appeal to those in substantially the same form as that sent by the hearing officer and shall be sent to all persons to whom notice of the hearing officer's order was sent as well as to all persons requesting such notice, in writing, at the time the appeal is heard. 6.14.010 Notice of Council Decision. A copy of the Council's order shall be mailed by certified or registered mail to the owner, all other persons, and entities who received notice of the original hearing and to any other person requesting the same, by the City Clerk within five (5) working days after the adoption thereof. The Council's decision shall be final and conclusive. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any action to review the decision of the Council shall be commenced not later than the nineteenth day after the date the Council's order is adopted. 6.14.011 Abatement of Nuisance by City. If the nuisance is not completely abated by the date specified in the hearing officer's order, or in the City Council's determination, as appropriate, the City Manager may immediately cause the same to be abated by City personnel or under private contract. The hearing officer and/or City Council are authorized to grant reasonable extensions on the time period for abatement based on a proper showing by the property owner of extenuating circumstances, made before the date of City abatement. The owner of the premises shall be liable to the City for all costs of such abatement. 6.14.012 Cost Accounting; Notification. (a) City personnel, or any private contractor authorized to abate the nuisance, shall keep an account of the cost, including incidental expenses, of all abatement work performed on each separate lot or parcel of land where work is done and shall render an itemized report in writing to the City Council showing the total cost of abatement by rehabilitation, demolition, or repair of the property, buildings, or structure, including any salvage value relating thereto. A copy of the report shall be posted at City Hall or other official location for posting City notices for at least five (5) days before it is considered by the City Council. Proof of posting shall be made by affidavit of the 2/Ord/90-24 11 November 28, 1990 City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk. The term 'incidental expenses' includes but is not limited to all actual expenses and costs of the City in the commencement of abatement proceedings, including preparation of notices, specifications and contracts, inspection of the work, and the cost of printing and mailings required under this Chapter, and any attorney fees expended in the abatement of the nuisance, through civil action or otherwise. The City Attorney shall be responsible for keeping an accounting of attorney fees and costs and transmitting the same to the Director. (b) Costs shall be assessed at the conclusion of the abatement; in the case of an abatement by any method which takes more than six (6 ) months, costs may be assessed at any time after six (6) months, but in no event more than two (2) times a year. (c) The Director shall submit his itemized statement of costs to the City and shall set the same for a hearing before the City Council. (d) The Director shall cause notice of the time and place of the hearing to be given to the owners of the property to which the same relate, and to any other interested person requesting the same by United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the person at his/her last known address at least five (5) days in advance of the hearing. (e) Notice may also be served on the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust or other lien or encumbrance of record; the owner or holder of any lease of records; and the holder of any other estate or legal interest of record in or to the building or structure, or the land in which it is located. 6.14.013 Assessment Lien. The total cost for abatement of the nuisance, as confirmed by the City Council, shall constitute a special assessment against the lot or parcel of land to which it relates and, upon recordation in the office of the County Recorder of a Notice of Lien, shall constitute a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment. After confirmation and recordation, a copy of the Notice of Lien may be turned over to the tax collector to add the amounts of the assessments to the next regular tax bill levied against the respective lots and parcels of land. Thereafter the assessment amounts shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure for foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary property taxes. After recordation, the lien may be foreclosed by judicial or other sale in the manner and 210rd/90-24 12 November 28, 1990 means provided by law. The Notice of Lien for recordation shall be in a form substantially as follows: 'NOTICE OF LIEN Claim of the City of Temecula Pursuant to the authority vested by Chapter 6.14 of the Temecula Municipal Code, the City of Temecula hearing officer [City Council] did on or about the _ day of , 19_, cause the property hereinafter described to be declared a public nuisance and order the same abated. The City Council of the City of Temecula, did on the _ day of , 19_, assess the cost of such abatement upon the property and the same has not been paid nor any part thereof. The City of Temecula does hereby claim a lien for such abatement in the amount of the assessment, to wit: the sum of $ , and the same shall be a lien upon the real property until paid in full and discharged of record. The real property hereinabove mentioned, and upon which a lien is claimed, is that certain parcel of land lying and being entirely within the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, particularly described as follows: (legal description) Dated: This day of , 19_. City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA' 6.14.014 Owner Responsibility. The owner of any premises within the City has the primary responsibility for keeping said premises free of public nuisances. Tenants and occupants of the premises, for the purposes of this Chapter, shall be deemed to be the agents of the owner. 2/Ord/90-24 13 November 28, 1990 6.14.015 Alternate Actions. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent the City from commencing a civil or criminal proceeding to abate a public nuisance or from pursuing any other means available to it under provisions of applicable ordinances or state law to correct hazards or deficiencies in real property in addition to or as alternatives to the proceedings set forth herein. Section 6.14.017 - 6.14. 100 Reserved. Division 2 - Abandoned Vehicles Sections: 6,14.1 01 Purpose 6.14.1 02 Exceptions .14.10 Enforcement 6.14.104 Notice of Intent to Abate and Remove 6.14.105 RRNuest for Hearing 6.14.106 Hearings 6.14.107 Appeal 16 4.108 Decision to Remove Vehicle 14.109 Costs 6.14 11 Franchises 14.111 Notice to Department of Motor Vehicle .14.112 Removal Required 6.14.11 No City Liability 14.114 Alternate Actions 6.14.101 Purim. In addition to and in accordance with the authority granted to the City by the State under Section 22660 of the Vehicle Code to remove abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof as public nuisances, the City Council makes the following findings and declarations: The accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof on private or public property is found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire hazards, to constitute a nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safety of minors, to create a harborage for rodents and insects and to be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, the presence of 2/Ord/90-24 14 November 28, 1990 an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle or part thereof, on private or public property except as expressly permitted in this Division, is declared to constitute a public nuisance which may be abated as such in accordance with the provisions of this Division. 6.14.102 Exceptions. (a) This Division shall not apply to: (1) A vehicle or part thereof which is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where it is not visible from the street or other public or private property; or (2) A vehicle or part thereof which is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler, licensed vehicle dealer, junk dealer, or when such storage or parking is necessary to the operation of a lawfully conducted business or commercial enterprise; (b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance as defined under provisions of law other than Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code and this Chapter. 6.14.103 Enforcement. Except as otherwise provided in this Division, the provisions of this Division shall be administered and enforced by the Police Chief, or his designee. 6.14.104 Notice of Intent to Abate and Remove. (a) A ten (10) day notice of intention to abate and remove a vehicle or part thereof as a public nuisance shall be issued, unless the property owner and the owner of the vehicle have signed releases authorizing removal and waiving further interest in the vehicle or part thereof; (b) For inoperable vehicles or parts thereof located on property which is (a) zoned for agricultural use or (b) not improved with a residential structure containing one or more dwelling units, the notice of intention shall not be required for removal of a vehicle or part thereof which is inoperable due to the absence of a motor, transmission, or wheels and incapable of being towed, is valued at less than two hundred dollars ($200) by any person designated pursuant to the Vehicle Code to make such appraisals, and is determined by the Police Chief to be a public nuisance presenting an immediate threat to public health or safety; provided that the property owner has signed 2/Ord/90-24 15 November 28, 1990 a release authorizing removal and waiving further interest in the vehicle or part thereof. Prior to final disposition of such a low-valued vehicle or part thereof, the Police Chief shall provide notice to the registered and legal owners of intent to dispose of the vehicle or part, and if the vehicle or part is not claimed and removed within twelve (12) days after notice is mailed, from a location specified in Vehicle Code Section 22662, final disposition may proceed; (c) The notice of intention to abate shall contain a statement of the hearing rights of the owner of the property on which the vehicle is located and of the owner of the vehicle. The statement shall include notice to the property owner that the owner may appear in person at a hearing or may submit a sworn written statement denying responsibility for the presence of the vehicle on the land, and the owner's reasons for such denial, in lieu of appearing. The notice shall be mailed, by registered or certified mail, to the owner of the land as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the last registered and legal owner of record of the vehicle unless the vehicle is in such condition that identification numbers are not available to determine ownership. The service is complete at the time of such deposit. (d) The notice shall be substantially in the following form: 'Notice of Intent To Abate and Remove Date: Notice Is Hereby Given that you are required at your expense to remove the vehicle identified as and located on property commonly known as , Temecula, California, within ten (10) days after the date appearing on the notice. Said vehicle is in such a condition to constitute a public nuisance. If you fail to comply with this order, City employees or private City contractors will enter upon your property and abate the public nuisance by removal of the vehicle or part thereof. The cost of the abatement incurred by the City or its private contractor will be assessed against your property and such costs will constitute a lien upon the land until paid. All persons having an interest in the property on which the vehicle or part thereof is located and/or of the vehicle or part thereof are hereby notified that such interested parties may request a hearing within ten (10) days of the date of this notice to be held at _ 2/Ord/90-24 16 November 28, 1990 , Temecula, before a hearing officer to determine whether the vehicle or part thereof is in such a condition to constitute a public nuisance. You may appear in person at the hearing or you may submit a sworn written statement denying responsibility for the presence of the vehicle or part thereof on the land, and the reasons for such denial, in lieu of appearing. If such a request is not received within such period, the City shall remove the vehicle or part thereof. Call (714) for questions regarding this notice.' 6.14.105 RgQuest for Hearing. (a) A hearing shall be held before the hearing officer upon request for such hearing by the owner of the vehicle or the owner of the land upon which the vehicle is located. This request shall be made in writing to the Police Chief within ten (10) days after the mailing of notice of intent to abate and remove the vehicle, or at the time of signing a release pursuant to Subsection 1 or 2 of Section 6.14.104. (b) If the owner of the land on which the vehicle is located submits a sworn statement denying responsibility for the presence of the vehicle on his/her land within such time period, this statement shall be construed as a request for hearing which does not require the presence of the owner submitting such request. If such a request is not received within such period, the City shall have the authority to remove the vehicle. 6.14.106 Hearin gs. (a) All hearings under this Division shall be held before the hearing officer, which hearing officer shall hear all facts and testimony deemed pertinent. The facts and testimony may include testimony on the condition of the vehicle or part thereof and the circumstances concerning its location on the private or public property. The technical rules of evidence shall not apply. The owner of the land on which the vehicle is located may appear in person at the hearing or present a sworn written statement denying responsibility for the presence of the vehicle on the land, with the owner's reasons for such denial; (b) At the conclusion of the hearing the hearing officer may find that a vehicle or part thereof has been abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or is inoperative on private or public property and order the same removed from the property as a public nuisance and disposed of as provided in this Division; 2/Ord/90-24 17 November 28, 1990 (c) If it is determined by the hearing officer that the vehicle was placed on the land without the consent of the landowner and that the owner has not subsequently acquiesced to its presence, the hearing officer shall not assess costs of administration or removal of the vehicle against the property upon which the vehicle is located or otherwise attempt to collect such costs from such landowner; (d) If an interested party makes a written presentation to the hearing officer, but does not appear, said party shall be notified in writing of the decision within five (5) days of such decision by the hearing officer by certified or registered mail. 6.14.107. Ap ptal. Any interested party may appeal the decision of the hearing officer by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after the decision and by paying the appeal fee set by Resolution. Such appeal shall be heard by the City Council which may affirm, amend or reverse the order or take any other action deemed appropriate. The City Clerk shall give written notice of the time and place of the hearing to the appellant and those persons specified in Section 6.14.106. In conducting the hearing, the City Council shall not be limited by the technical rules of evidence. The decision of the City Council shall be final. 6.14.108 Decision To Remove Vehicle. (a) An order for abatement and removal of a vehicle, made pursuant to this Division, shall include a description of the vehicle or part thereof and the correct identification number and license number of the vehicle, if available. (b) The hearing officer, or the City Council on appeal, may impose such conditions and take such actions as are deemed appropriate and justified under the circumstances to carry out removal of the vehicle or part thereof; (c) Five (5) days after adoption of the order, five (5) days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision if such notice is required, or fifteen (15) days after such action of the City Council authorizing removal following appeal, the vehicle or parts thereof may be disposed of by removal to a scrapyard or automobile dismantler's yard; (d) After a vehicle has been removed, it shall not thereafter be reconstructed or made operable, unless it is a vehicle which qualifies for either horseless carriage license plates or historical vehicle license plates, pursuant to Section 5004 of the Vehicle Code, in which case the vehicle may be reconstructed or made operable. 2/Ord/90-24 18 November 28, 1990 6.14.109 Costs. The hearing officer, or the City Council on appeal, shall determine the administrative costs and cost of removal to be charged. If the administrative costs and the cost of removal are charged against the owner or a parcel of land pursuant to this Division and are not paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the order, or the final disposition of an appeal therefrom, such costs shall be assessed against the parcel of land pursuant to Section 38773.5 of the Government Code and shall be transmitted to the tax collector for collection. The assessment shall have the same priority as other taxes. 6.14.110 Franchises. When the City Council has contracted with or granted a franchise to any person or persons, such person or persons shall be authorized to enter upon private property or public property to remove or cause the removal of a vehicle or part thereof declared to be a nuisance pursuant to this Division. 6.14.111 Notice to Department of Motor Vehicles. Within five (5) days after the date of removal of the vehicle or part thereof, notice shall be given to the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the vehicle or part thereof removed. At the same time, there shall be transmitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles any evidence of registration available, including registration certificates, certificates of title and license plates. 6.14.112 Removal Rewired. No person shall fail or refuse to remove an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle or part thereof or refuse to abate such nuisance when ordered to do so in accordance with the abatement provisions of this Division or state law where such state law is applicable. 6.14.113 No City Liability. Neither the City nor any contractor thereof shall be liable for damage caused to a vehicle or part thereof by removal pursuant to this Division. 6.14.114 Alternate Actions. This Division is not the exclusive regulation of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles within the City. It shall supplement and be in addition to the other regulatory codes, statutes, and ordinances heretofore or hereafter enacted by the City, the State, or any other legal entity or agency having appropriate jurisdiction. Section 6.14.115 - 6.14.200 Reserved. 2/Ord/90-24 19 November 28, 1990 Division 3 - Violations Sections: .16 4.201 14.202 6.14.203 6.14.201 Misdemeanors Authority to Arrest Citation Procedure Misdemeanors. The owner, or any other person having charge or control of any building or property, who maintains any public nuisance as defined in this Chapter or who violates any order of abatement made pursuant to this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any unauthorized person who removes any notice or order posted as required in this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. No person shall obstruct, impede or interfere with any representative of the City engaged in vacating, repairing, rehabilitating or demolishing and removing any property pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter or in performing any necessary act preliminary to or incidental to such work as authorized or directed pursuant hereto. Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished in accordance with Section 1.01.200 to 1.01.240 of this Code. A criminal prosecution may be initiated without a nuisance hearing, as provided in this Chapter, or upon a violating of any order resulting from such a hearing. Each person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of the provisions of this Chapter is committed or permitted to continue. 6.14.202 Authority to Arrest. The following designated officers and employees shall have the power to arrest persons for misdemeanor violations of this Chapter whenever the officer or employee has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed the offense in said officer's or employee's presence: the Building Official; the Senior Planner; and, Code Enforcement Officers 2/Ord/90-24 20 November 28, 1990 6.14.203 Citation Procedure. All designated officers and employees exercising their authority to arrest under this Chapter shall comply with the procedures regarding the making of arrests set forth in Section 833 gl -sQ. of the California Penal Code, and the procedures regarding misdemeanor citations set forth in Section 853.6 et seg. of the California Penal Code." SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be published and posted as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 1990. Ronald J. Parks Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek Deputy City Clerk 2/Ord/90-24 21 November 28, 1990 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. 90-24 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th day of November, 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted any passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 4th day of December, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek Deputy City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney 2/Ord/90-24 22 November 28, 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PROCEDURES Incoming Complaint: CODE ENFORCEMENT Filed - Obtain information of complainant, violator and location of reported violation. Log Complaint: Log Sheet & Index Card System. Code - Blue dot for zoning, Red dot for building. Zoning complaints: Building complaints: Complaint Files: Inspected by Code Enforcement Officer, enforced by Code Enforcement Officer. Initial inspection for Inspection by B.I., Enforcement Officer. verification of violation. enforcement by Code 1) First Site Visit to verify existance of violation. a) Call or contact violator (tenant and/or property owner). b) Send notification letter to complainant (to contact Code Enforcement Officer if violation exists after the period given to violator). Send notification letter to violator (tenant and/or property owner) to voluntarily comply with ordinance within fifteen to thirty days. 2) ' Second Site Visit - To ensure compliance or issue Notice of Violation. Violation to be brought into compliance within fifteen days. 3) Third Site Visit - To ensure compliance with Notice of Violation if not in compliance. a) Violator given option to meet for mediation with City Attorney and Code Enforcement Officer prior to filing citation with court. b) Citation will be filed with the court, or Nuisance Abatement proceedings initiated, if no contact from violator and if violation is not corrected or dismissed by the City. c) If corrections are completed before court date, and verified by the Code Enforcement Officer, the district attorney will be notified and the decision to be made by the court. CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS STAGE ONE COMPLAINT NEIGHBOR I I CITY COUNCIL I I CITY STAFF CODE ENFORCEMENT STAGE TWO INVESTIGATION INSPECTION NOTIFICATION LETTER NOTICE OF VIOLATION NOTICE OF OFFICE HEARING CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HEARING STAGE THREE REFERRAL/EVALUATION CITY ATTORNEY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT UNIT ADMINISTRATIVE ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT DEMAND OF LETTER COSTS COURT ACTION STAGE rOUR COURT ACTION COURT ACTION CIVIL COMPLAINT TRO I r PRELIM. PERMANENT INJUNCTION CONTEMPT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ARRAIGNMENT TRIAL SETTING TRIAL CONVICTION e, SENTENCE PRODATION REVOCATION CODE ENFORCEMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY MONTH NOVEMBER OPENED OPEN LAST OPEN YEAR ABATED ABATED - ABATED CITY TYPE OF CUIPLAINT CURRENT MONTH TO DATE CURRENT LAST YEAR TO ATTORNEY MONTH MONTH MONTH DATE LAND USE Abandoned Vehicles - - - - 1 7 8 0 7 7 0 Accumulation of Junk (Private Prop.) 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 Advertising Regulations 11(Balloons, Garners, Flag(s)) 6 5 - - 1 1 2 - 6 8 0 - - - II(Signs, Billboards, Structure, ect. ---J-4-- U---- ---z5----- ---l -----8--- --25..--- Animal Keeping - ---9 --J----- .9------- Ll.----- --.I i-- --a------- Construction tllNoise) 0 2 --Q ---A-------- 11(Debris) - - - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encroachment - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 Garage Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Home occupation - 0 - 2 - 2 2 - 0 - - - 2 0 - - - -Q----- --Q------ --Q------ ---0----- --a---- --0-------- MabilFood Prep. Units - - - - - - - - --Q------ - - --0------ - - -n----- - - St t V St t d O H D O ree en ree ors V L E S 6 11 ----1 Z----- --v ---a------- Solid Naste (Private Prop.) ----1 - -4------- 4------- Q------ ---Q Te2perary Outdoor Events - 0 - 0------ --Q Q-____ -_n -0 Vehicle (Commercial) Private Prop. - - Q------ --Q------ -Q----- -mow Need Abatement 0-- 4 - Q_ ._w_ 4------- ~.Q._------ MISC. BUILDING i SAFETY misc. 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 SubStandard Housing - - - - - 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Building without Permits 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Open Trenches - 0 1 - 1 0 - 1 1 0 Unsafe/Abandoned Construction Sites - - 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 TAL 29 65 --_-___-a 91 - -______-_i_ 18 72 90 1 ITEM NO. 10 Jn ORDINANCE NO. 90-25 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 11.10 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PLACEMENT OF MATTER HARMFUL TO MINORS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 11.10 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "CHAPTER 11.10 DISPLAY OF ADULT MATERIALS HARMFUL TO MINORS 11.1 .010. Legislative Finding and Authorization. The City Council does find that there exists and has existed an increasing trend toward the display of harmful matter within the meaning of California Penal Code Section 313 et M. at grocery stores, convenience stores, drugstores, and other retail outlets within the City of Temecula. Said material is often displayed within the open view of children of tender years and is easily accessible to them. The City Council finds that this material is adverse to the public peace, morals and good order of young children. The Council further finds that it is in the best interest of the public safety, welfare and convenience of the City to restrict the display of said material and to adopt the following regulations so that adverse impacts upon young children are kept to a minimum. 11,10.020. Display of Adult Materials Harmful To Minors. The display of material which is harmful to minors, as defined in Chapter 7.6 of Title 9 of the California Penal Code, (Section 313 L e=. thereof) in a public place, other than a public place from which minors are excluded, is prohibited unless a device commonly known as a blinder rack is placed in front of such material, so that the lower two-thirds of the material is not exposed to view. 11.10.030. Penalties 2/ORDS/90-25 1 11/28/90 Every day that this Chapter is violated shall be a separate violation of this Chapter. Every violation of this Chapter shall be punishable as a misdemeanor." SECTION 2. Forwarding Copy Of Ordinance To Businesses Handling Harmful Matter. Upon adoption, a copy of this Ordinance shall be forwarded to all businesses in the City of Temecula who may handle "harmful matter" as defined in Section 313 of the California Penal Code. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 1990. Ron Parks Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek Deputy City Clerk 2/ORDS/90-25 2 11/28/90 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90-25 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 27th day of November, 1990, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 4th day of December, 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field City Attorney June S. Greek Deputy City Clerk 2/ORDS/90-25 3 11/28/90 ITEM NO. 11 T APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Engineering Department DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132 PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132 subject to the Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Vesting Tract No. 24132 was originally submitted to Riverside County Planning Department on December 23, 1988. The Tentative Tract Map Amended No. 2 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 23, 1989. Vesting Tract No. 24132 contains 108 residential lots within 60.43 gross acres. The tract is located south of Pauba Road and west of Meadows Parkway (Kaiser Parkway). This tract is part of the Meadows Specific Plan (SP 219) and Development Agreement No. 4, Change of Zone No. 5140, and General Plan Amendment No. 103. The applicant is Bedford Properties. The following fees have been paid for Vesting Tract Map No. 24132: Signal Mitigation Fee Area Drainage Fee Fire Mitigation Fee (Deferred) $ 18,000.00 84,907.00 45,200.00 The following bonds have been posted for Final Tract Map No. 24132: Faithful Parfnrmanr-o Street and Drainage $ 875,000.00 Water 205,000.00 Sewer 199, 000.00 Survey Monuments $ 21, 700.00 Traffic Signal 22,500.00 Labor and Material $ 437,500.00 384,500.00 99,500.00 STAFFRPT\FVT24132 1 FISCAL IMPACT: SUMMARY: TM: ks Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. Not Determined. Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132 subject to the Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval Fees & Securities Report Copy of Map Location Map STAFFRPT\FVT24132 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: VZ ZA 132 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. -2(P Condition No. NONE Condition No. q Condition No. 9 ITEM 2S of kOAO uCTTEAe Condition No. NNE Condition No. (S Condition No. 14 Forms/Ping-M9 :ties DE count KAnnince Dcawmmmr DATE: June 8, 1989 { RE: TENTATIVE VESTING TRACT NO. 24132 Amd. 2 E. A. NUMBER: 33470 SPECIFIC PLANS TEAM Dear Applicant: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the following action on the above referenced tentative vesting tract map at its regular meeting of May 23. 1989 _ LAPPROVED tentative up subject to the attached conditions. E11IED tentative map based on attached findings. PROVED withdrawal of tentative map. The vesting tract map has been found to be consistent with the all pertinent elements of the Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted. A conditionally approved tentative vesting tract map shall expire 24 months after the approval at the Board of Supervisors Nearing, the date of which is shown above, unless within that period of time a final map shall have been approved and file with the County Recorder. Prior to the expiration date, the land divide 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 way extend the period for one year and upon further application a second and a third year. Very truly yours. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter. Planning Director RG:zq Ron Goldman, Principal Planner 4080 LEMON STREET, 9r" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (714) 787-6181 (619) 342-8277 t r- Cy% ao N 1 N L O N a L CL N O L A 0 m m a CL 6 l►.~.i : CO : gs SDEHIITM 10 We BMW CF SAWME9M TIM. FLma n G rumamwr saemrr L D1l.: May 15, 1989 SCEUE=: VESTING 7PAC,T NO. 24131 Md. No. 1 - VESTII~G TRACT. NO 24132 Amd. No. 2 - VESTING TRACT NO. 24133 Alad. No 1 - VESTING TRACT NO. 24134 Amd. No. 1 - VESTING TRACT NO. 24135 Amd. No. 1 - VESTING TRACT NO. 24136 Amd. No. 1 - VESTING TRACT NO. 24131 Amd. No. 1 - Bedford Prvpestie3 - Sneer 4wrial District 1 - Rancho California Area - 698.1 Acres 2,519 lots - Schedule A - SP Zoning ROM M AND = the above mentioned case acted cn by the Planning 5ee 75 3icn an April 12, 1989. TB; P1A RMOG CCHMI! SZCN: ADCQZED Tbe Negative Declaration for Envirccvental Assessment Nos. 3433, 33470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414 beaed an the findings inaorposated in the snvi=vental assessment and the oonclusicn that-the proposed project will not have a significant effect cn the ; and S)_ Streator, Planning Director ..rte ftiw. AlPL si DGNa- der Dom. AGENDA NO. r r 11A VT No's 24131, 24132 24133, 24134, 24135, 24136 24137 April 19, 1989 Page APPROVED VEMMiG ZEWD TI % 1RA T NO 24131 Amd. No. 1, subject to the attached oonditions and based cn the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Omni sicn minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPPOVED VESTID G ZOI'ATTVE 7RACT NO. 24132 Amd. No. 1, subject to the attached conditions and based on the findings and oonclusicns incorporated in the Planning C Mission minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPROVED VES M TENTATIVE 7RACT NO. 24133 Amd. No. 2, subject to the attached =x:Uticns and based cn the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning C=issicn minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPKM VEST M MWMTIVB ZRACT NO. 24134 Amd No. 1 subject to the ` attached oanditions and based ca the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning C=Missicn minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, X MOW VESTM MTIVE TPMT NO. 24135 Mad No. It subject to the attached conditions and based an the findings and conclusions incorporated is the Planning Ommissicn minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPRWID VE.STnG TNCT NO. 24136 Amd No. 1, subject to the attached conditions and bawd en the findings and conclusions iaoozporsted in the Planning CbMisaian Uinutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPAO M VI:MM 72WZ TIVE 2RA = 10. 24137 And. No. 1, subject to the attached conditions and based an the findings and conclusions 41,~porated in the PIMM4 rg Q®aissicn minmtee dated April 12, 1989. . . RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1989 C (AGENDA ITEM 5-4 - Reel 1025, Side 1 and 2 - Tapes No. 3A, 38, 4A) VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 24131 - EA 33433 - Bedford Properties - Rancho California Area - First Supervisorial District - easterly of Margarita Rd, southerly of Pauba Rd - 441 lots - 105.41 acres - SP Zone - Schedule A with VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 24132 - EA 33470 - 223 lots - 90.21 acres - SP Zone - Schedule A and VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 24133 - EA 33383 - 693 lots - 163.7s acres - SP Zone - Schedule A and VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 24134 - EA 33469 - 310 lots - 91.2s acres - SP Zone - Schedule A and VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 24135 - EA 33434 - 325 lots - NO. 233413 83.5s acres - SP Zone - Sc~heiuolne A anSchedule dIA 24136 - 4137 - 400 lots - 99.81 acres EA 33414 - 147 lots - 64.31 acres - SP Zone - Schedule A Hearings were opened at 3:30 p.m. and were closed at 4:19 p.m. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA Nos. 33433, 33470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414 and approval of Testing Tentative Tract Nos. 24131 Amended No. 19 24132 Amended No. 2. 24133 Amended No. 1, 24134 Amended No. 1. 24135 Amended No. 1, 24136 Amended No. 19 and 24137 Amended No. 1 based on the findings and conclusions listed in the staff report. Staff advised that the vesting tracts are to implement the western portion of The Meadows Specific Plan (SP 219), which is located east of Margarita Road, west of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Highway 79 and south Pauba iRoad. lThe proposal is to subdivide approximately 698.1 acres into 2.529 r and 100 open space lots/school sites. Zoning on site is SP. Surrounding zoning is SP, R-R, R-A, R-a-2h, R-A-59 A-1-10 and C-P-S. The site consists of rolling terrain except for the southern portion which is which flat, handsiisvacant with the exception of a portion of Vesting Tract 24137. percolation ponds. The site had been used for dry farming where topography permitted. The site is located near other adopted Specific Plans such as Vail Ranch (SP 223) and Redhawk (SP 217) to the south. as well as approved tracts to the east. The proposed development conforms with the residential densities and design standards of the specific plan. Vesting Tract 24131 will divide 105.4 acres into 440 single family lots, with 13 open space lots. and as destiny amended 24132. minor redesign of the tract to facilitate circulation. Amended No. 2 proposes to divide 30.2 acres into 214 single family lots with 11 The issue open space lots including an elementary and junior high school site. of slope stability was a concern of all the tracts and ve s reviewed by the County Geologist. Vesting Tract 24133 proposes to divide 163.7 acres into 693 single family lots and 23 open space lots and has an extensive paseo system which links to an active recreation area. The Fire Department was concerned about internal circulation and worked to avoid cutting through the paseo area. The cross sections of the greenbelt/paseo area is on file. Vesting Tract 24134 proposes to divide 91.2 acres into 311 single family lots and 19 open space lots, which included a 2.S acre lot for a day care center. Vesting Tract Map 24135 proposes to divide 83.5 acres into 325 single lots and acres into Men space lots. Vesting Tract Map 24136 proposes 41 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12. 1989 single family lots and 8 open space lots. There is a historic site on this map and on Tract 24137 and a letter on this site was incorporated within the staff report. All concerns have been resolved. Tract 24137 proposes to divide 64.3 acres into 146 single family lots. a 9.1 acre commercial lot and 7 open space lots. A liquefaction study was prepared for this tract and was reviewed by the County Geologist to his satisfaction. Staff modified the conditions of approval as follows: Condition 18-e for Tracts 24133, 24134. 24135 and 24137: "Trash bins, lading areas and incidental storage areas located in recreation areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping.' Condition 18-f amended to read 'bike access to recreation areas.' Condition 21 to be replaced by standard language for the property owners association maintaining the common areas rather than the strict CSA requirements. Condition 26-a shall be deleted since none of the tract areas are in the study area for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat or within the known occupied habitat. Condition 26-c should be modified to read: Prior to issuance of building rather than grading permits. Condition 29 should be added to all the tracts, referring to the CEQA monitoring of the mitigation measures. Commissioner Beadling said that there is 100 acres either for schools or open space. She asked if they took the school sites out, how much open space would they have. Staff advised that there are 243 acres devoted to recreation and open space outside of the school sites. Commissioner Beadling asked whether there was a provision for a clubhouse, and staff advised that there are plans for recreation centers within the plan. Staff will receive plot plans for the open space areas. Lee Johnson, Road Department, advised that item No. 4 for Tract 24133 should be amended to read H/66 instead of 44/66. TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT: Mike Ryan, Bedford Properties, 27405 Ynes Road, Rancho California, said that they concur with the staff report and all conditions of approval except for one. He said that the condition appears irs all the tracts. They would like added to item 16 of the Road Department letter dated March 7, 1989 *or as approved by the Road Commissioner.' Mr. Johnson concurred with that proposed amendment. 42 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1989 TESTIMONY OF OPPONENTS: Felix Probandt, P. O.Box 1150, Temecula, said that all his comments related to the issue of wastewater disposal, in particular, the Eastern Municipal Water District/Rancho California Water Reclamation Facility (hereafter called the Eastern Sewer Plant). He had his assistant present a series of transparencies which Mr. Probandt used to illustrate his points. His residence is located at 43789 Rendova Place. Mr. Probandt said that the transparencies are generally of documents that the Commissioners have already received, and he emphasized the information found in those documents. Mr. Probandt said that the conditions of approval include a condition that the environmental assessment shall utilize the evaluation of impacts addressed in the EIR prepared for Specific Plan No. 219. Under 'impacts' the information was provided that the project will generate approximately 1.81 million gallons per day average peak dry weather sewage flow, and that the peak dry weather sewage flow is estimated to be 3.08 million gallons per day to be treated by the Eastern Sewage Plant. Another document states that the site lies within the jurisdictions of the Rancho California Water District and the Eastern Municipal Water District. He said that Eastern, not Rancho, will provide sewer service. The San 53 letter has remarks which state that prior to the first LDC, the attached requested information is to be introduced to the E.H.S. The Health letter dated August 9. 1988 to the Rancho California Water District discussed the "will service" letter. He noted that a typical response to a Health Department letter was 'yes' to the question of whether there was adequate capacity. Eastern Municipal Water District's response to a "will serve' letter has a statement that 'service might be precluded by the San Diego Region Water Quality Control Board.' A second copy of a San 53 has the statement that sewer may require off site sewer facilities subject to the treatment plant capacity of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The San Diego Water Board's Order No. W94 had to do with discharge specifications and certain difficulties Eastern was experiencing in discharging which was in violation of the "basin plan" as well as capacity. Order 140. 88-101 was issued for a time schedule for the Eastern Municipal Water District to rectify the problems. He said because of the agreement with Camp Pendleton and the Rancho District, Eastern is being allowed three years to work out the violationss but they can only go to three million a day, and in order to be able to discharge three million gallons, they must comply with certain report dates for the next three years. The report concludes that Eastern shall submit to the Regional Board on or before each compliance date a Report of Compliance or Noncompliance with each task. The last page was a table which indicated that the tracts average peak sewage flow comes to 0.788 million gallons a day (MGD). He pointed out that water is introduced to this flaw to dilute it. The monthly report shows an average of 2.260 million gallons by the and of February, with a maximum of 2.423 NO. He said that under the present operating status of the Eastern Water District, there is no reasonable assurance that Eastern will be able to treat and discharge the wastewater flows t coming out of the subject tracts for which environmental assessments are in question. 43 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1989 Mr. Probandt said that EIR 235 for SP 219 was defective because information that could not have been known at the time of the EIR was certified as complete. The San Diego Regional Board Orders and the action by the Rancho California Board and the Marines all took place subsequent to the October 1988 Board of Supervisors approval of the subject EIR. No negative declaration can be issued because there exists substantial evidence that each project or tract in question bay have a significant effect on the environment. The review process presented was in violation of due process and that the pertinent agency (the Department of Health) did not follow its own rules in the approval process. Commissioner Beadling said that what was basically being said is that the plant is at capacity now and this project cannot be included. Mr. Probandt said that Eastern is in violation of the basin plan. The water code of the State of California has a list of rules which allows any member of the public to protest an order of the Board. One of the procedures was to protest to the State Water Resources Board. He said that by the time this project is built, he didn't believe that he can be assured that the project will not be in violation of the 3 MGD. Commissioner Beadling asked whose responsibility this is. Mr. Vickers said that Eastern indicated that they had the capacity and would serve these tracts. Commissioner Beadling noted that from what Mr. Probandt is saying, Eastern cannot provide the capacity. Mr. Vickers said that that statement could be subject to a dispute by Eastern. They cannot sit in judgment of whether or not Eastern is or is not in violation. That issue would have to be heard in San Diego before the Mater Quality Control Board down there. What the developer has is a letter from Eastern Municipal saying that there is capacity. Mr. Vickers advised that they should not be substituting their judgment for either Eastern or the Mater Quality Control Board over whether or not there is capacity. Commissioner Purviance said that he did not believe that this was in the purview of the Commission, to check whether there are proper assurances from the proper agencies. However, if the San Diego RWQCB say that Eastern is persisting in violating the basin plan, it would seem as if the WQCB has the power to issue a case and desist order which would prohibit them from allowing more hookups or whatever other action they choose to take. Commissioner Bresson said that there is a Mello Roos in that area, but he did not know if part of that district was for the development of a sewage plant. He felt that Eastern has a obligation when they wrote their letter saying that they have capacity, and the Commission has to consider that Eastern will do it. If Eastern gets additional capacity, there is no problem; if not, then Eastern and the developer will have a Problem. The Commission has to go by that documentation is given them. Mr. Probandt said that he was alleging that the developer cannot get capacity because of Eastern's own statements. He said that what he was trying to show 44 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12. 1989 with the transparencies of the documents is that the statement from the Health r Department has a 'yes' check for capacity, but that does not mean anything. What does mean something is the letter Eastern sent dated 12-19-88 which states CB-SD.' Mr. Probandt said that if this that 'service might be precluded by RMQ project develops further, Eastern will testifyh that this iisnoo nbindithat the commitment, and is not a contract to serve. TT ial developer cannot get a negative declaration if thereexists s bstantificant evidence that the project, in this case the tracts, environmental impact. Therefore, he was presenting the information in that context. Mr. Vickers asked if sewage was a part of Specific Plan 219 and EIR 235 and Mr. were mitigation measures a part of that. Staff advised that it was. Vickers pointed out that added to the conditions today were conditions said regarding environmental monitoring and recording. Commissioner that she was concerned that `t~hildenedlupe~ grade the thatlhas,beenndisturbedt he cannot build. What they and is subject to erosion. Mr. Probandt said that he moved onto his property after the Board approved the specific plan. He would have been at these hearings before this, had he moved into the area earlier. He is trying to establish evidence that these tracts may have at significant Impact on the environment in order to get this problem resolved. Mr. Vickers said that the environmental findings in the EIR address the issue of sewage and the mitigation of that problem. He noted that a not atadvised rithat the condition was added today fortov~~iousgstand ages reorting, and ght level. at development could be stopped Commissioner Purviance said that he did not believe it was the Commission's the role to make the determination that Mr. Probandt wants. Water or n Control developer is following the requirements or the Regional is between the developer and that agency. Mr. Probandt reiterated that this is an environmental assessment that is being considered and the Commission cannot issue a negative declaration under these circumstances based Commissioner subs antial evidence that this project may affect the the plan ells for these things to advised that County Counsel is saying that be mitigated and that t~c conditions declaration Is e_ perie~ctlyele~gaject 1s monitored. Therefore. The hearing was closed at 4:19 P.M. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Seven Tentative Vesting Tract Nos. 241319 24132• 241339 241349 24135, 24136 and 24137 have been submitted; the subject tracts are located entirely Within adopted Specific PlandNo. 219;Adthe seven opted Specific Plan tracts have been designed to the devellepmen 33469, 33434, 33413. and No. 219; Environmental Assessment Nos. 33433, 334709 based on the findings of Environmental Impact Report No. 235, prepared 33414, for Specific Plan No. 219, indicate that the environmental impacts can avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level, except for cumulative Air Quality impacts, which cannot be fully mitigated; a statement of Overriding Findings 45 r APRIL 12, 1989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES for cumulative Air Quality impacts Mss approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 4, 1988; and, Development Agreement No. 4 has been recorded for Specific Plan No. 219. The proposed tracts conform to Specific Plan No. 219; Conform to the requirements of Ordinance Nos. 348 and 460; based on the Nos. 3 , 33470 environmental determination Bade in Environmental wDectAvest ngntraCts wi113not have 33383. 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414, a significant effect on the environment, wi tLedthe cumulativeedAir Quality impacts which cannot be fully SN r--erenc s for Envi ronnental Asselisa~enimpacts iu DpTO~~ y~~tB~Tof Supervisors o^ October cumulative Air Quality 4, 1988, therefore, the environmental design and the conditionstofa pproval~ acceptable level through Comm NOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner ead ntedseconded Negativee Declarationsaforng and unanimously carried, the Commission 33413 and 33414 and approved EA Nos. 33433, 33470, 33383, 33469, 33434. Tentative Tracts No. 24131 Amended No. 1. 24132 Amended No. 2. 24133 Mended No. 1. 24133 Amended No. 19 24134 1 24135amendedAmendedconditiNo. Amended No. 1, and 24137 Amended approval and based on the above findings and conclusions. In answer to Commissioner Bressonni,Mr. Vic rs advised that on the previous item, the Development Agreement was in P e These are new vesting maps within the Specific Plan. 46 Zoning Area: PAncho California Supervisorial District: First E.A. Wmt er: 33433, 33470, 33383, ( 33469, 33434, 33413, 33414 Specific Plan Section Vesting Tract Nos.: Planning Ca Missi= Agenda Item No.: 5-4 24131 Amendment No. 1 24132 Amendment No. 2- 24133 Amendment No. 1 24134 Amendment No. 1 24135 Amendment No. 1 24136 Amendment No. 1 24137 Amendment No. 1 4-12-89 RIVERS' COMM PLMgnM FAtt~fK! S!W IMO(? o+ ao M N 0 N T H M. 0 i .e 0 CIO 'v 0 L CL It 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer: 3. Type of Paquest 4. Location: 5. Existing Zone.. 6. SursvIa~diog Zoning: 7. Site ma=sct~sriatica: Bedford Properties Robert Bain, William Frost & Associates To subdivide 698.1 acres into seven vesting tracts (24131, 24132, 24133, 24134, 24135, 24136, and 24137) consisting of 2,529 residential lots and 100 open space lots/school sites. The tracts are located within the Meadows. Specific Plan (No. 219). The site is in the State Highway 79 corridor in the Rancho California area of Southwestern Riverside County. Specifically, the subject tracts are located east of MuVarita Rd. and west of Butterfield Stage Rd., immediately north of HighMay 79, and south of Pauba Rd. SP We R-R, R-X R-Ar2 1/2, R-A-5, A-1-10, C-P-S Ma site of the subject t racts consists of soiling terrain exc ept for the southern portiaa of the site, uhic h is flat. 7he site has been used for dry farming oats the topography permitted. With the exception of pescolatian ponds an a portion of Wst3ng TaCt 24137, all vacwt: Of the site is Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 Page 2 8. Area Characteristics : The seven subject vesting tracts are located in Southwestern Riverside County in the Rsac ho California area. The tracts are near other adapted specific Plana, such as Vail Ranch (Specific Plan 223) and Redhawk (Specific Plan 217) to the South as wall as approved tracts to the east. 9. Comprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. Land Division Data: UM USE: Adopted Specific Plan No. 219 CPEN SPACE VESTING QDM SnIMZ FAI-MX C CMMEIRC M LOM/SC7i00L = TRACT NO. A QME PIAMMIG AREAS TATS Lon S C 24131 Pad. No. 1 105.4 15.22 440 0 0 13 11 24132 And. No. 2 90.2 30.31,32 214 693 0 23 24133 Amd. No. 1 163.7 16,19,20,21 311 0 19 24134 Amd. No. 1 91.2 18,33.34 325 0 19 24135 And. No. 1 83.5 17 400 0 8 24136 Amd. No. 1 99.8 8 146 1 7 24137 Amd. No. 1 64.3 1, 2-a 70MU S 698.1 2,529 1 100 Sea lottery dated: li. Agenc y Pa n- n: Tract No. 24131 MorAMOM No. 1 Tract No. 24132 Aimandment No. 2 Flood : 3-07-89 Health Department: 3-20-89 Flood Control: 3-27-89 Fix-O Dept: 2-27-89 Building and Safety: 1-18-89 pevised goad Dept.: 4-14-89 Road I~aenI : 3-06-89 Baalth Department: 3-20-89 Flood CI=*ol: 3-24-89 Fire : 3-21-89 Building and Safety: 3-06-89 Pavised goad Dept: 4-17-89 Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. Page 3 24131 Amended NO - 1 24132 Amended No- 2 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 aided NO. 1 Tract No. 24133 1 No. 1 Tract No. 24135 Amt No. 1 Road Department: 3-06-89 Health Department: 2-27-89 Flood 0antrol: 3-27-89 Fire Departirpo ; 2-24-89 Building and Safety: 3-06-89 Revised goad Dept; 4-17-89 Road Department: 3-06-89 Health Department: 2-27-89 Flood Control: 3-27-89 Fire ; 2-24-89 Building and Safety: 3-06=89 Revised RDad Dept.: 4-12-89 Tract No. 24137 Amgrd"Sn't No. 1 Road DepartMeInt: 3-07-89 Health ; 2-27-89 Flood Control: 3-27-89 Fire peparda"mtt ; 2-24-89 Building and Safety: 3-06-89 county Geologist: 1-30-89 Ravim d Aosd Dom.; 4-12-89 Tract No. 24134 )Wendumt No. 1 Road Department: 3-06-89 Health Department: 3-20-89 Flood Control= 3-27-89 Fire Department: 2-24-89 Aui ling and Safety: 3-06-89 Revised Road Dom.: 4-17-89 Tract No. 24136 AMMWmMt No. 1 Road Department: 3-06-89 Health Depart rent: 2-27-89 Flood Control: 3-27-89 Fire Depaztosrent; 2-24-89 Building and Safety: 3-06-89 pavi.wd R d Dom.: 4-12-89 project DesgEi est,r Ig 7W tative Macts bare born filed within adopted Specific plan Yo. 2199 (Tbe Meado"). Venting TMUtive Tract No. 24131 proposes to divide 453 lass cn 105.4 acres. Vesting T'e*J'tiv6 react WD. 24132 will divide 214 lots cn 90.2 acres. In the interior of the Specific plMf Veating Tract Into. 24133 consists of 716 lots an 163.7 acres. Vesting Tycact No. 24134, located in the nosth*~t Go~1er of the Specific plan area. will divide 91.2 ac=es into 330 lots. Vesting TYact no. 24135e, located in the westa= most Portion of the Specific plan, includes 344 lets m 83.5 acres. Vesting Tract 90. 24136 will divide Tract go- 24137. in the .9 sczas into 99 ern portion of 408 the lots. - Fecificinallyplan, vesting adjacent to Hicbay 79. 3 pcq=sw to divide 64.3 acres into 154 lots. Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. Page 4 C Hackgraaxi 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 P. 1 1e 1 No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 Specific Plan No. 219, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 4, 1988, includes 5,611 dwelling units on 1389 acres. The seven tracts implement the western portion of the Specific Plan. Environmental Impact Report No. 235 assessed the full range of enviromnertal concerns associated with the Specific Plan. All identified potential impacts, except for cumulative effects on air quality, were reduced to an acceptable level through mitigation measures umrporated into the project, conditions of approval and project design. The impact report is the basis for the a33Wa3ments for the subject tracts. Environmental Assessment Nos. 33433, 33470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414 indicated that all potential impacts for the tracts can be mitigated to an acceptable level. - Project Consistency with adopted Specific Plan 1lhe subject tracts were thoroughly reviewed for eocnsistency with Adopted Specific Plan No. 219. Me residential densities and layout conform to the Land Use Plan. Lotting, as abom an the tract asps, will aeooemodate the zoning provisions of the zoning ordinance adapted in conjunction with the Specific Plan. Mme `resting tract mope and oo conxiiticna of approval are consistent with the Planning Area Development Standards described in Section III.B of the Specific Plan. Issues dealt with at the design stage of the tracts have included internal circulation within the tracts. aitiga4. of historic resources, and geologic issues. Firstly, internal was a concern in all of the tracts under oo nsidecaticn, em=pt for Vesting Tract No. 24137. Mum ooncw= were worked out through minor redesign. MW seCOnd issw was the mitigation of historic rssouroes, which was discussed extensively between the applicant and the county Parks . It was 1-1 &mitned that the historic resources within the tracts union ecnsideratim oauld be adequately mitigated. Finally, geologic concerns included liquafact ien for Vesting Tract 24137 and slope stability for all at the tracts. Reports wale prep and m each issue and reviewed by the County Geologist. . Sus r i - - maendatims regarding the liquefaction issue for Tian 24137 are pzesennted in a letter doted 1-30-89. With regard to slope stability, the Geologist found that the seoaaraesndatians of the reports were acceptable and should be itnoozporated into the development and construction of the tracts. Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 Page 5 rMINsS 1. Seen Tentative Vesting Tract Nos. 24131, 24132, 24133, 24134, 24135, 24136, and 24137 have been submitted. 2. The subject tracts are located entirely within adopted Specific Plan No. 219. 3. The seven vesting tracts have been designed to the development standards of Adopted Specific Plan No. 219. 4. Environmental Assessment Nos. 33433, 33470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414, based on the findings of Emd~ental bmpact Report No. 235, prepared for Specific Plan No. 219, indicate that the -al impacts can be avoided or mitigated to an acoep~table level, except for cumulative Air Quality impacts, rich cannot be fully mitigated. A statement of Overriding Findings for cumulative Air Quality impacts was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 4, 1988. C 5. Developnent Agreement No. 4 has been recorded for Specific Plan No. 219. 0.?43JMSIONS 1. The proposed tracts confoao to Specific Plan No. 219. 2. The propoeed vesting tracts conform to the requirements of Ordinance No. 348 and 460. 3. Based on the deteanination made in tal Assessment Nos. 334330 334701, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414, the subject vesting tracts win not lave a aicpsificant effect on the , with the exception of asmulative Air Quality impacts uhic h cannot be fully mitigated. 7bs above ssfes+anoe 1 lfmrimnoantal Assessieents include the Statement of Overriding Findings fbc ate,lat ve Air Quality facts approved by the Board of Supervisor on October 40, 1988. A00MM of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assess aeit Nos. 33433, M4-70, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414 based an the finding that the envuumm&al impacts bave been mitigated to an aaoeptable level through ( project design and the onnditians of approval; and, APPPDvAL of Waiting Tentative Tract No. 24131 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached oonditians of approval: and, Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 r 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 Page 6 APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24132 Amended No. 2, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and, APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24133 Anse-ied No. 1, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and, APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24134 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached condition of approval; and, APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24135 Jyteatded No. 1, subject to the attached condition of approval; and, APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24136 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and, APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24137 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached oonditions of approval. 00' cj TR 24131 24132 24133 24137 TR 24134 24135 24135 TR, - - -ti- .VAC O RE S . ti's r~s-W' ~ ~ fie' • • AC E• K•: ITT §C1►TJEA ,R- i P. f LAND USE w SCATTERED VAC t.:. • C AL Q ~ ~ ~ • VACi~ ~ ~ yt ~AC A17o v i 10 d .1~pC TURF ' FA wo: ` Egg . E VA i~ r•.~. VAC VPv RANCH Agr App. BEDFORD PROPERTIES Use 2529 LOTS Area RANCHO CALIF lot Sup-OK sec. $ T. a S..R.2 W Assgsor s Sk. 923 PO. 23 Circulation HIGHWAY EXP VAR Element MARGARITA RD ART 110' IN. dk. Pg. S 6 A Data 3 / 21/ d 9 Drftn Sn wn ' _ _ , ..,.....r,. d ewdvl.w DEPARTMV V T TR 24131 TR 24132 TR 2413-., EXISTING ZONING 3 TA 21134 iR 24135 TA 24136 TR 24137 •q-R R-i Lo's ~`~0~1► a~ r.s • sr w (Sp wR-i R-R X - - .s '4134 •:t N.Y.:,::: •~,.!h: sr, i s • ~s 1 3-74i r.2ac 2 413 nf*::%; X24131• ..i _ .•{,A • •:Y Y. \ .Y•yr.n: • •~1•::.: S P 2 • 9 I 40- R-R r Z;t \N•!Rw2413a . : .73 LR-R N~ •-r • _ Lo"TWWAL "p App. BEDFORD PROPERTIES use. 2529 LOTS Area RANCHO CALIF let Sup•Obt ~o sec. $ T. S &A.2W Aae$W i Sk. 923 P0. 23 HIGHWAY EXP VAR 3IT:•. Cjrculotion ART 110' Element QAARGARITA RD R0.9k. P6. S6A pots 3/21/89 Ora" BY Vn Vr " I' • 2000' RrYERWDf COY PLANNING DEPARMWr RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 AMENDED NO. 2 STANDARD CONDITIONS 1 The subdivider shall defend, indemnify. and hold harmless the County of . Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees.from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24132 Amended No. 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 f subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County o erate fully in the defense. If the County fails to ill coo d id p w e an Rivers 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 ha unless the i° County of Riverside. I 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California d to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A t i an c Subdivision Map unless modified by the conditions listed-below. A , 3 This conditionally approved tentative map, will expire two years after the o . County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date. unless extended as L provided by Ordinance 460. 10 4. The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor subject to all t and A c the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Map Ordinance 460. v 0 S. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside and ildin f B t t D a Oct g u men o epar County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 6. 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 comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as may be additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. !2 Conditions of Approval Page 2 7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. 8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 9. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 1-1;-69 4-17-89, a cop of which is attached. (Amended by Planning Commission April 12, 1989T 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. 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. 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. 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 3-20-89 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 3-24-89 -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 outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 3-21-89 a copy of which is attached. 16. 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. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , Amd. 12 Conditions of Approval Page 3 17. The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219. 18. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All residential lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 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 non-through lots. c. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the Specific Plan zone. d. 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. 19. Prior to RECORDATION. of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County Health Department County Flood Control County Parks Department 20. 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 any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the association. 21. Prior to recordation 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 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT Conditions of Approval Page 4 NO. 24132 . And. f2 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. 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 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 any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area, more particularly described as Lots A through K on Vesting Tract Map No. 24132, Amended No 2 attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'coammon 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 the 'common area' and shall have the right to lien the property of any such owner who defaults in the payment of a maintainance 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 to nminated, '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 • commmon area". In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles of Incorporation, the Blylaws or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control.' Once approved, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be recorded at the saw tin that the final up is recorded. (Added by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) 84. Wer to reserdat4ea of the f4na4 NM the avbd4v4*w sha44 senvey " the Cernty fee 94mp4e 0444e, to a44 ssmmmsw er semmmen spew speee areas, free and s4ear of a44 44ens, taxes, assessment, 4eases 4reser4ed and rnreserded) and easeimewts, usept these easements wh4ah 4w the We VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , Amd. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 5 d4seret4on of the County are aeseptab4ev As eondWoas precedent to the County aseept4ng 4444e to such areas, the subd4v4def sha44 subm*t the #s44ow#ng doeuments to the P4aaa4a9 Department i'ef rev4ew, wh4eh doeuments sha44 be sublest to the approval of that department and the Aff4ee of the Ceuaty Cewnse4t 14 A dec4arat49R of oovenaats, eoa0ttoas and restr4st4oasi and 24 A sample document soavey4ng t We to the purchaser of an 4ad444ua4 494' or unfit wh4sh pfov44e9 that the des4arat4on of covenants, toad W ons and restr4st4ons 4s 4neorperated thereon by re€erenee. The des4aratton of ssveaants, soadWons and restr4ot4ons subm4tted for rev4ew shal4 Ea4 prov4de for a term of io years, Eb4 prev4de top the estab4shment of a property owners= assos4at4oR sompr4sed of the owners of Gash 4ad4v4dva4 494 or unfit and 4e4 eonta4n the fe44ew4ag pfov4s4sns verbat4m♦ SKetw4thstand4ag any prov4s4on 4R Ws Dec4arat4ea to the contrary, the fe44ow4ag prov4s4on shag app4yf The property owners= assee4at4on estab44she4 here4a sha447 4# dormant, be aet4vated, by 4nsorporat4on or etherw4se7 at the request of the Cornty of R4vefs44e, and the property owners= assee4at4on sha44 v%eoad444ona44y t aeeept from the County of M vers4de, upon the County=s demand, tWe to a44 • or any part of the =common area=, more part4ev4ar4y deser4bed as trots A through K on VesUng Tract No. 24432 Amended Nov 2. The dee4s4on to requ4re aet4vat4on of the property owners= assee4at4on and the detWon to requ4re that the assee4at4on uasondWona44y aseept 440e to the seommon area= sha44 be at the so4e d4ssret4oa of the County of Rovers Wav 44 the event that the ssmmon areal or any part them#, 4s seaveyed to the property owners= assos4449n1 the assoe4at4on, thereafter sha44 am such leommon area=, sha44 manage and eonUnuous4y ■a4nta4R Gush ssommen areal, or any part 4hereef, absent the pf4or wr444en soasent of the P4ano4ng 94reeter of the County of R4vers4de or the County-'s sveoesser-fin-4nterest, The property ewers-1 assee444on sha44 have the r4ht to assess the owners of easy 4nd4v4dua4 4o4 or unfit for the reasonable east of ma4ataWng eveh =semen area=, and 004 have the r4ght to 44en the property of any eveh owner who defaults fin the payment of a ma4nteRanet assessment. An assessment 44en, ones, sreated, sha44 be pr4or t• a44 other 44ons retarded subsequent to the not4so of assessment or other document ereat4Rg the assessment 44tnw Thos Des4ara44an sMa44 net be 4erm4nated7 ssubstant4a44ys amended sr property deanneaod therefrom absent the pr4or wr4ttan soRsent of the PUMM4n9 94re4t4r of the Couaty of R4e0144e o► the Countyss oveoessor-4R-4nterest. A proposed amendment shall be eans4dered VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. #2 Conditions of Approval Page 6 1svbs4aat W1 4f 44 affects the **Seat,, vsage or ma4atenanss 94 the I'semaen area=. ;a the event of any soaf44st between th4s Dec4arat4sa and the Art4e4es of 4nsorperat4en, the Qy;aws, or the property owners= assot494on Rv4es and Rtgulat4oas, 4f any, 049 Des4arat4oa sha44 ooatre4.= gate approved, the declarat4on of covenants, ssodWons aad restr4st4ons sha44 be recorded at the same Ume that 4he i4aa4 map 4s recorded. (Deleted by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) 22. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions: 1) Prior to recordation of the final map the developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to, a parkway maintenance district for Vesting Tract 24132 Amended /2 in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, unless the project.is within an existing parkway maintenance district. l 2) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure approval of proposed landscaping and irrigation plans from the County t 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 No. 219. 23. 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. 24. Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. 02 Conditions of Approval Page 7 1) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street light layout first from the Road Department's traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor. 2) 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 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 recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the ( office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. a. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: `County Slope Stabilty Report No. 95 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: slope stability." 26. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. We# 4e the 499rasee of grad4ag pePm44si the appUtant sha44 ebta4% e4earasee from %Ms My F4sh and M4404fe 6esv4se PeU44sg is she e*494eses of W iseOM KasgaPse A&$ so the s4te. (Deleted by Planning Comission April 12, 1989) b. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 633, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the VESTING TEMTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 8 Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. c. Prior to the issuance of grading building 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: (Amended by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) 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 visual screening or a transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering 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. 6. 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. 7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. S. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained. 9. All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 10. The plans shall conform to those shown in Specific Plan No. 219. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 9 d. Any oak trees removed with four (4) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. e. The following tree preservation guidelines shall be incorporated in the projects approved grading, building and landscaping plans as appropriate: 1. Every effort shall be made to prevent encroachment of structures, grading or trenching within the dripline or twenty-five (25) feet of the trunk of any trees, whichever is greater. 2. If encroachment within the dripline is unavoidable, no more than graded or covered hall be disturbed , one third of the root area s with impervious materials. The root area is considered to extend beyond the dripline a distance equal to one half the radius. 3. Building. grading or improvements shall not occur within ten (10) feet of any tree trunk. 4 Retaining walls shall be constructed where necessary to preserve . natural grade at least one-half the distance between the trunk and i C sson the dripline. Walls shall be designed with a post or ca footing rather than a continuous footing to minimize root damage. 5. Alteration of natural -drainage shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 6 Runoff channelled near trees shall not substantially change normal . soil moisture characteristics on a seasonal basis. 7 Runoff shall not be directed towards the base of trees so that the . base of the trees remain in wet soil for an extended period. Where natural topography has been altered, drainage away from trunks shall be provided where necessary to ensure that water will not stand at the crown. S. Sedimentation and siltation in the drainage ways shall be controlled where necessary to avoid filling around the base of the trees. 9. Land uses that would cause excessive soil compaction within the dripline of trees shall be avoided. If the areas are planned for recreation, provide trails to restrict compaction to a small area. Heavy use under trees shall be avoided unless measures to minimize compaction are undertaken. VESTING TOTATIYE TRACT NO. 24132 , Amd. /2 Conditions of Approval Page 10 10. Landscaping or irrigation shall not be installed within ten (10) feet of any trees. f. 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. g. All approved grading and building plans shall reflect the utilization of post and beam foundations or the appropriate combination of split level pads and post and beam foundations when development is proposed on natural slopes of fifteen percent or greater measured over a horizontal distance of thirty (30) feet. h. 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 C 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 I. Driveways shall be designed so as'not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes. or individual combinations thereof. which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modifiedby an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan, increased slope ratio (i.e., 3:1). retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. k. 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: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. /2 Conditions of Approval Page 11 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. 1. 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. m. 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. n. 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. 27. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: 1) The project shall comply with the requirements of Development Agreement No. 4. 2) Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety for residential lots backing up to secondary roadways or wider roadways,, 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. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , Amd. #2 Conditions of Approval Page 12 3) 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. 219. 4) All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant (Class B) roofs as approved by the County Fire Marshal. 5) 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. 6) Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. 7) Building separation between all buildings excluding fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. 8) A1T street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. 9) All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. 28. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: 1) Mall and/or fence locations and materials shall conform to the approved wall and fence treatment plan in Specific Plan No. 219. 2) 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. 3) All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection. 4) 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 There applicable. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 . And. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 13 5) Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and Specific Plan No. 219. 6) Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. 219. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the subdivider shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this map and E.A. No. 33470 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. (Added by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) CO:cj:mp OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER a COUNTY SURVEYOR R ttt Of Fitt MAD AND S=VCY 00AVIUNT WDY o. Smoot 23*D m14®01m 1 axNn SIR11Tyw Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Ladies and Gentlemen: w .ek-27,-1989 April 17, 1989 Cown A&M T UM'[ Mham KM 1+c ADDRESS 9.10 1101 im WVDML CAMOLMA 925M R14) r274554 Re: TR 24132 - Amend f2 Schedule A - Team SP - SNO F9 *Amended at P.C. 4/12/89 With respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land division map,-the Road Department recommends that the landdivider provide the following street improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance: with ordinance 460 and Riverside County Road Improvement Standards (Ordinance 461). It is understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline profiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe -the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. 1. 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 Basement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall.be as approved by the Road Department. 2. 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 zi of Ordinance go. 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. 'TR 24232 - Amend !2 wreM~-Zit-989 - April 17, 1989 age 2 3. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 4. Buecking Parkway shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101. (38'/50') 5. Pauba Road shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102. (32'/44') 6. Street "F" (between streets "N" and "K") shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. (441/661) 7. Streets "B", "M", and "F" (south of Street "K") shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with modified County Standard No. 104, Section A. (501/701, with entry median as approved by the Road Commissioner). 8. Streets "D", "E", "K", and "F" (north and west of Street "N") shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60') 9. Streets "G", "8", "J", "L" and "N" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with county Standard No. 105, Section A. (361/600) 10. Street "A" shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with modified County Standard No. 103, Section A. (24'/33', as approved by the Road Co®issioner). 11. Streets "C" and "P" shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard go. 103, Section A. (221/334) 12. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 605 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. 13. Inprovement 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 Comissioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by County. 7R 24132 - Amend f2 11aeek-2h-1989 - April 17. 1989 Page 3 14. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. 15. 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. 16. The landdivider will provide left turn lanes on Streets "A" and "C" and Pauba Road at all interior intersections as approved by the Road Department. 17. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho California Water District prior to the recordation of the final asap. 16. The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of Ordinance 461. * 19. All centerline intersections shall be at 900 with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line, or as approved by the Road Commissioner. 20. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). 21. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. 22. 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. 23. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. 24. The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights of way to provide for primary and secondary access road(s) to a paved and maintained road. Said access road(s) shall be constructed in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 106, Section H. (320/601) at a grade and alignment approved by the Road Commissioner. 25. Prior to the recordation of the final sap, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Departmento a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic *As amended at P.C. 4/12/89 TR 24132 - Amend 12 reh-27,-1989 - April 17, 1989 age 4 signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, a written agreement may be entered into with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. 26. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. 27. Lot access shall be restricted on Buecking Parkway, Pauba Road and Street 'A" 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. 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. 30. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with Specific Plan No. 219. 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 an application with LAPCO for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. 32. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 at all intersections of roads constructed or improved within the subdivision.. The county Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the subdivision is within an existing assessment district. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in accordance with Governmental Code Section 25210.1. 33. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. 34. A striping plan is required for Buecking Parkway, Pauba Road and Streets 'A" and •C". 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. ?R 24132 - Amend #2 ' .wreh-Z7-w-1989 - April 17, 1989 go 5 The following conditions from Specific Plan No. 219 - Vail Meadows shall also apply: 1. All road improvements, unless otherwise noted, shall be constructed to ultimate County Standards in accordance with Ordinance No. 460 and 461 as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions for the Specific Plan, subject to approval by the Road Commissioner. The proposed "Gateway Road" is approved, in concept, subject to the submittal and review of design details. 2. 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 mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. 3. The Rancho Villages Assessment is an integral component of the planning for this area. Prior to the recordation of tract maps within this 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 the specific plan boundaries, provide for road improvements in accordance with Table XV-Implementation Schedule for On-Site Roadway Improvements and Table XVI-Implementation Schedule for Off- Site Roadway Improvements, as attached. 4. 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. Very truly yours, tkLA 9-a r Baumgarten Subdivision Engineer EB:jw COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE urnu ww".Awi nonme W main .aaft sa.a. s.ra: :4 Mvw 1. 2S. FL.)1 i t~owu ..s. a1nn. •1eTaa►~afw Mwrr as.esr mm" 816orm" ia~ 1011. RMAISIT 11116rT B OM" " utrr 401 NMTM s*O.owAT 016"N{. CA 911111 w. OLMMa 1140 MAXOMMT• 41111446M. CA 9140+ ~ sea ~44 own. VISTA C• SUSS dooffT as M00114 rT&TI ST. IMINST. CA 02343 Mw'no a&&@ MIST asq. 4 "Be "at @Lane" wise PRAMM on. LAM BA-00c." "am Sm a wome o am TOAWT=4ogcALLAW P"N s+wwrss. C& arse, SIMMONS@ 231 2WW" W aTaJT .ws. C• alma .r...... Mfr aaerr sT.tR a>A11M0[. Gl anal tM0)Mt usa MISSIM OLVD. sllsanar. CA arbw DEPARTMENT of HEALTH March 20, 1989 R I V3FS I DE COUNTY PLANK 1 NO DEPT. 4000 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 AT N t Chris Ormsby MAR 21 W9 Ri; TRACT MAP 24132: Parcels 20. 21 i 22, of Parcel Map 23432 (219 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has revieved Tentative Map No. 24132 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-lose 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. This plans shall comply in all respects with Div. S. 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. MTN sT1099T auk aw..r.. pAgort4p County Planning Dept. Attn: Chris Ormsby March 20. 1989 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 24132 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 map. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. j~!_pjl~t_avsj_bg_s~mjttgd_jQ jhS_CotmtY_$S~£ylYQr:S_Q~~j!!_j4_tlYl!!~_!t_j!j3t_jys !►!!k3_lLjQ~~o_~h!_Ll9S~i s j_L3f _j~!!_Il~3S~sj14~3_Q~_~#3! 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 sap. This Department has a statement from the tastern Municipal Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. Riverside County Planning Page 3 March 20. 1908 Attn: Chris Ormsby The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sever district with the following certification: 'I certify that the design of the sewer system in Tract Map 24132 is in accordance with the sever system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract Map.• 2!!_~2jlO!_8Yij_Q2 lSlQljjset~_jQ_jhlSc~jY_$3IL!~!YQL~1_Qj~iS!_Sc4_tlYil~!_lj~ll~ t js4 ll~st_z3tiQt_ 2 Lit~~l..~slt It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized prior to recordation of the final map. 9 Sincerel Sea Martinez. Envir ental Health Specialist IV Environmental Health Services SM:tac KSNN[TM L SOWAROe crww sf.sllNts]t RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT RIV211 11M. "UrC RWIA 11=902 March 24, 1989 Fdm aide County Planning Departzoent County Administrative Center Riverside, California Attsnticn: Specific Plan Section Chris Ormsby Ladies and Gentlecr~n: Loops YA11119ST sTRtrT P. a. 10s 103! TSL91"I400111 (7141 707•1010 Be: Vesting Tract 24132 Amended Map No. 2 This is a proposal to divide about 90 acres in the Rancho Chliftania area. The site is to the north of Highway 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield Stage Road. This project is a pert of Specific Plan 219, Vail Meadows. The area consists of well defined ridges and natural watercancses which tra- verse this property. A major natural watercourse enters the site at the site's northeast corner and traverses the site's north portion. A storm drain proposed by Assesunwt District 159 would be used to collect and convey these offsite tributary flows. This facility abould be installed before this site can be safely developed. Chsits flows and local offaite flows would be han- dled by storm drains and streets. Following are the District's reooaaensdations: 1. This portion of this tract is located within the limits of the Murrie- ta Qvek/TWncula VL11ey Area Mminage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted by the Board. D insge toes shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the 'Rules and Regulations for Ad- a str tion of Area Drainage Plans-, ama~de 3 Ptibruary 16, 1988: a. Drainage toes shall be paid to the !bed Qmmdssioner as part of the filing for reoaQI of the subdivision final map or parcel map, cc if the recording of a final paroal asp is waived, drainage fees shall be paid as a condition of the waivw prior to recording a certificate of caaplianos the waiver of the parcel mop: or b. Act the ept ion of the land divider, upon tiling a required af- fiLdtvit requesting defars in of the payment of fees, the drainage bas my be paid to the Building Director at the time of issuance of a grading permit or building permit for each approved parcel, uftiche ver may be first abtained after the recording of the sub- division final mop cc parcel ceps provided boMmwier, this option to defer the fses may not be aaercised for any paroei where grading or structures have been initiated ca h parvel within the pries 3 year period. cc permits for either activity have been issued on that parcel which saanin active. Riverside Oasuty -2- March 24, 1989 Planning Department Vesting Tract 24132 Be: Amended Map No. 2 2. The 100 year offsite tributary flocs should be collected and safely ccaveyed through the site to adequate outlets. 3. Onsite drainage mcilities located outside of road right of way should be contained within drainage easements dumm cn the final map. A note should be added to the final map stating, -Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and 4. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easawnts obtained trap the affected property Owners. We documents should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. 5. All lots should be graded to drain to the adjacent street cr an ade- quate cutlet. 6. The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the curb and the 100 year storm flaw should be contained within the street right of way. Hm either of these criteria is exceeded. additional drainage facili- ties should be installed. C 7. Drainage facilities cutletting ozrp conditions should be designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flews. Additional aorrgency es- cape should also be provided. 8. 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* cutlet points and cutlet conditions, Odmxwise, a drainage awm aent should be d*AirAed t= the affected property owners for the release of eonceintratsd cc divested storm flews. A copy of the s~eaordad drainage easement should be submitted to the District foc review prior to the reoecdatien of the final map. 9. Tapporary erosion onntsol measures should be implemented -modiately ftl,odng rough grading to prevent depositica of debris caw down- stresm,prvpertia+s cr drainage Acilitiss. 10. t of this property *=Ad be eoerdi=ated with tbs de oloRment of adjaawt to encase that Mtercourses remin 3, t - acted and stecmwwaters are net diverted ft a acs rateroAd to su p1 her. his asy require the of tamporasy drainage laCilities or oflsite cmstructicm and grading. 11. A patron of tbo pcaposed pcojsct is in a fLoodplai o and mdy affect % atszs of the mitad states-, ' Wd'aods- er - jurisdj&-iaal strea dods-, therefore, in accordance with the of the ~iaticr~l llood Insurance Program and Related Asgulatians (44 QrR, Parts 59 t rouush 73) and cminty Ordinanom no. 458: ldveraide County -3- larch 24, 1989 Planning Department Re: Vesting Tract 24132 Amended Map No. 2 A air of appropriate correspondence and necessary permits bran those goverrmwnt agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State law (such as Corps of Engineers 404 permit or Department of Fish and Gene 1603 agreement) should be provided to the District prior to the final District approval of the project. 12. !ajar flood control facilities are being proposed. These should be designed and constructed to District standards including those related to alignment and access to both inlets and outlets. The applicant should crosult the District early in the design process regarding aeterials, *+d-aulic design and transfer of rights of way. 13. All flood control facilities should be constructed to District stmx1ards. And all facilities that the District will assume for will require the payment of a one time aaintenance charge squal to the 'present worth- of oasts from the time of acceptarhoe through 1998. 14. This sap should not be recorded until the facilities proposed along Pauba Road by Assessment District 159 are under construction. The natural waterct se which traverses the site's north portion should be kept free of ebstructiorns until the above drainage facilities have been installed. 15. A copy of the iRz max! plans, grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be admitted to the District via the Road Departmesnt for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. Grading plans ahould be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Guestieas eoncezninq this natter my be refrrrsd to Robert Chiang of this office at 714/787-2333. VWY truly yawn. cos Rob 1- P, Bain. Mill 'n Yzrw sod Associates Rcspin RIVERSIDE ODUN TY FIRE DEPARTMW N COOPERATION W nH THE CALF<)RW DEPARTWNr OF FORESTRY numins a Emieeers+s Offim 46209 C>e Straet. Shit 105 Laos CA 9=1 (619) 34248" TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: C:BRIS ORMSBY TffJ . AWtiA FIRE OUEr 3-21-89 Plemaing a En*w ivs Oise 40601Strad. Suite 11 L Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 RE: TRACT 24132 - AXENNDED /2 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 recognised 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 fopt 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 eater 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. Plates shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system. Including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. HAZARDOUS FIRE ARIA The land division is located in the "Basardous Fire Area" of Riverside County as shorn on a map on file with the Clerk of the Soard of Supervisors. Any building constructed on lots created by this land division shall comply with the special construction provisions contained to Riverside County Ordinance 546. All road medians to be set back 30 feet from curb line at all intersections. Subject: Tract 24132 Page 2 All buildings shall be constructed vith fire retardant roofing material as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall have a Class rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final sap, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Fire Department. a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment. he/she may enter into a vritten agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. AEGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Ey Kurt Mantvell, Fire Safety Specialist - P t i Tepahfinenf odTuOding and Sajetq Administrative Center * 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 February 6, 1989 3IZZI 9 ~ Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Chris Ormsby . County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: ( V ) Tract 24132 i Q'miG sY Z. Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off- site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. Very truly yours, Thomas H. Ingram, Director DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY By: Norman stbom, Deputy Director • Land se Division VA?E Of u . TlMiS MATCH AND HOUW40 AGOCY G[OWA 0ltJRM WAN. Ce no. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OWMIC! ►A. WX 271 AM~ :AN 18NAR0 HO. CA MW U6 (714? 383-"M January 17, 1989 Development Review 08-Riv-79-16.0-17.376 Your Reference: VTT 24132 Planning Department Attention Mr. Chris Ormsby County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, G 92501 Dear Mr. Ormsby: Rtl a I T U`bb %dMW JAN 201984 Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative Vesting Tract 24132 located south of Pauba Road and east of Margarita Road in Rancho California. This proposal is somewhat 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. Thomas J. Neville at (714) 383-4384. very truly B. N. LEWANDOWSXI District Permits Nngineer c- 1- - Southem Callfornla Edison Company 0. 10:.10 100 LONG *EACH &OULEvARO LONG BEACH. CALir00MLA 90001 REAL P51OPCRTICS T[L[t...O.t[ AMC o t s t •asa+ A )M$"MTRATN[ S13MCE! Riverside County February 7. 1989 Road Department P. O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Attention: Subdivision Section SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24132 Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Slap No. 24132 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any easement(s) held by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said vesting tentative tract ■ap. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's rights. title and interest in and to said easement(s). nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of any costs for relocation of affected facilities. In the event that the development requires relocation of facil- ities, if any, on the subject property by right of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation. If additional information above mentioned subject, 491-2644. Is requited in connection with the please call Dennis C. Bazant at (213) Very truly yours, 0;2 • S. P. ROSSEL RELOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION DCB/bjw 16497-2MPC c4z , Btivecsida County lPlanning. Depactment; Jktta: --•Chris Orasby Robert Bain, William Frost i Associates s-- • •rc~~ n~ ry • Eastern MuniciPal'W aterDistrict D.)..oLrr MM •yrQ ~_~ia~w" " TC/M 0~0, of M NnwM Die F. lads at COO Adams 1L Cam • Riverside Co. Planning Dept. 4080 Leeson St., 9th Floor Riverside, Ca 92501 8-4 *1 LAmrmwo PI *M M Oft"9% ►►e../rrw RrcA.r1 C. Kelley. V.* PM.&M rw G AWdr OW%Irl C. Gills rrr Aadact V Son 1.2-3-.89 L~ C. Kenren SUBJECT: Z %A C3 2 -CS4 71) 6D 374-10- . LA C. - r (61 The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: ~~Is not within EMWD's: •---water service area sewer service area Hill be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to be served by EMWD: t - =Sewer Service Aiy and all necessary regionally sited onsite and offsite 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. - AD n SGVwr,u yA►.Ju4 h►w~ ~ e,1.+rL.f~ W ' 4&vq. 61 4Lw-4%"-WM4"1-Mt kzh January 30, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Dowd of Dincsom Riverside, California 92501-3657 JaseeA.Darby PnOW A Subject: Water Availability Jeb"Lli haler Reference: Vesting Tract 24132 tr Pee PnwWent Aa~pb Deft Gentlemen: Doug Ralb*rg Please be advised that the above-referenced Joe A. Lasdin property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water service, therefore, T. C. Raw* would be available upon completion of financial slcbwdD. SteQey arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the Omx.rc property owner signing an Agency Agreement which st" T. MWs assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Cduafld way If you have any questions, please contact Senqa FhUp L Forbes Doherty at (714) 676-4101. Dinetor of rhmme- ° Very truly yours, Tbasm a McAneeter D&W" of 0PWVJ0= RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Deeb V. Baker vbwift sun"" McCeralek s Fla 10"IC==W Bob Lemons, P.E. Acting Director of Engineering 7022/ jkM404f R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C T 23061 DIAZ ROAD a POST OFFICE BOX 174 a TEMECULA. CA 92390-0174 a (714) 676.4101 . FAX (714) 676-0615 UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DATE: I.13-N + om Re: COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WiL ECT: Iva ZAM2 TO. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4060 LEMON ST., 9th FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 FUTURE MODE OF DELIVERY: CENTRALIZED CONTACT WITH THE U. S. POSTAL SERVICE IS REQUIRED BY DEVELOPER/BUILDER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION FOR DELIVERY TYPE AND LOCATIONS. 1 DATE ~7• GROWTH MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR :uvrsmDE counry PLanninc Drc?Ann,rcm: DATE: January 9, 1989 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department Health - Ralph Luchs Fire Protection Flood Control District F - - Fish A Game FLA..:' - - = - U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson U.S. Fish i Wildlife Services County Parks Eastern Muncipal Water District Rancho California VESTING TRACT 24132 - (Sp P1) - E A Southern California Edison . . 33410 - Rancho California Area - First General Southern Ca ho bas Telephone e Supervisorial District - S. of Pauba, E. Cal Trans !8 of Margarita - SP Zone - 90.2 Acres into Elsinore Unified School "District 223 lots - Schedule A - No Waiver - (Concurrent Case TR 24134) - Mod 120 - Temecula Union School Districtf A.P. 923-230-001 Commissioner Bresson ti Flease review the case described above, along with the attached case leap. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for February 6, 1989: If it clears, it will then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to February 6, 1989 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 Chris Ormsby at 787-6356. - Wa nner COMMENTS: The Elsinore Union Nigh School District facilities are overcrowded and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing student population caused by new residential, commercial and industrial construction. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of AS 2926 and SB 327, this district levies a fee against all new development projects within its boundaries. DATE: 1/18!89 SIGNATURE PLEASE print same and title Dr. Larry Naw. %uperintendent 4080 LEMON STREET. 9*" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 INTO Pt-ORPAATMENTAL LeTTUR LINTY OF RIVERSIDE FES 1010 February 9, 19891tNEpsm WA-W-1iT Tab: Chris Ormaby, Planner, County Planning FRR1: Marc grower, Assistant park Planner, County Park SUBJECT: Tentative Tracts: 24131, 24132, 241349 24135, 24136, 24137 Vail Meadows SP 219/EIR 235 The Riverside County Parks Department appreciates the opportunity to review the above referenced and offers the following comments: Parks and Recreations The Development of the proposed tracts will have minimal impact on existing regional park facilities. The County Parks Department also has a county-ride recreation trail system. As indicated by this department's response to S.P. 219/EIR 235, May 2S9 1988 and the Planning Department's conditions of approval October 49 1986, the developer was to provide recreation trails along the south side of the Pauba Road right-of-my and along the north side of the De Portola Road right-of-way. The latter is to cross De Portola Road at the development's western most boundary, follow the boundary due south and exit the site into private property to the west. Tentative tracts 24132 and 24134 will impact the Pauba Road recreation trail and tentative tracts 24136 and 24137 will impact De Portola Road Trail. The above mentioned tracts mince no reference to trails or trait easements. 7be Parks Department will 'require these trail locations to be shown on all tract maps and that they be graded in an acceptable manner. The Parks Department also requests that it be listed as clearance agency for maps and grading plannings dealing with this project. Cultural and Historic Resources Tentative Tract , 4134, 24136: Conditional approval is granted for T.T. 241319 241329 24134, and 24135 with regard to Cultural and Historic Resources only. Conditions for Approval: Should any prehistoric or historic resources be discovered or uncovered during the grading process, all work In that area will cease until the resource is evaluated by an archaeologist, or historian and mitigation is determined and approved by the History Division of the Riverside County Parks Department and the Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. Tentative Tract 24136: Conditional approval is granted for T.T. 24136. Conditions for Approval: a At the time of the alignment of De Portals Road the historic resource Riv-3390-H was not known. This site was found as a result of the History Division's original mitigation for conditional' approval of the EIR #219 (May 25 1988). Although Riv-3390-H is located south and east of T.T.24136, the realignment of De Portola Road must be resolved before final approval of this T.T.24136 is given by the History Division. Tentative Tract 24137: Conditional Approval is granted for T.T.24137. Conditions for Approval: Street •A•, which cuts south and east off De Portola Road, should not be cut or graded, etc.* until mitigation by data collection is completed for Riv-1728, Riv-1729 and Riv-3391-H. The road will impact all three of these sites at present. Any work in T.T.24137 must avoid parcel #6 and Riv-1728 until all archaeological work is completed in that area. The use of heavy equipment anywhere south of De Portola Road must be avoided until all archaeological work is completed and protective measures are taken to ensure the safety and future existence of the cultural and historic resources in that area. Protective measures should consist of fencing around Riv-3390-H, being sure not to allow fencing to impact the site. All movable surface historic resources south of De Portola Road should be photographed, recorded. and mapped, after which, they may be moved within the famed area at Riv-3390-H. However, the project archaeologist must direct and supervise the movement and placement of these resources to Riv-3390-H to mike sure their placement will not impact the site. Although T.T.24137 is west of Riv-3390-H, the realignment of De Portola Road must be resolved and the above conditions met before final approval is granted to the History Division. !S/KMANO l DEPARTMENTAL LETTER COUNTY OF AIVERSIOE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Chris Ormsby - Specific Plans FROM: Steven A. Kupfermnn - Engineering Geologist qz- RE: Tentative Tract 24132 Slope Stability Report No. 95 The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability at the subject site: 'Slope Stability Analysis, Tentative Tract 24132, The Meadows at Rancho California, Rancho California, CA,' by Converse Consultants, dated December S, 1988. This report determined that: 1. All slopes proposed for the subject tract at or below a height of 35 feet will be grossly stable. 2." Both cut and fill slopes have a high potential for erosion of sandy materials and resultant surficial instability. 3. Low strength parameters exist for claystones and slltstones. This report recommended that: 1. Geologic inspection of all cut slopes should be constructed during grading. 2. Buttress fills may be required for cut slopes with adverse materials or conditions. 3. Proposed slopes at the site should be planted soon after construction and will require maintenance to perform in a satisfactory manner through time. This report satisfies the General Plan requirement for a slope stability report. The recommendations -in this report shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. SAK: rd February 21, 1989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Case No. (Mod) ~tsf'a 7r"t A~. LJ13L 6zc EA No. 1-24-7e NEGATIVE DECLARATION Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Sts attaoW rni.tiaZ Stu4 Title ~ann ZIL Case No. (Mod) Land Div Sch Appi/Rep Developable ots 4714 v, c -4R Date Subm1tge Open Space Lots_ II O.Sp. Ac Existing Zones 52 Changes of Proposed Zones-Only Zoning Acreage ADOPTED 'lard of Supervisors tanning Commission J Area Planning Council O M inning Director O (fir) Person verifying adoption Date 4- I?-1 a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION HEARING BODY OR OFFICER O Board of Supervisors Planning Commission O Area Planning Council 0 Nanning Director 0 (Other) Developable Lots l1 Dev.Ac Changes of Approved Zones Only Zones Acreage ACTION ON PROJECT proval O Disapproval caL 'q- a-f 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Open Space Lots LL O.Sp. Ac The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted and may be ined t the Planning Department at the address below. Person verifying action 11 - 1 Titles Amae-e _7T17 VERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT X80 LEMON STREET. 9TH FLOOR .VERSIDE. CA 92501 1st mite orl4ml - Coonl,Y C1=* tad Caaary -Case rue jed PSa1c - SeDsdnllmt Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director COMPLETED . Raxinry nannince DuAnmEnr EWMNfMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION EHVFKX*J1EMAL ASSESSMENT JEA) NUMS R: 33470 MODULE NUMBER(a): 120 PROJECT CASE TYPF*) AND NLAMEAS(ak Vesting Tract 24132 - AppLiCApIM N11A*. Bedford Properties tAW OF pREFARgo EA.- Chris Ormsby, Planner III L MOJECT WFORMATUM A. SWSCRFnOk Ock de ; m; r - d a**nuan bt sin and um ma sppncatiek The project Proposes to divide 90.2 acres into 22 residential single family lots an elementary school site, and a junior high school site. L TOTAL PROJECT AREA. ACRES 90 - 2 - or SQUARE FEET G /ASSESSORS PARCEL wo4# 923-23-001 D. FJWWG ZONING: SP fS THE PROPOSAL N CONFORMANCE? YPS E MOP05ED ZQNING• No change proposed rg THE PROPOSAL N COWOR2 F. sTREET REFERENCES- The site is located in the Northeastern portion of Specific Plan No. 219. The area is just South of Pauba Rd. to SEC KK WNiNSNIP. RANGE pE$CRIP?ION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Township 8S Range 211 It fIWFf OESCPWn= OF TIE EWfNf3 EfdVfA011NENTAL LNG OF TIE PF"CT ME AID fTS SURAWNDINGS: The present state of the site is dry farmed rolling hills with some steep slopes- The site is totally vacant. L -RVAOMWE QVIVAL RAN OMW SPACE AND CONSERVATION D(SfGNATM Cho* to a;; a I % o0ftmo bab and poossd a0m db -gh. 13 M or W at ft v m! A aft b b •Adopbd Sp~k PfiW '71EIW1P or Or nd o Vvpas Comawn"y ftft AmW. ConV" Bodbm Ik W il and C a to V aid VL D Af or past at go v * P I pia r fa 'Amps Not DoWgnobd as Open Spam C ipww SwWns It N K ! and O wft V and K -tea i ►ia an ODan Spa= and Conewwafbn dsaWdom ww 9w low R+ bOwd & gXMO N WffAL KAZARM AND RESOURCES A. &Wkmft to nswm Of fr proposed bnd use as dswrrrlr»d trap fn d»crlptions as In I fn Cpmprsf Wnstvs General Plan Fipurt VL3 MMcjw Geri TM ldormason r nsoesawy b dstsrmir ttw apprapdats Wnd use wltabifty rabrops In section iILB. N► - Nd AppaCabls arMCM EesWM No11c P Risk Norn+.l-Low alsk .I wa a Vas M or ne M.trfrr any enrlrori nw W hw and andAr mecum lasuss may sipnircarldy sited or be sMected by ft propcea M relsr.eose tlgues are cordainsd in fr Competwx wive GwwW Plan. For any bans marked yes (Y) writs GWmmrte dm s*Lww& spsncias ooneulbd. findktgs d bet and any ndUpstson nrasurss under Sectlon V. Also, wtmm indicsted. dreb ft apprwt is WW am milabQty or noise a=W abft radnp(s1 iSss delhAMM at WWI Of P894 Aki&M Prbb 3PWW Sardlee Or ODA* Favlt Masard Zones tAa VL1) N1 rs u R VLS) Z N . Lklugbcton PblsrdW Zorn 040. VL1) NA s 's u R Rio. VL4) 3.1-1 B amjnaat+aklnp Iar (ft VLI ) NA s fit U R tF+o. VLS) 4.-Y- - slops ow co. goo sat stop. Snaps) a~ LaneWM Rick Zane pW. Co. WO SCaM ssisrttic Maps or On-&% krpectbn) NA s 'S U R M VW) e.1L_ Roddaa Hazard (On-Wb kopecla+) 7.= Ewe *m Sots MSOJL 90 Conseration Ssrvice Soil Surveys) L Y f vWw (USDA Soil Conservation servios Soil S AWA) 9JL wine Emotion i ebwstaa (Fip. VLt. Ord 40M Sec. 142 i OML 464) 1eLN ow WOW= Am (A4 VV) II.-L- Flat OWN M VV) %A Y R ~ VLM) 12 N AkW Noist ft. L1d3. Ltll.it A VL12 A 1984 ACM RepaL LW-B.) NA A e C D (Fig. VLI I) 1&_I_ Ra osd Note (Flg. VL1S - VL16) NA A 0 C 0 (Fig. VL11) 14. _ N !'IipNwsy Nc*u (Frg. VL17 - VL26) NA A 6 C 0 (Fig. VL11) I L 00W Noise NA A 0 C D (Fig. VLI t) Peoiect Gerw&W Noise Affecting Noise Se WUn Uses (Fig. VLI 1) 17. Y Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VL11) 16. Y Air Ouatity knpacls From Project 19• -m. Project Sensitive b Air Ouality 2(X tj Waw OuaBt)► krpacts Frorn Project 21.-L ftaiect swwn b waw Ousmy 2Z - Masardous Materials and wastes 2S = Nmrda+s Firs Arse (Frg. VL3o - VL31) 24.. 01W 2L- Cow RESOURCES Y *49 t,, MM M VM - VL36) s2_7 eosryc tiptre~r:ys (Fie vL4s) listO Resouross (Fie VL32 - Vt33) sg 27'- in or Nast w AWtuA+~ P""W" r_ ow. oo.Aprbta WO Lend C rwolo on 34 N A1CIMINCI glaal ResouOae C MAW to" M VL32 - VL33 i VL46 - VL48) !`Y.. s6.JL. wlblla VL36 • VLSn vlgsiNfa+ t ~A.3r . M,rq i6-.-fit Rai.omo+oga Assarv.s ~alaontcbgical Raeour=I Map) sa ~ twrrai R..oMM M UAI -VtO40 so_ 0lhw a.. _ 31- N for R.ao~o. M Vw' VL44 l►-- Clhw O~t1nltbns *W Land Use! SWUMty MW NOISG A=OptabMty Rathos MR - Hoe ApQOcabb a - Gin dy sub m Ps - PtovWwwft swab* br R • A "IM A - G«+erW A U - G WWW UMA I N. LAND M DE I PDAINATON A. CW"Pbb 1* pert mists to P* d Is bolied In -Adoplsd $ptGiliC PbW, *MAr'.r Or' UnCho • ^l AMW 1. OPEN SFAM AND CONSER1AT10N MAP DESIGNATX**&y Adopted Spec if i c Plan No. 219 Z LAW USE PLAN NdG AF&k- Southwest Territory AL Jl F ANY: L CommLMTYPOLICY AREA. FANY: Mt_ Palomar sprvatngy ctrnn• i ighZing 0plirigc i GommLIpm pLAK FAw. _ Southwest Area Community Plan ,(lindor ctudg) t COWAUNITY PLAN DESiG04AT1001 F ANY: T. VJLOrAARy OF POLXXS AFFECT*4 PROPOSAL- The a i nr mn1 is i~ c affgrt i nQ _the prna pr t are contained in Specific Plan No. 219. The proposed mitigation for significant environmental impacts is described in EIR No. 235. Issues of particular imoortanc concern the provision of public ServicPC_ Pep ria T With cggZA to...mrou di-g schools, sewer system, and flood control facilities. K moral proisMe, irkla t wffh a yes (Y) or no (N) wtw0w any pWmc %cititits and/or services; bum may sipn1rc4rUy af'h1c! ar be of ecisd by ft proposaL At referenced figures am confairwd in to ComVmtW W Cvwwal Plan. For any issue wAd od yes (Y). wrfft daft sources, spsnciss consulted. Wimps of fact and m ftabm measures under Sector V. PUBLIC FACiLMES AND SERVICES 1y cbcm cn ft 1V.1ab.1I. MOM In sore v ftbmnp. Awe-Ad a RM*W Roeeft) 2.= 81Rt pals ft RG12 - W 3) &.-Y V"w (ape W LMIIes! LJL Mwsr posm t Le1ltwo S= meSWAM ftrus-N1a i.X- *wff SsYWM ft W.117 - KIN I ..L we* ft rd-17 - FAIR & Y BW Whole ft W.17 - MIN f..Y Mrsaditotdo ftN.19-FM 104- . EquesMian 1%Is (Fig. N.19 - N24/ filly. 006800 Sale EouesfrW TOM Maps) 11Y Umme ft 1V23 - N2d) ILL.- Lbra n ft N.17 - N 18) 13.1- HmM 13awlota ft N.17 - N.ta) 1~f.~.. AUOoeft ft L162 - LIU. LUS - LWO a NO - We) ILL_ Ouster 040060 nast ftY C* ft++«s of M kom 17. cow G • aft or pet d ftla pf*d b bated fb'AdVOW apscJlc Pb . IM AW er -pmvtQ Y■tpss Carmpi+hy PWicy Maar'. MAnr M ~ h Waft points IDA 1 tee Me 0 ap m and opaplsle go kft m F 1. &Abfb -a-mWWWOMP Adnntod Seed Tic Plan In Pip L BmW cn Nt Mod d6*.b h; mom al Oonaitlsnt YAM fl+s poitchm and dta)pnfto offt WprWdata Wwyw+t find flwaiors aor+afsfant w/I h ComlprsAsnstN Gtnsral PIan7 • not e Yes - N. LAND USE DE I "W"TXM (ONOtwd) O. • al or paA of to pgsc~ of b in'Antss not Desipnatsd as Open Spam". and M not in a C "wnwi ty pten. pprOW% 4m bm 1. t 3. d and 7. Canplsts qussdm 4. S. a and 7 / a b In a C ffnwJty Plan, 1. Land usr cslapory(Ws) race=" b support tits prop~o~ project Also hdicate W d use type " Msiderit K comnwciK sho L Cmwd brd tare ostpory(iss) tw !ts alts baited an skies* oorat om Also hdcm lend use type #a inside W. cam, ft4 IL A 0.1 dOn Iran 02. wN fie dMl once be rseotad at the de+relopn~ stage? Eupisin: 4. Comrrrstlty Ran dssiflnatio SP S► is I* proposed project cw%bWd with the pdicin and dssipnab" d 1tr Community Plan? t naR snmtskv a is ft proposal con%mft a with lutist and pop m e wnour+Nrtp Land uses? • gat sn b*C 7. Osrad an V* tnW Aft 6 h proposal cortaisWd we tits C ff*W rW" Garwal Ran? S" wderartoa by SKgm and tl "Number those ttm+aa ldard tnp hoonsistrtcim E 1 al or pmt d the project W% lo b an Open Spm and Conaswatlon desiprtattM cc IFINr ttts bbwina L ile tr dssip,dlorr jsj: s r Ste proposal ao *Mw t w ft Ste deatpnatlon(sn / ttot 1 V- ti 1 Oassd an this hldai stuft r the propad mmisant wtth the Caner. w*a Garwal Ptah? t not -tiirarm by Sscsort and We lumbar ft m boon kbroykV A. ADOIT10N4kL ~FORf ATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ABM CAN BE COMPLETED: SECTION! ISSUE NO. t~Q MATION AEOUIRED DATE ff'ORMATION 14EOUESTED DATE WORMATION RECEIVED ADEOUACy 001 1MSMODATE} K For each issue malted yes M under Sections no and N.B. Identify the Sectiorn and issue number and do the biowlnp. In ft format as shown h WoMrr 1. Ust &I additional r*W rant data souses, including agenda consufted. 2 State aw fYWwVs of fact regarding environmental concerns. S State eDecirlc mitigation measures, E identifiable without requiring an environmental impact report (E.LR.) 4 N additional inbrmation fa requkW betoe the environmental assessment can be completed, rotor to Subsection A. S N additional sheets are needed lo complete this sectkn ch do the box at the end of the section and attach ft necessary sheets. SE&K*V 935M NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: IIIB.3 The General Plan designation for land use suitability pertaining to grnnnAthaking it twit hle Dntsntial ienrx rtt ran ho mitigated to An acceptable level through conformance with the Uniform Building Code and County ordinances. IIIB.4.8 Potential significant impacts related to slopes and erosion includes the visual appearance of permanently altered land fours, severe erosion of unprotected slopes and possible slope instability. The potential impact _ pertaining to visual appearance is mitigated by Development Standards _ outlined in Section IIIA_E of Sdgeific Plan No. 219. The potential for erosion is being studied in a slope stability study and the development of specific reouirewnts for alluvial/colluvial removal at the tract stage. Temporary groundcover will be provided to prevent erosion during the construction phaew as indicated in FIR No- 35. i 1118.17 Potential noise impacts will be determined by noise studies to be nndu led ainnn rnadwavc_ Mitigation will include height of otter 9-, wall and any other recommended by the noise study. Monitoring and "nn^ ting ie required - V. WFORMATION SOURCES. FM DWU Of FACT AND MMQATION MEASU11Lf (COMlnued) SECTION! EWA No. WURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED. FNDMGS OF FACT. mrnGAT*N MEASURES: IIIB.18 A statement of overriding findings was adopted by the Board of Supervisors for cumulative effects on air quality which cannot be fully mitigated. IIIB.26 Although a small portion of the Site has soils suitable for agriculture based on the General Plan, it was determined in EIR No. 235 that there would be no significant impact due to the loss of agricultural land. tTIRR,_2R Thp site ie within th_p historic range of t-he Stoohons' Kangaroo Rat. A biological report prepared for The Meadows Specific Plan (SP 219) indicated that nnno of the cnyripc vor Ina pd on the city of the trart_ Therefore no mitigation was required. IVA 1-1-9, Thn is uioc hive hoon di r~iecerl and addrpe pd in Specific Plan No_ 719- 11-15 Corresponding environmental review is thoroughly discussed in EIR Flo. 235. Impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level. D &W alsWW p oprs. VL ENVIRONMENTAL WACT DIE 1 MINAT10M: TM pci va tw to* a aig M,anl atiaet an ow awbix-i w d and a Megan osew Lion mer be OAI I& D 11r pojae! code Mw a atprri = aAlec~ an tr wwtnomw+t Aowam. two wig not be a sionrie nt a in Erie em bs=r h a Mg 0, awarim'deactAad in locbn v IWA bean &Wad Io the pap4 wW a Nagpd- Declvagon may be pspw W D TM proja I am twee a aiprilicant on ttia rwkwul rri and an EtwReonmental I g*O RaPort to fafaiwd, A a 1 n NNW , t Phoored by January 1989 i CV1 Co w ` 1 h 11 CO o r lrlr < !t 11 bib =own _ i '-~.ti _ -tea CD asib @ ti . ~r • • _ !lV` O~M- w fa f, ~ 1 ~ k! Jill, lif ol TRACT 24132 VICINITY MAP NOT TO nCALE CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP / TRACT NO. 24132 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE SECURITY DATE 11/09/90 MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY Streets and Drainage $ 875,000.00 T, 437,500 00 Water 205,000.00 102,500.00 Sewer $ 199,000.00 $ 99,500.00 TOTAL X1,279,000.00 639,500.00 *Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) $ 127,900.00 *(or Bonds if work is completed) Monument Security Inspection Fee: (Offsite Improvements) Fee paid to date (Credit) Inspection Fee Due Monument Inspection Fee City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs Total Inspection Fees Due RCFC Drainage Fee Due Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD ft Road and Bridge Benefit Fee $---21, 700. 00 $ 96,420.00 $ 2,312.00 $ 94 108.00 $ 45.00 41 94,953.00 $ 66,4d8.0 $ 18,000.00 $ ITEM-NO, 12 J_ APPROVAT. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Engineering Department DATE: December 4, 1990 CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC R CITY MANAGER L-f- SUBJECT: Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132-1 PREPARED BY: Douglas M. Stewart RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132-1 subject to the Conditions of Approval. DISCUSSION: Vesting Tract No. 24132-1 was originally submitted to Riverside County Planning Department on December 23, 1988. The Tentative Tract Map Amended No. 2 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 23, 1989. Vesting Tract No. 24132-1 contains 108 residential lots within 43.06 gross acres. The tract is located south of Pauba Road and west of Meadows Parkway (Kaiser Parkway). This tract is part of the Meadows Specific Plan (SP 219) and Development Agreement No. 4, Change of Zone No. 5140, and General Plan Amendment No. 103. The applicant is Bedford Properties. The following fees have been paid for Vesting Tract Map No. 24132-1: Signal Mitigation Fee Area Drainage Fee Fire Mitigation Fee (Deferred) $ 16,200.00 66,448.00 40,400.00 The following bonds have been posted for Final Tract Map No. 24132-1: Faithful Performance Street and Drainage $ 1, 699, 000.00 Water 668,500.00 Sewer 589, 000.00 Survey Monuments Traffic Signal Labor and Material $ 849,500.00 384,250.00 294,500.00 $ 26,000.00 15,150.00 STAFFRPT\FVT24132.-1 1 FISCAL IMPACT: SUMMARY: TM: ks Attachments: Not Determined. Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Vesting Tract Map No. 24132-1 subject to the Conditions of Approval. 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Fees & Securities Report 3. Copy of Map 4. Location Map STAFFRPT\FVT24132.-1 2 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: TYZ 2q 132-- The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) Public Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Library) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. ~26P Condition No. NONE Condition No. C1 Condition No. 9 ITr-,n 2S o F koAD l.4---TTese- Condition No. NONE Condition No. 1 Condition No. 14 Forms/Plug-M9 :NWEA36DE count DATE: June 8, 1989 RE: TENTATIVE VESTING TRACT N0. 24132 Amd. 2 E. A. NUMBER: 33470 SPECIFIC PLANS TEAM Dear Applicant: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the following action on the above referenced tentative vesting tract map at its regular meeting of _ May 23, 1989 APPROVED tentative map subject to the attached conditions. DENIED tentative mp based on attached findings. PROVED withdrawal of tentative slap. The vesting tract map has been found to be consistent with the all pertinent elements of the Riverside County General Plan and is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted. A conditionally approved tentative vesting tract map shall expire 24 months after the approval at the Board of Supervisors Hearingo the date of which is shown above, unless within that period of time a final map shall have been approved and file with the County Recorder. Prior to the expiration date,, the land divide 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 way extend the period for one year and upon further application a second and a third year. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director RG:aq Ron Goldman, Principal Planner 4080 LEMON STREET, 9T" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 t714) 787-8 181 (619) 342-8277 ' r -.4 iii. ZD ME BMW OF SCMMIS= cDawr Cr RIVSiSIIE, Sohn. Or CRUPKIRM FFICIL. pLMR DEPART 9USHrrTaL nww-: May 15, 1989 0 SM3E .T: VESTn4G TRACT NO. 24131 Amd. No. I - VESrD G TRACT. NO 24132 Amd. No. 2 - VESTIM TRACT NO. 24133 Amd. No 1 - VES = 04 TRACT NO. 24134 And. No. 1 - VESM G ZRAC!T NO. 24135 Md. No. 'A 1 - VES7= TRAM NO. 24136 Acad. No. 1 - VESTING TRACT No. L 24137 Md. No. I - Bedford Prcpe=ties - Sgervisorial District 1 - Rwxbo California Area - 698.1 Acres 2,519 lots - Schedule A - SP Zoning L O CL O RDCEIVE AND ME the above mentioned cage acted on by the Planning c CaaRUSSian on April 12, 1989. m TOE PLArNnC 03MIISSIC N : AMPTED Zbe Negative Declaration for Envizavrental Assessment Nos. a 33433,733470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414 based on the n findings incozparated in the ental. assessment and the a oanclusion that-the proposed project will not have a significant affect on the ; and CO: gs Pot S~ Streeter, Planning Director PM. ArL mL DOS' C UMOKU Dca. AGENDA NO. 4wftew 11A VT No's 24131, 24132 24133, 24134, 24135, 24136 24137 April 19, 1989 Page 2 APPROVM VESTniG TERTATIVE TRACT NO 24131 Amd. No. 1, subject to the attached conditions and based on the findings and aoaclusions incorporated in the Planning Ow fission minutes dated April 12, 1989; and., APPROVED VESST = 1DTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 Md. No. 1, subject to the attached conditions and based an the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Caanission minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPROVED VESTIM TIIITA= TRACT NO. 24133 Amd. No. 2, subject to the attached caxiitions and based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning O=mission minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPRUVID VEbT W TENTpiTIVE TRACT NO. 24134 Amd No. 1 subject to the attached conditions and based cn the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Camnisaion minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPRWID VESTIM TEND=v7E TRACT No. 24135 Amd No. 1, subject to the attached conditions and based an the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Gatmissicn minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPROVED VESTIIIG Mw - TRACT NO. 24136 Amd No. 1, subject to the attached conditions and based cn the findings and conclusions incorporated in the Planning Cauaimum minutes dated April 12, 1989; and, APPAam VESTING TtIMATIVE MW= NO. 24137 Amd. No. 1, subject to the attacbed conditions and based an the findings and conclusions in the Planing Oomnissian admutee dated April 12, 1989. APRIL 12. 1989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C (AGENDA ITEM 5 - Reel 15_ Side 1 Bedford P operties3- Rancho California VESTING TRACT MAP NOO. . 24131 Area - First Supervisorial District - easterly of Margarita Rd, southerly of Pauba Rd - 441 lots - 105.41 acres - gOZone a- SchedSPe A Zone - w thSchSTINle ARACT MAP NO. 24132 - EA 33470 - 223 lots VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 24133M~ X382413493 lots - - 91.21nacres Schedule A and VESTING TRACT - SP Zone - Schedule A and VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 24135 - EA 33434 24136 - - 325 EA lots lots - 33413 83.5t acres - SP Zone tts - SP Zone Schedule IA and VESTING~TRACT MAP NO. 24137 - 400 lots 99.81 ac EA 33414 - 147 lots - 64.31 acres - SP Zone - Schedule A Hearings were opened at 3:30 p.m. and were closed at 4:19 p.m. 33433, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Negative Declaration for EA Nos. tive 33410, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and Amended No. a2vr24133oAniendednNo.elta24134 Tract Nos. 24131 Amended No. 19 24132 Amended No. 1, 24135 Amended No. 1, 24136 Amended tNo. he , and 24137.AmStded No. 1 based on the findings and conclusions staff report advised that the vesting tracts are implement mloca ed east ofLMargaritaoRoad Twest ~ Meadows Specific Plan (SP 219), of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Highway 79 and sinto outh2o529are iRoad. lT e lots C proposal is to subdivide approximately and 100 open space lots/school sites. Zoning on site is SP. Surrounding zoning is SP, R-R, R-A, R-a-211, R-A-S, A-1-10 and C-P-S. The site consists of rolling terrain except for the southern o 24137,swfl t,handsiisvacant with the exception of a portion o Vesting Tract ai1 percolation ponds. The site had been t~r adopted Specific Planstsuc~hrashY permitted. The site is located near o Ranch (SP 223) and Redhawk (SP 217) to the south, as well as approved tracts to the east. The proposed development conforms with the residential d nsities and design standards of the specific plan. Vesting Tract 2 will 105.4 acres Into 440 single family lots. with 13 open space lots. and was amended for a Tract 2 minor redesign of the tract to facilitate i ntoa214nsingletfaiily lots4wlth 11 the issue Amended No. 2 proposes to divide 30.2 acres open space lots including e ary a the Lracts andhrw s~rev i sewed ite. by the of slope stability was a concern Tract 24133 proposes to divide 163.7 acres into 693 County Geologist. Vesting single family lots and 23 open space lots and has an extensive paseo system which links to an active recreation area. The Fire d cutting through the paseorarea. The about cross internal circulation sections of the Brand eeretnbeitt/paseo avoid is on file. Vesting Tract 24134 proposes to divide 91.2 acres into 311 single family lots anyes19 tinpenrspaceap lots, which included a 2.5 acre lot for a day care center. lots and 24135 proposes to divide 83~ into 325 acres into 00 space lots. Vesting Tract p 41 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1989 single family lots and 8 open space lots. There is a historic site on this map and on Tract 24137 and a letter on this site was incorporated within the staff report. All concerns have been resolved. Tract 24137 proposes to divide 64.3 acres into 146 single family lots, a 9.1 acre commercial lot and 7 open space lots. A liquefaction study was prepared for this tract and was reviewed by the County Geologist to his satisfaction. Staff modified the conditions of approval as follows: Condition 18-e for Tracts 24133, 241349 24135 and 24137: 'Trash bins, loading areas and incidental storage areas located in recreation areas shall be located away and visually screened from surrounding areas with the use of block walls and landscaping.' Condition 18-f amended.to read 'bike access to recreation areas.' Condition 21 to be replaced by standard language for the property owners association maintaining the common areas rather than the strict CSA requirements. Condition 26-a shall be deleted since none of the tract areas are in the study area for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat or within the known occupied habitat. Condition 26-c should be modified to read: Prior to issuance of building rather than grading permits. Condition 29 should be added to all the tracts, referring to the CEQA monitoring of the mitigation measures. Commissioner Beadling said that there is 100 acres either for schools or open space. She asked if they took the school sites out, how much open space would they have. Staff advised that there are 243 acres devoted to recreation and open space outside of the school sites. Commissioner Beadling asked whether there was a provision for a clubhouse, and staff advised that there are plans for recreation centers within the plan. Staff will receive plot plans for the open space areas. Lee Johnson, Road Department, advised that item No. 4 for Tract 24133 should be amended to read 4 66 instead of 44/66. TESTIMONY OF PROPONENT: Nike Ryan, Bedford Properties, 27405 Ynez Road, Rancho California, said that they concur with the staff report and all conditions of approval except for one. He said that the condition appears in all the tracts. They would like added to item 16 of the Road Department letter-dated March 7, 1989 'or as approved by the Road Commissioner.' Mr. Johnson concurred with that proposed amendment. 42 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1989 TESTIMONY OF OPPONENTS: Felix Probandt, P. O.Box 1150, Temecula, said that all his comments related to the issue of wastewater disposal, in particular, the Eastern Municipal Water District/Rancho California Water Reclamation Facility (hereafter called the Eastern Sewer Plant). He had his assistant present a series of transparencies which Mr. Probandt used to illustrate his points. His residence is located at 43189 Rendova that the CrommiProndt ssonersshave already received,nandshe are emphasizedy of documents th the information found in those documents. Mr. Probandt said that the conditions of approval include a condition that the environmental assessment shall utilize the evaluation of impacts addressed in the EIR prepared for Specific Plan No. 219. Under "impacts' the information was provided that the project will generate approximately 1.81 million gallons per day average peak dry weather sewage flow, and that the peak dry weather sewage flow is estimated to be 3.08 million gallons per day to be treated by the Eastern Sewage Plant. Another document states that the site lies within the jurisdictions of the Rancho California Water District andthe PTO irn sewer Municipal Water District. He said that Eastern, not Rancho, service. The San 53 letter has remarks which state that prior to the first LDC, the attached requested information is to be introduced to the E.H.S. The Health letter dated August 9, 1988 to the Rancho California Water District discussed the "will service" letter. He noted that a typical response to a Health Department letter was "yes' to the question of whether there was adequate capacity. Eastern Municipal Water District's response to a "will serve' letter has a statement that 'service might be precluded by the San Diego Region Water Quality Control Board.' A second copy of a San 53 has the statement that sewer may require off site sewer facilities subject to the treatment plant capacity of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The San Diego Water Board's Order No. W94 had to do with discharge specifications and certain difficulties Eastern was experiencing in discharging which was in violation of the "basin plan" as well as capacity. Order No. 88-101 was issued for a time schedule for the Eastern Municipal Water District to rectify the problems. He said because of the agreement with Camp Pendleton and the Rancho District, Eastern is being allowed three years to work out the violations, but they can only go to three million a day, and in order to be able to discharge three million gallons, they must comply with certain report dates for the next three years. The report concludes that Eastern shall submit to the Regional Board on or before each compliance date ab1Report indicated or Noncompliance with each task. The last page was a that the tracts average peak sewage flow comes to 0.788 million gallons a day (MGD). He pointed out that water is Introduced to this flow to dilute it. The monthly report shows an average of 2.260 million gallons by the end of February, with a maximum of 2.423 NO. He said that under the present operating status of the Eastern Water District, there is no reasonable le to tre assurance that Eastern wiltrutsbfor whi haenvirodnmentalgassthe essments arerinl~ coming out of the subject question. 43 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1989 Mr. Probandt said that EIR 235 for SP 219 was defective because information that could not have been known at the time of the EIR was certified as complete. The San Diego Regional Board Orders and the action by the Rancho California Board and the Marines all took place subsequent to the October 1988 Board of Supervisors approval of the subject EIR. No negative declaration can be issued because there exists substantial evidence that each project or tract in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The review process presented was in violation of due process and that the pertinent agency (the Department of Health) did not follow its own rules in the approval process. Commissioner Beadling said that what was basically being said is that the plant is at capacity now and this project cannot be included. Mr. Probandt said that Eastern is in violation of the basin plan. The water code of the State of California has a list of rules which allows any member of the public to protest an order of the Board. One of the procedures was to protest to the State Water Resources Board. He said that by the time this project is built, he didn't believe that he can be assured that the project will not be in violation of the 3 MGO. Commissioner Beadling asked whose responsibility this is. Mr. Vickers said that Eastern indicated that they had the capacity and would serve these tracts. Commissioner Beadling noted that from what Mr. Probandt is saying, Eastern cannot provide the capacity. Mr. Vickers said that that statement could be subject to a dispute by Eastern. They cannot sit in judgment of whether or not Eastern is or is not in violation. That issue would have to be heard in San Diego before the Water Quality Control Board down there. What the developer has is a letter from Eastern Municipal saying that there is capacity. Mr. Vickers advised that they should not be substituting their judgment for either Eastern or the Water Quality Control Board over whether or not there is capacity. Commissioner Purviance said that he did not believe that this was in the purview of the Commission, to check whether there are proper assurances from the proper agencies. However. if the San Diego RWQCB say that Eastern is persisting in violating the basin plan, it would seem as if the WQCB has the power to issue a cease and desist order which would prohibit them fray allowing more hookups or whatever other action they choose to take. Commissioner Bresson said that there is a Mello Roos in that area, but he did not know if part of that district was for the development of a sewage plant. He felt that Eastern has a obligation when they wrote their letter saying that they have capacity, and the Commission has to consider that Eastern will do it. If Eastern gets additional capacity, there is no problem; if not, then Eastern and the developer will have a problem. The Commission has to go by what documentation is given them. Mr. Probandt said that he was alleging that the developer cannot get capacity because of Eastern's own statements. He said that what he was trying to show 44 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 12, 1989 with the transparencies of the documents is that the statement from the Health Department has a 'yes' check for capacity, but that does not mean anything. What does mean something is the letter Eastern sent dated 12-19-88 which states that 'service might be precluded by RWQCB-SD.' Mr. Probandt said that if this project develops further, Eastern will testify that this is not a binding commitment, and is not a contract to serve. The point he is saying is that the developer cannot get a negative declaration if there exists substantial evidence that the project, in this case the tracts, will have a significant environmental impact. Therefore, he was presenting the information in that context. Mr. Vickers asked if sewage was a part of Specific Plan 219 and EIR 235 and were mitigation measures a part of that. Staff advised that it was. Mr.' Vickers pointed out that added to the conditions today were conditions regarding environmental monitoring and recording. Commissioner Beadling said that she was concerned that the developer will grade the land, then find that he cannot build. What they will end up with is land that has been disturbed and is subject to erosion. Mr. Probandt said that he moved onto his property after the Board approved the specific plan. He would have been at these hearings before this, had he moved into the area earlier. He is trying to establish evidence that these tracts may have a significant impact on the environment in order to get this problem resolved. Mr. Vickers said that the environmental findings in the EIR address C the issue of sewage and the mitigation of that problem. He noted that a condition was added today for monitoring and reporting, and advised that the development could be stopped at various stages if it is not at the right level. Commissioner Purviance said that he did not believe it was the Commission's role to make the determination that Mr. Probandt wants. Whether or not the developer is following the requirements of the Regional Hater Quality Control is between the developer and that agency. Mr. Probandt reiterated that this is an environmental assessment that is being considered and the Commission cannot issue a negative declaration under these circumstances based on substantial evidence that this project may affect the environment. Commissioner Purviance advised that County Counsel is saying that the plan calls for these things to be mitigated and that the conditions have been amended so the project is monitored. Therefore, the negative declaration is perfectly legal. The hearing was closed at 4:19 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Seven Tentative Vesting Tract Nos. 24131, 24132, 24133, 24134, 24135, 24136 and 24137 have been submitted; the subject tracts are located entirely within adopted Specific Plan No. 219; the seven vesting tracts have been designed to the development standards of Adopted Specific Plan No. 219; Environmental Assessment Nos. 33433, 334709, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414, based on the findings of Environmental Impact Report No. 235, prepared for Specific Plan No. 219, indicate that the environmental impacts can be avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level, except for cumulative Air Quality impacts, which cannot be fully mitigated; a statement of Overriding Findings 45 APRIL 12. 1989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES for cumulative Air Quality impacts Wes approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 4, 1988; and, Developments tracts No. 4 nform has beeeciecorded for 219; co to Specific Plan No. 219. The propo 348 and 460• based on the Nos. 3 conform to the requirements of Ordinance Nos. , 3347 environmental determination made ~414Environmental the wb~ectAvesti gntratts wi113not have 33383, 33469, 334349 33413, and , a significant effect on the environment with theaexCeption o cumulativedAir Quality impacts which cannot be fully mitigated; for Envirgrnental Assessments iuae the by~etB~rofrSupervisorsio sOctober cumulative Air Quality impacts DP 49 1988, therefore, the environmental impacts have been mitigated to an acceptable level through project design and the conditions of approval. NOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Commissioner Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission ado33413thand 33414 e Negative Declarations Lions for EA Nos. 33433, 33470, 33383, 33469. 33434. Tentative Tracts No. 24131 Amended No. 1, 24132 Amended No. 2 24133 Amended 36 No. 1, 24133 Amended No. 1. 24134Ameidsub~ectlt 24135amendedAmendedcondiNo. nslof Amended No. 1, and 24137 Amended N approval and based on the above findings and conclusions. In answer to Commissioner BreSSOn. pVic lace advised that on the Previous item, the Development Agreement was These are new vesting maps within the Specific Plan. 46 Zoning Area : Rancho California Supervisorial District: First _ E.A. Nunber: 33433, 33470, 333830, ( 33469, 33434, 33413, 33414 Specific Plan Section Vesting Tract Nos.: Planning Omcmi.ssicn: Agenda Item No.: 5-4 24131 Amendment No. 1 24132 Amendment No. 2 24133 Amendment No. 1 24134 Amendment No. 1 24135 Amendment No. 1 24136 Amendment No. 1 24137 Amendment No. 1 4-12-89 L~P~NT RIVIIiS'I~ coca= PLANKM S'7mr Ida o+ ao M N 0 N T CL 0 N 4. 0 c .o 0 m .a a i a 1. Applicant: 2. Engineer: 3. Tripe of Request : 4. location: 5. Existing Zane: . 6. g Zoning: 7. Site ca: Bedford Properties Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates To subdivide 698.1 acres into seven vesting tracts (24131, 24132, 24133, 24134, 24135, 24136, and 24137) consisting of 2,529 residential lots and 100 open space lots/school sites. The tracts are located within the Meadowa- Specific Plan (No. 219). The site is in the State Highway 79 corridor in the Rancho California area of Southwestern Riverside County. Specifically, the subject tracts are located east of Margarita Rd. and west of Butterfield Stage Rd., immediately north of Higtn+ay 79, and south of Pauba Ad. SP SP, R-A, R-Ay R-Ar2 1/2, R. A 5, A-1-10, C-P-S The site of the subject tracts consists of rolling terrain w=ept for the sa=tbern Portion of the site, which is flat. The site has been used for dry fatmislg mere the topography peanitted. With the exception of pesvolatio1 Ponds on a portion of Vesting Tract 24137, all of the site is vacant. Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. Page 2 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 24133 Amended No. 1 24234 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 8. Area Characteristics: 9. Couprehensive General Plan Designation: 10. land Division Data: The seven subject vesting tracts are located in Southwestern Riverside County in the Rancho Chlifornia area. The tracts are near other adopted Specific Plans, such as Vail Ranch (Specific Plan 223) and Redhawk (Specific Plan 217) to the South as wall as approved tracts to the east. LAND USE: Adopted Specific Plan No. 219 OPEN SPACE VEMM4G ING SINGLE 'AA= DIAL IOM/SCHOOL TRACT NO. AMEAM PLANK= AREAS Lon KIT'S STIES C 24131 M d. No. 1 105.4 15, 22 440 0 13 24132 Amd. No. 2 90.2 30, 214 0 11 24133 Amd. No. 1 163.7 16,19,20,21 693 0 23 24134 Amd. No. 1 91.2 18,33.34 311 0 19 24135 Amd. No. 1 83.5 17 325 0 19 24136 Amd. No. 1 99.6 8 400 0 8 24137 Amd. No. 1 64.3 1, 2-a 146 1 7 70M LS 698.1 2,529 1 100 11. ik-ency • T r a c t N o. 24131 t o i l oent NO. 1 ftad : 3-07-89 Health DepospI Yt: 3-20-89 Flood C ntrol: 3-27-89 Fire Depe=tsoent : 2-27-89 Building and Safety: 1-18-89 Ravised Load Dept.: 4-14-89 See letters dated: Tract No. 24132 Aemecdnent No. 2 Road DeQardoent: 3-W89 Health myt: 3-20-89 Flood Control: Fire Depe~I I my[-: 3-24-89 3-21-89 Building and Safety: 3-06-89 Pavieed fted Dept: 4-17-89 Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. Page 3 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 Tract No. 24133 Amendment No. 1 Road Department: 3-06-89 Health Department: 2-27-89 Flood Control: 3-27-89 Fire 2-24-89 Building and Safety: 3-06-89 Revised Road Dept: 4-17-89 Tract No. 24135 A wxk ent No. 1 Road Department: 3-06-89 Health Department: 2-27-89 Flood Control: 3-27-89 Fire Department: 2-24-89 Building and Safety: 3-06-89 Revised Road Dept.: 4-12-89 / Tract No. 24137 AmendrdnTt No. 1 Road DeparP71 0911- • Health Department: Flood Control: Fire Department: Building and Safety: County Geologist : Revised Road Dept.: Project Description 3-07-89 2-27-89 3-27-89 2-24-89 3-06-89 1-30-89 4-12-89 Tract No. 24134 Amendment No. I Road Department: Health Department: Flood Control: Fire Building and Safety: Revised Road Dept.: 3-06-89 3-20-89 3-27-89 2-24-89 3-06-89 4-17-89 Tract No. 24136 Amendment No. 1 Road Department: Health Department: Flood Control: Fire Department: Building and Safety: Revised Road Dept.: 3-06-89 2-27-89 3-27-89 2-24-89 3-06-89 4-12-89 Sew Vesting Tentative Tracts ban been filed within adopted Specific Plan No. 219 M)e Meadows}. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24131 proposes to divide 453 lots on 105.4 acres. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24132 will divide 214 lots an 90.2 acres. In the interior of the Specific Plan, Viesting Tract No. 24133 consists of 716 lots on 163.7 acres. Meeting Tract No. 24134, located in the no=thuest corner of the Specific Plan area, will divide 91.2 acres into 330 lots. l Vesting TYact No. 24135, located in the western most portion of the Specific Plan, includes 344 lots m 83.5 acres. Vesting Tract NO. 24136 will divide 99.8 acres into 408 lots. Finally, VWating Tract No. 24137, in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan adjacent to Highway 79, pxopose4s to divide 64.3 acres into 154 lots. Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. Page 4 Background 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 Specific Plan No. 219, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 4, 1988, includes 5,611 dwelling units on 1389 acres. The seven tracts implement the western portion of the Specific Plan. Envirornental Impact Report No. 235 assessed the full range of envira ental concerns associated with the Specific Plan. All identified potential impacts, except for cumulative effects on air quality, were reduced to an acceptable level through mitigation measures incorporated into the project, conditions of approval and project design. The impact report is the basis for the environmental assessments for the subject tracts. Dwiron essntal Assessment Nos. 33433, 33470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414 indicated that all potential impacts for the tracts can be mitigated to an acceptable level. Project Consistency with Adopted Specific Plan The subject tracts we=e thoroughly reviewed for consistency with Adopted Specific Plan No. 219. The residential densities and layout conform to the Land Use Plan. Lott' 4, as sham on the tract maps, will a=mrcdate the zoning provisions of the zoning ordinance adopted in conjunction with the Specific Plan. The vesting tract maps and correspcneUng conditions of approval are consistent with the Planning Area Develcpaent Standards described in Section III.B of the Specific Plan. Issues dealt with at the design stage of the tracts have included internal circulation within the tracts, mitigation of historic resources, and geologic issues. Firstly, internal circulation me a concaun in all of the tracts under consideration, a~ooept for Vesting Tract No. 24137. These concerns were worked out through minor redesign. The wound issue was the mitigation of historic resauvoc-a, which was discussed extensively between the applicant and the County Parks Depest~necnt. It was detpuni ne that the historic resources within the tracts under consideration oould be adequately mitigated. Finally, geologic concerns included liquefaction for Vesting Tract 24137 and, slope stability far all of the tracta. Reports were prepared on each issue and reviewed by the Oourty Geologist. . His =soouaendations regarditnq the liquefaction issue far Tract 24137 are presented in a letter dated 1-30-89. With regard to slope stability, the Geologist farad that the reoammendatio~s of the reports were acceptable and should be incorporated into the development and cornstructian Of the tracts. Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 Page 5 1. seven Tentative Vesting Tract Nos. 24131, 24132, 24133, 24134, 24135, 24136, and 24137 have been submitted. 2. The subject tracts are located entirely within adopted Specific Plan No. 219. 3. The seven vesting tracts have been designed to the development standards of Adopted Specific Plan No. 219. 4. Environmental Assessment Nos. 33433, 33470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414, based on the findings of Impact Report No. 235, prepared for Specific Plan No. 219, indicate that the environmental impacts can be avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level, except for cumulative Air Quality impacts, which cannot be fully mitigated. A statement of Overriding Findings for cumulative Air Quality impacts was approved by the Board of Supervisors on Octabe= 4, 1988. 5. Development Agreement. No. 4 has been recorded for Specific Plan No. 219. ODNQ=ICliS 1. The proposed tracts conform to Specific Plan No. 219. 2. The proposed vesting tracts confozm to the requiranawts of Ordinance No. 348 and 460. 3. Based on the env; r nuenta det~*+~; *+'tian made in ~vircnmental Assessment Nos. 33433, 33470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414, the subject vesting tracts will not have a aignifia3nt effect an the , with the wweptian of amilative air Quality impacts which cannot be fully mitigated. The above referem iced ..r K*jLl Assessments include the Statement of Overriding Findings for cv lab ve Air Quality impacts approved by the Board of on October 4, 1988. MWTMM of a Negative Declaration Z= Kital Assessment Nos. 33433, 3470, 33383, 33469, 33434, 33413, and 33414 based on the finding that the impacts have been mitigated to an aooeptable level through C project design and the oonaitiona of approval; and. APFFam of vesting Tentative Tract No. 24131 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached ooc~ditions of approval; and, Staff Report Vesting Tract Nos. 24131 Amended No. 1 24132 Amended No. 2 ( 24133 Amended No. 1 24134 Amended No. 1 24135 Amended No. 1 24136 Amended No. 1 24137 Amended No. 1 Page 6 APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24132 Amended No. 2, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and, APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24133 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and, APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24134 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and, ,APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24135 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and, APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24136 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached conditions of approval; and, ( APPROVAL of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24137 Amended No. 1, subject to the attached oonditions of approval. C aD' cj TR 24131 24132 L~ 24133 'TR 24134 24135 TR 24136 TR/24137 ~ O R VAC V 't RES PLO` f LAND USE C VA `C Q L• ~ V ~ h ►AC x~ ~ VAC ~~AC 1 t Y C ,9a TURF ~o: Sgt fit. h FAR ~ . i OFF G VA VOW f VAC l SCATTER ~ CATT~RED~~~` App. BEDFORD PROPERTIES Use 2329 LOTS Aria RANCHO CALIF tot sup. Dirt Sec. a T. a S.,R. 2 W Assessors Sk. 023 PO. 23 Circulation HIGHWAY EXP VAR Eleia*nt MARGARITA RD ART 110' Rd. Bk. Pq. 56 A Dots 3/21/89 Dram Sy Vn • ~,cm-eir c ,-nrrvrY Af.4NJ OK DEPARTMENT 2 4131 ~p 22441,332, 2244'&6 TR 24134 TR TR TR 21137 Fw I R-1 V( 'Itt.65 ~.O~-T R- R -R '-R-R .i s ,R-1 ! R- R ,~-R-R • t~l• 2000 R,SyDiE COC*Vry a~e~vNINO "EXISTING ZONING 3 f►. if R--R ;R-1 App. BEDFORD PROPERTIES Use. 2529 LOTS Area RANCHO CALIF 1st Sup.okt Sec, 8 T. 8 S..R.2W Auessor s dk. 923 PO. 23 Ckcvlotion HIGHWAY EXP VAR I Element MARGARITA RD ART 110' Vn Vv Rd. Bk. 4 58A Dote 3/21/89 Drftm BY R-R f - - RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBDIVISION ' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 AMENDED NO. 2 STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees.from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24132 Amended No. 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. 2. The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California i Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule A. unless modified by the conditions listed below. 3. This conditionally approved tentative map. will expire two years after the o County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as L provided by Ordinance 460. A 0 4. 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. S. The subdivider shall submit one copy of a soils report to the Riverside CL County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Department of Building and Jt Safety. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 6. 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 comply with the Uniform Building Code. Chapter 70, as amended by Ordinance 457 and as may be additionally provided for in these conditions of approval. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. !2 Conditions of Approval Page 2 7. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and Safety prior to commencement of any grading outside of county maintained road right of way. 8. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 9. The subdivider shall comply with the street improvement recommendations outlined in the Riverside County Road Department's letter dated 3-2;-89 4-17-89, a cop of which is attached. (Amended by Planning Commission April 12, 19891 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. 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, 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. 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 3-20-89 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 3-24-89 -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 outlined in the County Fire Marshal's letter dated 3-21-89 a copy of which is attached. 16. 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. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 3 17. The subdivider and all successors in interest shall comply with the provisions of Development Agreement No. 4 and Specific Plan No. 219. 18. Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following: a. All residential lots shall have a minimum size of 7200 square feet b. 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 non-through lots. c. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the development standards of the Specific Plan zone. d. 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. 19. Prior to RECORDATION. of the final map the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit written clearances to the Riverside County Road and Survey Department that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval letters from the following agencies have been met: County Fire Department County Health Department County Flood Control County Parks Department 20. 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 any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the association. 21. Prior to recordation 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 t VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. !2 Conditions of Approval Page 4 2) A sample document conveying title to the purchaser lot or unit which provides that the declaration .conditions and restrictions is incorporated therein by of an individual of covenants, 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 ownership of the cams n 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 any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, the following provision shall apply: The property owners' association established herein shall manage and continuously maintain the 'common area, more particularly described as Lots A through K on Vesting Tract Map No. 24132, Amended No 2 attached hereto, and shall not sell or transfer the 'common area', or any part thereof, absent the prior written consent of the Planning Director of the County of Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property 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 a maintainance 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 Blylaws or the property owners' association Rules and Regulations, 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. (Added by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) 24, Pr4er to reserdat4ea of the 14%a4 imapv the sub-d4v4der sMa44 seavey to the Csenty fee 94imp4e 0444e, to a44 eam er ssmmea open spase areas, #Pee and s4ear of a44 44eas, takes, assessmmeat, 4eases 4reeerdad avid uareserded~ and easeimentev exseft these easements wh4th 4a the We VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 . Awd. !2 Conditions of Approval Page 5 d4seret4en of the County are aeeeptab4e* As eoadWons preeedent to the County aeeept4ng 440e to sveh areas, the subd4v4der sha44 subm*4 the 1s44ow4ng deeuments to the P4ann4ng Department 4'er rev4ew, wh4eh deeuments sha44 be sub4eet to the approva4 of that department and the Aff4ee of the County Ceunse4* 14 A des4arat4on of sovenants, eoad Weas and restr4st4onsi and 24 A sample desument sonvey4n9 % We to the purehaser of an 4nd4v4dua4 4et' or unfit wh4sh prov4des that the dee4arat4on of covenants, eondWons and restr4et4ons 4s 4nserporated there4m by re€erenae: The des4aratton of sovenants, eend409ns and restr4e0oas subm*tted for rev4ew sha44 ja4 prov4de for a term of iO years, Ebb prov4de for the estab4shment of a property owners= assoe4atton sompr4sed of the ewers of eash 4nd4v4dua4 494 or unfit and 4e4 eonta4n the 1e44ew4ng prov4s4ons verbat4m♦ 2N9tw4thstand4n9 any pfev4s4en 4 thts Dee4arat4oa to the eontrary, the 1o44ew4ng prov4s4en sha44 app4y♦ The property owners= assee4at4on estab44she4 here4a sha447 4f dormant, be aet4vated, by 4nsorperat4on or otherw4se, at the request of the County of R4vers44e, and the property owners= assoe4at4oa sha44 uneon44t4ona44y aseept from the County of R4vers4de, upon the Countyis demand, *Wo to a44 or any part of the =eo mmon area=, more part4ev4af4y deser4bed as trots A through K on Vest4ng Trait Now 24132 Amended Now D, The dee4s4en to requ4re ast4vat4en of the property ewers! assee4at4on and the dee4s*oa to requ4re that the asses4at4on uncoad4t4ona44y aseept SWe to the :sommmen area= sha44 be at the so4e d4sefet4on of the County of R4vefs4dev 4a the event that the sammen area, or any part thereof, 4s conveyed to the property owners= asses4at4on, the assoe4at4en, thereafter sha44 ow sveh :eemnmen area=, sha44 manage and eent4nuevs4y m0 nta4n sveh ssemmon area=, or any part thereof, absent the p►4of wr4tten season& of the P4ann4ng 94reeter of the County of R4ver94de or the Cevnty=s suesessor-fin-4nterest. The property ewers-' assocU44on sha44 have the r44jht to assess the ewers of easy 4nd4v4dva4 4e4 or un44 for the reasonable asst of m&4nta4n4ng sveh =eommon area=, and sha44 have the r49ht to 44en the property of any sveh owner who defau4ts fin' the payment of a ma4atenanee assessment. An assessment 44en, ease created, sha44 be pr4or to a44 ether 44ens roeorded subsequent to the not4ce of assessment of other dosument sreat4ng the assessment 44e%. Th4s Des4arat4on sha44 not be termtoated, =svbstaat4a44y= amended or property deannened therefrom absent the pr4er wr4ttea sonsent of the P4ann4ng 94recter of the County of R4vers44e of the County=s sueeessor-fin-4nterest. A proposed amendment sha44 be sens4dered VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , Amd. /2 Conditions of Approval Page 6 tsubstant44= 4f 4% affects the exteniv usage or matatenanee of the =eem++en areal ♦ ;a the event of any oonf44st between Ws Dee4arat4on and the Art4e4es of 4neorporat4on, the Qy;awst or the property owners= assee4a414on Wes and Re9r4a 0ans, 4f any, Ws Dee4arat4on sha44 oontro4:= Onse approved, the deo4arat4oa of aovenants, ooad*44ons and restv4et4ons sha44 be reeorded at the same 44me that 4he f4aa4 map 4s recorded. (Deleted by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) 22. The developer shall comply with the following parkway landscaping conditions: 1) Prior to recordation of the final map the developer shall file an application with the County for the formation of or annexation to, a parkway maintenance district for Vesting Tract 24132 Amended !2 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 No. 219. 23. 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. 24. Street lights shall be provided within the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , Amid. !2 Conditions of Approval Page T 1) Concurrently with the filing of subdivision improvement plans with the Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed street light layout first from the Road Department's traffic engineer and then from the appropriate utility purveyor. 2) 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 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 recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. a. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: 'County Slope Stabilty Report No. 95 was prepared for this property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department. Specific items of concern in the report are as follows: slope stability." 26. Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a, Pr49r to the 499ranse of grad4ng perm4tsv the appUeant sha44 obtain e4earaeee from the Y.6. F49h and M4404fe terv4se re;at4n9 to the ea494enee ei the itephens Kangares Rat so the s4te. (Deleted by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) b. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 633, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , Aod. p2 Conditions of Approval Page 8 Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. c. Prior to the issuance of gfadta9 building 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: (Amended by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) 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 visual screening or a transition into the primary use area ( of the site. Landscape elements shall include earth berming, ground cover, shrubs and specimen trees in conjunction with meandering sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amenities where appropriate as approved by the Planning Department. 5. Landscaping plans trees at key visual 6. Where street trees interior streets right-of-way, they right-of-way. shall incorporate the use of specimen accent focal points within the project. cannot be planted within right-of-way of ind project parkways due to insufficient road shall be planted outside of the road 7. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants where appropriate. 8. 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 reaoved, relocated and/or retained. 9. All trees shall be ainim double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing trees shall be steel staked. 10. The plans shall conform to those shown in Specific Plan No. 219. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 . A■d. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 9 d. Any oak trees removed with four (4) inch or larger trunk diameters shall be replaced on a ten (10) to one (1) basis as approved by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans. e. The following tree preservation guidelines shall be incorporated in the projects approved grading, building and landscaping plans as appropriate: 1. Every effort shall be made to prevent encroachment of structures, grading or trenching within the dripline or twenty-five (25) feet of the trunk of any trees, whichever is greater. 2. If encroachment within the dripline is unavoidable, no more than one third of the root area shall be disturbed, graded or covered with impervious materials. The root area is considered to extend beyond the dripline a distance equal to one half the radius. 3. Building, grading or improvements shall not occur within ten (10) feet of any tree trunk. 4. Retaining walls shall be constructed where necessary to preserve C natural grade at least one-half the distance between the trunk and the dripline. Walls shall be designed with a post or caisson footing rather than a continuous footing to minimize root damage. 5. Alteration of natural drainage shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 6. Runoff channelled near trees shall not substantially change normal soil moisture characteristics on a seasonal basis. 7. Runoff shall not be directed towards the base of trees so that the base of the trees remain in wet soil for an extended period. Where natural topography has been altered, drainage away from trunks shall be provided where necessary to ensure that water will not stand at the crown. 8. Sedimentation and siltation in the drainage ways shall be controlled where necessary to avoid filling around the base of the • trees. 9. Land uses that would cause excessive soil compaction within the dripline of trees shall be avoided. If the areas are planned for recreation, provide trails to restrict compaction to a small area. Heavy use under trees shall be avoided unless measures to minimize compaction are undertaken. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 10 10. Landscaping or irrigation shall not be installed within ten (10) feet of any trees. f. 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. g. All approved grading and building plans shall reflect the utilization of post and beam foundations or the appropriate combination of split level pads and post and beam foundations when development is proposed on natural slopes of fifteen percent or greater measured over a horizontal distance of thirty (30) feet. h. 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 I. Driveways shall be designed so as'not to exceed a fifteen (15) percent grade. J. Grading plans shall conform to Board adopted Hillside Development Standards: All cut and/or fill slopes, or individual combinations thereof, which exceed ten feet in vertical height shall be modified by an appropriate combination of a special terracing (benching) plan, increased slope ratio (i.e., 3:1), retaining walls, and/or slope planting combined with irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. k. 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: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 . And. #2 Conditions of Approval Page 11 r 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. 1. 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. m. 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. n. 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. 27. Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: 1) The project shall comply with the requirements of Development Agreement No. 4. 2) Prior to the submittal of building plans to the Department of Building and Safety for residential lots backing up to secondary roadways or wider roadways, 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. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 12 3) 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. 219. 4) All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed and constructed with fire retardant (Class B) roofs as approved by the County Fire Marshal. 5) 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. 6) Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from view of surrounding property. 7) Building separation between all buildings excluding fireplaces shall not be less than ten (10) feet. 8) AIT street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. 9) All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic irrigation. 28. Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: 1) Wall and/or fence locations and materials shall conform to the approved wall and fence treatment plan in Specific Plan No. 219. 2) 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. 3) All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved plans and shall be verified by a Planning Department field inspection. 4) 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. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24132 , And. f2 Conditions of Approval Page 13 5) Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 461 and Specific Plan No. 219. 6) Street trees shall be planted throughout the subdivision in accordance with the standards of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. 219. 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the subdivider shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director of the County of Riverside demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this map and'E.A. No. 33470 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. (Added by Planning Commission April 12, 1989) CO : cj :mp OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER a COUNTY SURVEYOR X-C ROAD AM stntvey DEPARTIeNT LsRay D. Smog 100 aR & mown 3X%TyW Riverside County Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Ladies and Gentlemen: March-27.-1989 April 17, 1989 crown ADo-mir unvE m m ►.o fox )Om WOtSIX CA1dooLs A nsm (714) 7174554 Re: TR 24132 - Amend f2 Schedule A - Team SP - SMD E9 *Amended at P.C. 4/12/89 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 u-^derstood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline ?rofiles, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q's, and that their omission or unacceptability may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE is as binding as though occurring in all. They are intended to be complementary and to describe -the conditions for a complete design of the improvement. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Road Commissioner's Office. 1. The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i,e., concentration of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/ or by securing a drainage easement. All drainage easements shall be shown on the final map and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no building, obstructions, or encroachments by land fills are allowed". The protection shall.be as approved by the Road Department. 2. 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 YI of Ordinance go. 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. '7R 24232 - Amend 42 X8pek_J;1-}989 - April 17, 1989 "age 2 3. Major drainage is involved on this landdivision and its resolution shall be as approved by the Road Department. 4. Buecking Parkway shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 101. (38'/50') 5. Pauba Road shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 102. (32'/44') 6. Street "F" (between streets "N" and "K") shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A. (441/661) 7. Streets "B", "M", and "F" (south of Street "K") shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with modified County Standard No. 104, Section A. (501/70', with entry median as approved by the Road Commissioner). 8. Streets "D", "E", "K", and "F" (north and west of Street "N") shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard No. 104, Section A. (40'/60') 9. Streets "G", "S", "J", "L" and "N" shall be improved within the dedicated right of way in accordance with county Standard No. 105, Section A. (36'/60') 10. Street "A" shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with modified County Standard No. 103, Section A. (241/331, as approved by the Road Commissioner). 11. Streets "C" and "P" shall be improved with 34 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within a 45 foot part width dedicated right of way in accordance with County Standard no. 103, Section A. (221/339) 12. Corner cutbacks in conformance with County Standard No. 805 shall be shown on the final map and offered for dedication. 13. 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 Co®issioner. Completion of road improvements does not imply acceptance for main- tenance by County. 73t 24132 - Amend f2 North-01-1989 - April 17, 1989 "age 3 14. Standard cul-de-sacs and knuckles and off-set cul-de-sacs shall be constructed throughout the landdivision. 15. 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. 16. The landdivider will provide left turn lanes on Streets "A" and "C" and Pauba Road at all interior intersections as approved by the Road Department. 17. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Rancho California Water District prior to the recordation of the final map. 18. The maximum centerline gradient and the minimum centerline radii shall be in conformance with County Standard #114 of Ordinance 461. • 19 All centerline intersections shall be at 900 with a minimum 50' tangent measured from flow line, or as approved by the Road Commissioner. 20. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed throughout the landdivision in accordance with County Standard No. 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk). 21. The minimum lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs and knuckles shall be 35 feet. 22. 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. 23. The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face of curb. 24. The landowner/developer shall provide/acquire sufficient public offsite rights of way to provide for primary and secondary access road(s) to a paved and maintained road. Said access road(s) shall be constructed in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 106, Section B. (320/601) at a grade and alignment approved by the Road Commissioner. 25. Prior to the recordation of the final amp, the developer shall deposit with the Riverside County Road Department, a cash sum of $150.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic *As amended at P.C. 4/12/89 TR 24132 - Amend /2 reh-271-1989 - April 17, 1989 .ge 4 signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, a written agreement may be entered into with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. 26. Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817. 27. Lot access shall be restricted on Buecking Parkway, Pauba Road and Street "A" 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. 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. 30. The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated with Specific Plan No. 219. 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 an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a "Lighting Assessment District" in accordance with Governmental Code Section 56000. 32. Street lights shall be installed in accordance with Ordinance 460 and 461 at all intersections of roads constructed or improved within the subdivision. The county Service Area (CSA) Administrator determines whether the subdivision is within an existing assessment district. If not, the land owner shall file an application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of a County Service Area in accordance with Governmental Code Section 25210.1. 33. All private and public entrances and/or intersections opposite this project shall be coordinated with this project and shown on the street improvement plans. 34. A striping plan is required for Suecking Parkway, Pauba Road and Streets "A" and •C". 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. TR Z4132 - Amend #2 ' !Wreh-2~~-989 - April 17, 1989 3e S The following conditions from Specific Plan No. 219 - Vail Meadows shall also apply: 1. All road improvements, unless otherwise noted, shall be constructed to ultimate County Standards in accordance with Ordinance No. 460 and 461 as a requirement of the implementing subdivisions for the Specific Plan, subject to approval by the Road Commissioner. The proposed "Gateway Road" is approved, in concept, subject to the submittal and review of design details. 2. 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 mechanism as approved by the Road Commissioner. 3. The Rancho Villages Assessment is an integral component of the planning for this area. Prior to the recordation of tract maps within this specific plan or any other project located within the assessment district, the final actions necessary for formation of the district must be romple -d. Should the district fail, the project proponent shall, prior to the recordation of any tract maps within the specific plan boundaries, provide for road improvements in accordance with Table XV-implementation Schedule for On-Site Roadway Improvements and Table XVI-Implementation Schedule for Off- Site Roadway Improvements, as attached. 4. 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. Very truly yours, er Baumgarten Subdivision Engineer EB:jw l COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE e-j6ALLMWff r• K ANRIAD ~ NL►1M 617/R. A~~YLNI~.1~'A. ~d9CAK MAIN W*%N= `.vu..... ' c atdrriia9N ..r ArAL9N rs. reu ov.r,,r.r9L wrvr► A11TC9=r ASaeN wc.r aTArese L• osT19t a.L wq/9 t Mclo* OF waft AwN1NA9w • owwr K*oa~ OR."" eaffma t UNNINS ,...AruT WMET +AaArwn. CA $eeso mLTTrs M3 UMTN 01"AorAT ZINC CA seas s.sA w.ANCA redo NAII"AITA OV90440e. CA 626" Mf~ TAN OWNA'n1TA Cg90NA. CA 61126 =on Mo NONTN BUTS 67. NEWT. CA 62242 meo-n d 0"19 *TOM wow. CA use 1 Sol" PRAWN on. LASS 0, @N@ C. CA. 9esM "La @pass" am TA90IT2-09CALLAN9 PAL>J ..9"8064 CA 91262 "I BUMN 1' shed? Penal. CA stay$ alwonew 96,26 LOO IS 41'111W wllsasleJS. CA. am? amalgams MM MssIOM ft". •1lsrMas. CA SEW DEPARTMENT March 20. 1969 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 4080 Lemon Street Riverside. CA 92502 ATTH: Chris Ormsby MAR t 1 ag RE; TRACT MAP 24132: Parcels 20, 21 9 22. of Parcel Map 23432 (219 Lots) Gentlemen: The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentative Map No. 24132 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- lose 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. of HEALTH T99 sT"11r "A"I"ST wrI*! jjAjf,rj4aa County Planning Dept- Attn: Chris Ormsby !larch 20, 1989 The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 24132 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 sap. This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will supply water to such tract map at any specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose". This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water company. Ih!_S.l!=?P. aiist_bi_s5ibmittgd_t2 LhS_Coursty_S~rvgyoc_s_QLt i~g_tg_ f:ytg~r_gt_~ga s t_tyo y9/k3_PL~4~_Ss_4~1!_r~qu~st_Lgr_L~3S_St~ordation_Qt_the Ltrsa I sbp . 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 nap. This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage system to be connected to the severs of the District. The sever 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 sever 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 sever lines and water lines shall be a portion of the sewage plans and profiles. Riverside County Planning Page 3 March 20, 1989 Attn: Chris Ormsby The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the sever district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sever system in Tract Map 24132 is in accordance with the serer system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed tract Map.' 7at_2,L&U1_!Y!j_h! ISIQI~~~t~_S~4_~l~~~Y_$1lLYlYQS:!_4~~~5!_S~4_tlY1lY_l~~.ii! t ~1~4 ~!!~!_lL~4t_~Q_~D!_tl9S~ls~~QL_~Dl~tlLQt~l414Ls~L..~~! L1t3!►~~lt; - It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalised prior to recordation of the final map. 9 Sincerel bas Martinez, Envir ental Health Specialist IV Environmental Health Services SM:tac KZNNWrM L ZOWARD: CMIt7 0041"MM RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AMCM2109. CALMMMIA 62902 March 24, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department County Administrative center Riverside, California Attention: Specific Plan Section Chris Ormsby Ladies and Gentlemen: This is a proposal to divide abort The site is to the north of Highway Stage R)ad. This project is a pert 1902 MAIIKR 8T112[T V. 0. 210! 1022 TEL2PNOM[ (7141 787.2016 Be: Vesting Tract 24132 Amended Map No. 2 90 acres in the Rancho California area. 79 between Margarita Road and Butterfield of Specific Plan 219, Vail Meadows. The area consists of well defined ridges and natural watercourses which tra- verse this property. A major natural watercourse enters the site at the site's northeast corner and traverses the site's north portion. A storm drain proposed by Assessment District 159 would be used to collect and convey these offsite tributary flows. This facility should be installed before this site can be safely developed. Qnsite flows and local offaite flows would be han- dled by stem drains and streets. Pbllowing are the District's recomm~audatians: 1. This portion of this tract is located within the limits of the K=ie- ta QvW01ftec as V611ey Area Drainage Plan for %Auch 41rainage flees have been adopted by the Board. Drainage fees shall be paid as set fourth under the provisions of the "IAes and Asgulaticns for Ad- ministration of Area Drainage plans', amended Ptbruary 16, 1988: a. Drainage fees shall be paid to the Aced Qandssiouer as pert of the filing for record of the subdivision final mop ar parcel map, cc 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 onapliance the waiver of the parcel map; CW b. At the cpticn of the land divider, upon tiling a required af- fidavit requesting deferment of the payment of fees, the drainage fees my be paid to the Banding Director at the time of issuance of a grading pumdt or building permit for each approved parcel, %ihichever may be first obtained after the recording of the sub- division final nap cr parcel aetps provided ho ayer, this option to defer the fees may not be exercised *r any parcel utwre grading cc structures hays been initiated au h• parcel within the prior 3 year period, cr permits for either activity have been issued on that parcel which randn active. Riverside C=Yty -2- March 24, 1989 Planning Department Be: Vesting Tract 24132 Amended Map No. 2 2. 7he 100 year offsite tributary flows should be collected and safely conveyed through the site to adequate outlets. 3. 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 dWFtrQCtiCMA 4. Offsite drainage facilities should be located within publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the affected property ewrxrs. It* docuorrAs should be recorded and a copy submitted to the District prior to recordation of the final map. 5. All lots strxuld be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an ade- quate cutlet. 6. 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 facili- ties should be installed. 7. Drainage facilities cutletting amp conditions should be designed to em my the tributary 100 year storm flows. Additional emergency es- cape should also be provided. S. The property's street and lot grading should be designed in a manner that perpetuates the e:istirg natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area# cutlet points and cutlet conditions, otherwise, a drainage easement shauld be obtained tram the affected property owners for the release of - ntratsd cc diverted storm flaws. A copy of the recorded drainage easement dxmid be sibutted to the District for review prior to the recordation of the final map. 9. 1lempara1 y erosion control wears ehc ild be Inplanented immediately following roucgh grading to prevent depositim of debris cow dow>•- s vem properties cc drainage Lcilitias. 10. of this property shaild be aoardinated with the development of adjacent propemcties to s amwe that watercourses retain nuoobstructed and atecatsrs are not diverted from one %numi hed to an Umr. 2his my require the construction of tMWoCWY drainage lbc'Uties or offaite and grading. - 11. A portico of the yCCpased FMject L is a lloodplain and may affect Nesters of the ihited States', 'ktlands' er 'jurisdictional streembeds", therefore, is acc~ocdanee with the of the ( National Flood Insurance Program and Related Regulations (44 CM Parts 59 through 73) and Qx=ty Ordinance No. 458: Riverside County -3- March 24, 1989 Planning Department Be: Vesting Tract 24132 Amended tap No. 2 A copy of appropriate correspondence and necessary permits fran those gove rrmant agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State law (such as Corps of Figineers 404 permit or Department of Fish and Game 1603 agreement) should be provided to the District pricy to the final District approval of the project. 12. Major fIc d control facilities are being proposed. These should be designed and constructad to District standards including those related to alignment and access to both inlets and outlets. 7he applicant should consult the District early in the design process regarding materials, hydraulic design and transfer of rights of may. 13. All flood control facilities should be eahstructed to District standards. And all facilities that the District will assume for maintenance will require the payment of a one time maintenance charge equal to the 'resent worth- of costs from the time of acceptance ewough 1998. 14. This map should not be recorded until the facilities proposed along Pauba Road by Assessment District 159 are under construction. The natural watercourse which traverses the site's north portion should be kept free of admtructians u;rtit the above drainage facilities have been installed. 15. A copy of the inprarement plans. grading plans and final map along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the District via the Road Department for review and approval prier to recardatian of the final map. Grading plans should be approved prior to issuance of grading permits. Qnstiens x - rnisg this matter may be referred to Aabez Chiang of this office at 714/787-2333- Very truly yours, acs Robert Bein. W»im Pzcw and Associates 1Csp1a RNERS1DE COUNTY flRE DEPARTMENT cu"ei N COOPEi?AT10N VMTH THE 1 CALFC4AA rApDEEPPARpUENT OF FORESTRY CI.EN J . R~ o~ FIRE CKffT rlieniq a E„owain oEim 46.209 Ono Strad, Sok 405 b&4 CA 9=1 (619) 342446 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: CMUS ORMSBY 3-21-89 Rnnin a En*mvins Offim 4080 1 now Strad. Suik 1 I L Ri.eni&, CA 92501 (714) 787-6606 RE: TRACT 24132 - AMENDED f2 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 recognised fire protection standards: FIRE PROTECTION Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"x4"x2}") located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and. the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 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 road medians to be set back 30 feet from curb line at all intersections. I 1 I I • . Subject: Tract 24132 Page 2 All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any vood shingles or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. MITIGATION Prior to the recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit vith the Riverside County Fire Department, a cash sum of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment, he/she may enter into a vritten agreement with the County deferring said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Kurt Mantvell, Fire Safety Specialist t covHrr'Depahfinenf o l Tu!Cding and Satetg RIVERSIDE w • ` Administrative Center • 1777 Atlanta Avenue Riverside, CA 92507 February 6, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department Attention: Chris Ormsby . County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 RE: ( V ) Tract 24132 i CLrn.' Z Ladies and Gentlemen: The Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety has the following comments and conditions: ( Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall obtain Planning Department approval for all on-site and off- site signage advertising the sale of the subdivision pursuant to Section 19.6 of Ordinance 348. Fireplaces may encroach 1' into required minimum 5' side yard setback. Mechanical equipment may not be located in required minimum 5' side yard setback. Very truly yours, Thomas H. Ingram, Director DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY By: 11'L4.e 411, -F. mAe,A - Norman ostbom, Deputy Director • Land se Division PATE OF G . MAl LOWATCH AND NMONG AG& Y GEORGE MMMUTAN. Gem ow DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION p nUO R ►.O. BOX 231 AM~ w+ ~en+AaDwo. a r2ao2 noo piq xs.e~o+ January 17, 1989 Development Review 08-Riv-79-16.0-17.376 Your Reference: VTr 24132 Planning Department JAN 2 0B84 Attention Mr. Chris Ormsby County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street 000 M COUNTY Riverside, CA 92501 KMNINGIOEPARTMEW Dear Mr. Ormsby: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Tentative Vesting Tract 24132 located south of Pauba Road and east of Margarita Road in Rancho California. This proposal is somewhat 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. Thomas J. Neville at (714) 383-4384. very truly • xl-~o H. N. LZWANDOWSKI District Permits Engineer Southern Ca/Ifamis Edson Company o. no% 410 100 LONG •[ACH BOULLVARD LONG NCACM, CAUFORM&A 90001 RLAL ►ROMMTI[t Ttl[~.~Oa~ AND ors •,+•s,a~ AOM8"MT1%ATrdz solv~cEs Riverside County February 7. 1989 Road Department P. O. Box 1090 Riverside, CA 92502 Attention: Subdivision Section SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24132 Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Nap No. 24132 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any easement(s) field by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said vesting tentative tract map. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's rights. title and interest in and to said easement(s), nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of any costs for relocation of affected facilities. In the event that the development requires relocation of facil- ities. if any. on the subject property by right of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation. it additional information above mentioned subject, 491-2644. n is requited in connection with the please call Dennis C. Bazant at (213) Very truly yours. 0;~ -1 f R. P. ROSSEL RELOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION DCB/bjw 16497-2NPC cQ: aiwrside County PlaoninQ. Department,' Attn: ---Chris Orasbt Robert Bain, William Frost i Associates E ater District R+~~rwr M/ Slr+riD Dw.r.e of n. me"Opek" !'.c.r Dawns of S.r4... &414. Doak F. &we r .Y. I A }~Aw M Gwd.rra. InsJrnr RtA.r1 C Kelley. Vow ►r...cM rrw G A4rdxe Owurr L G;*Nrc AndWr U. Seviv .q.. K. Ca. Riverside Co. Planning Dept. 4080 Lemon St.. 9th Floor Riverside, Ca 92501 Lo..r C. lQmwn 1-23-•89 SUBJECT: 71Z- Z ~.l l3 Z -CS4 71) GA 31'4'1 O - . LA C . r tc. (&I The District is responding to your request for comments on the subject project relative to water and/or sewer service. The items checked below apply to this project review. The subject project: %.--,'Is not within EMWD's: --water service area sewer service area / Will be required to construct/provide the following facilities if to be served by EMWD: i;ewer Service Any and all necessary regionally sized onsite and offsite gravity sewers and appurtenant works that eight 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. e~s.Lc w.~•~a~.+~l.L asps. 1 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Planning Department it. I1v.&ro ba C %v.. f.,4. `x'* 2 %3 aim Board at Direcum James A. Darby Jeffirq L )i LUMer 8r. Vioe President Ralph Defy Doug snlberg Jon A. Londin T. C. Rawe Richard D. SteQey O!licem 8tas T. Mfla central MAMNW PLllip L Forbes Director at finame- 'lboam R. McAllooter Director of opwations 1 Maineensmee Doris V. Dakar District Secretary McCormick s Kw ham January 30, 1989 Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501-3657 Subject: Water Availability Reference: Vesting Tract 24132 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 Doherty at (714) 676-4101. Very truly yours, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 4~w Bob Lemons, P.E. Acting Director of Engineering F012/jkU404f R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A W A T E R D I S T R I C T 28061 DIAZ ROAD . POST OFFICE BOX 174 . TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 9 (714) 676-4101 . FAX (714) 676-0615 UNITED STATES POST OFFICE a►TE: i -13-,~'q _ OM RV: COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WJDACT: Tea 49 J2 To- RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4080 LEMON ST., 9th FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 FUTURE MODE OF DELIVERY: CENTRALIZED CONTACT WITS THE D. S. POSTAL SERVICE IS REQUIRED BY DEVELOPER/BUILDER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION FOR DELIVERY TYPE AND LOCATIONS. DATE I-Ig•~ =f, GROWTH MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR t ~ 0:niDE county -Manninc Drcpaicnrcn: DATE: January 9, 1989 TO: Assessor Building and Safety Surveyor - Dave Duda Road Department ~ Health - Ralph Luchs . •~.r Fire Protection Flood Control District F Fish i Game FLA..': U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E. Davidson U.S. Fish i Wildlife Services County Parks Eastern Muncipal Water District Rancho California VESTING TRACT 24132 - (Sp P1) E.A. Southern California Edison 33470 - Rancho California Area - First Southern Ca hornia Gas Supervisorial District - S. of Pauba, E. General Telephone of Margarita - SP Zone - 90.2 Acres into Cal Trans !8 Elsinore Unified School "District ' 223 lots - Schedule A - No Waiver - (Concurrent Case TR 24134) - Mod 120 - Temecula Union School District A.P. 923-230-001 Commissioner Bresson Flease review the case described above, along with the attached case map. A Land Division Committee meeting has been tentative ly scheduled for February 6, 1989: If it clears. it will then go to public hearing. Your comments and recommendations are request ed prior to February 6, 1989 in order that we say include them in the staff report for this particular case. Should you have any questions regarding this item. please do not hesitate to contact Chris Ormsby at 787-6356. annex COMMENTS: The Elsinore Union High School District facilities are overcrowded and our educational programs seriously impacted by increasing student population caused by new residential, commercial and industrial construction. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926 and SB 327, this district levies a fee against all new development projects within its boundaries. DATE: 1/18/89 SIGNAMIRE PLEASE print name and title Dr. Larry Maw.Superintendent 4080 LEMON STREET. 9T" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 "'ts TA7-A l a l (619)342-a277 INTmM-DmPAATMmNTAL LmTTmmN UNTY OF RIVERSIDE FES 101" February 9. 1989W4ffW% k*pNO TO: Chris Ormsby, Planner, County Planning FROM: Marc Brewer, Assistant.Park Planner. County Park 3~i~6 SUBJECT: Tentative Tracts: 24131, 241320 241349 241359 241369 24137 Vail Meadows SP 219/EIR 235 The Riverside County Parks Department appreciates the opportunity to review the above referenced and offers the following comeents: Parks and Recreations The Development of the proposed tracts will have minimal impact on existing regional park facilities. The County Parks Department* also has a county-ride recreation trail system. As indicated by this department's response to S.P. 219/EIR 235, May 25, 1988 and the Planning Department's conditions of approval October 4, 1988, the developer was to provide recreation trails along the south side of the Pauba Road right-of-way and along the north side of the De Portal& Road right-of-way. The latter is to cross De Portal& Road at the development's western most boundary, follow the boundary due south and exit the site into private property to the west. Tentative tracts 24132 and 24134 will impact the Pauba Road recreation trail and tentative tracts 24136 and 24137 will impact De Portola Road Trail. The above mentioned tracts make no reference to trails or trail easements. The Parks Department will *require these trail locations to be sham on all tract maps and that they be graded to an acceptable manner. The Parks Department also requests that it be listed as clearance agency for maps and grading plannings dealing with this project. Cultural and Historic Resources Tentative vac . . 4134, 24135: Conditional approval is granted for T.T. 241319 24132, 24134, and 24135 with regard to Cultural and Historic Resources only. Conditions for Approval: Should any prehistoric or historic resources be discovered or uncovered during the grading process, all work in that area will cease until the resource is evaluated by an archaeologist, or historian and mitigation is determined and approved by the History Division of the Riverside County Parks Department and the Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. Tentative Tract 24136: Conditional approval is granted for T.T. 24136. Conditions for Approval: 0 At the time of the alignment of De Portola Road the historic resource Riv-3390-H was not known. This site was found as a result of the History Division's original mitigation for conditional' approval of the EIR #219 (May 25 1988). Although Riv-3390-H is located south and east of T.T.24136, the realignment of De Portola Road must be resolved before final approval of this T.T.24136 is given by the History Division. Tentative Tract 24137: Conditional Approval is granted for T.T.24137. Conditions for Approval: Street 'A•. which cuts south and east off De Portola Road, should not be cut or graded, etc., until mitigation by data collection is completed for Riv-1728, Riv-1729 and Riv-3391-H. The road will impact all three of these sites at present. Any work in T.T.24137 must avoid parcel 06 and Riv-1728 until all archaeological work is completed in that area. The use of heavy equipment anywhere south of De Portola Road must be avoided until all archaeological work is completed and protective measures are taken to ensure the safety and future existence of the cultural and historic resources in that area. Protective measures should consist of fencing around Riv-3390-H. being sure not to allow fencing to impact the site. All movable surface historic resources south of De Portola Road should be photographed, recorded and mapped., after which, they may be moved within the fenced area at Riv-3390-H. However, the project archaeologist must direct and supervise the movement and placement of these resources to Riv-3390-H to make sure their placement will not impact the site. Although T.T.24137 is west of Riv-3390-H, the realignment of De Portola Road must be resolved and the above conditions not before final approval is granted to the History Division. M/KKM376S OMPARTMNNTAL LETTER COUNTY OF RIVERSIOE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Chris Ormsby - Specific Plans FROM: Steven A. Kupferman - Engineering Geologist RE: Tentative Tract 24132 Slope Stability Report No. 95 The following report has been reviewed relative to slope stability at the subject site: 'Slope Stability Analysis, Tentative Tract 24132, The Meadows at Rancho California, Rancho California, CA," by Converse Consultants, dated December 5. 1988. This report determined that: 1. All slopes proposed for the subject tract at or below a height of 35 feet will be grossly stable. 2.- Both cut and fill slopes have a high potential for erosion of sandy materials and resultant surficial instability. 3. Low strength parameters exist for claystones and siltstones. This report recommended that: 1. Geologic inspection of all cut slopes should be constructed during grading. 2. Buttress fills may be required for cut slopes with adverse materials or conditions. 3. Proposed slopes at the site should be planted soon after construction and will require maintenance to perform in a satisfactory manner through time. This report satisfies the General Plan requirement for a slope stability report. The recommendations -in this report shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. SAK: rd February 21, 1989 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Case No. (Mod) Ytsf'a -&7p /Y~. ZYI3L (1zo EA No.-3247& ' NEGATIVE DECLARATION Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: So* attcaW Ihi.tiaZ Std Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director ETED A . By r~ Date -g- Title ~Mnrr ~L Case No. (Mod) Land Div Sch Appl/Rep Sid Cj V_ f Developable ots v, c Date Submi tl<e Open Space Lots_ It O.Sp. Ac tom: Existing Zones Changes of Pro posed Zones Only Zoning Acreage ADOPTED and of Supervisors planning Commission J Area Planning Council O planning Director p (Other) Person verifying adoption Date It-1?- NOTICE OF DETERMINATION HEARING BODY OR OFFICER O Board of Supervisors LION ON PROJECT Planning Commission proval O Area Planning Council O Disapproval 00 planning Director (Ot , Dat q- IZ- I of her . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developable Lots lq Dev.Ac Open Space Lots I O.Sp. Ac Changes of Approved Zones Only Zones Acreage The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted and may be examined t the Planning Department at the address below. Person verifying action Tim. M., 3= IERSIDE COMM PLANNING DEPARTMENT .40 LEMON STREET. 9TH FLOOR .VERSIDE. CA 92501 ist Nita Original - comw Clark 2nd Canary - Case Me 3d PS,ah - Sc>zsdnlin< I - - - RivrVD,~C (OunL . mannim mcpAnmEnr E MONMMAL ASSESSMENT FORM: STANDARD EVALUATION ENVfFiONMEMAL A3SESSMENI' ) 1AlfiAdER: 33470 MODULE NtlMSER(s): 1?0 PST CASE TYPEJB) AND MgX Yes t i ng Tra c t 2413 2 - APPLICAWS M.; Bedford Properties HAM CW pEFtSONW PREPMRM EA. Chris Ormsby, Planner III L PROJECT WORMATM A. DESCRIPTION pnduds ppopossd sk*xm lot of= and um ss apppiostil•k The project proposes to divide 90.2 acres into 22 residential single family lots, an elementary school site, and a junior high school site. fi - VWAL PROJECT AREA. ACRES 90 - 2 . ar BOLJARE FEET O. ASSESSORS PARCEL NOds>: 923-23--001 0. EXISTING ZONING: SP 6 THE PROPOSAL N CONFORMANCE? Yes E VROPOSED gq#gM. No change proposed 15 THE PROPOSAL N CONFORMANCE? F. STREET REFERENCES: The site is located, in the Northeastern portion of Specific Plan No. 219. The area is just South of Pauba Rd. ~i. SECTIOK► WWWSHIP. RANGE DESCRIPTION OR ATTACH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Township 8S Range 2W K SW DESCRIPTIOM OF TIE EXLS W ENVW4"NTAL 8EMING OF THE PRMECT WM AND fTS SURROUNDINGS: The present state of the site is dry farmed rolling hills with some steep slopes, The site is totally vacant. L GEMoVA. PLAN OPERA SPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIQNATON Cho* ft jS; opi1S1 WftnW OMow and 9 am -d m0ort k g-1 13 AN or pwt of to Fo}ct sit b In •Adopra Spsclllc Ptans,' -REMAP- Or "Rancho VON" CoW"Y lbity Anne Conolsls BNiiana IL N (11 and C =*A V and VL D N or w of Ow p mb r! sit Is fu -Ann NO Desomod as Open ftwm C mp+ew Seetwo N. N s and o 0"%&V and VL - - - - -0- an f5mm Boom and Conevvstlon dsstramm cow flw gme n,.n6onsa M. !>A mONblMAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES A. bx0cste the rye d the proposed land uM as determined from 1M deberiP ions as found In Comprehensive General Plan Figure '113 (Choi OnO This blontaatian b neoeataryb deW inins 1M approprim land use suitablity ratings in Section 11LB. MA • NO ~lppinbMe COW Earsr+fiel Norsrl-High Risk Noma!-low Risk .IL iMcale wM a V a Mar m M whether any anvironmerital hazard w4l r resoAx,os bsusa may slpnitCW* affect or be affected by ffe proposal. Al slum tlpuns are contained in go Canprsheneive General Ptan. For any box marked yes (Y) writs Ildditim W deft souroeta SOWCiss MouMd. &KOW d bet and any N 111p tion measures under Secton V. Abo. wtw indicated, c * F, to mops kd- lard see aultabilty or noise MoMWW tlfb rnbvs1 (Bee delinttions at boom of t bia pegs). HAZARDS 1.!L N 3.1-,' 4.-Y- R, N LY LJL 1t~~ 11.,.x. Ov. CL Aprilxldrrd Lane Con vers■Non Conftd Me" sic.. Wnaa. • vLS~ l~l~ M VLF • VLAM SOi It 111 L al %muroes pia MAI - MoM 31J. fogy Rees aroes ft VW. VM4 12; Airport Nobs (Fig. L163. LIL11 A VL12 i 1984 AX= Report MA.F.B.) NA A S C D (Fig. VL,1) 1&-.L Railroad Nobs(fig. VL13 . VL16) NA A 0 C D (fig. VL11) 14. = Highway Noise (Fig. VL17 - VU29) NA A B C D (Fig, VL11) 1 L Other Noise NA A 0 C 0 (Fig. VLI I) 1L N Project Generated Noise Atleaing Noise SenAve Uses (Fig. VL11) 17.E Noise Sensitive Project (Fig. VL11) 1L = Air Quality impacta Fran Project 19..,.E Project Sensitive to Air Ouality 20. ~L Water Owifty impacts From Project 21....N Project SensiWs to Water Ouslity 22 ` Hazardous Materials and Wastes g... N Hazardous Fire Area (Fig. VI.30 • VL31) 24.- Oti w 23. _ Omer RESOURCES ~N_ 800* Highways Aga V1.43) 33- Hbtotic Reeoueoes (Fig. VL32 - V=) 34.--K ArcM i -ioplcai Resources VIM . VL33 i VL46 • VL45) ~_Il P~Nontobgiw Reaouroee Valacnw gical R..ouroee Map) !E.__ Olhw i7` Omer DefaWOM for Land Use SuKa=ty and Hobs ~xaptabigtY RatrM96 81A • Not AppOt " s • Ganarvy Statiable PS • P &AWonally SiaKa * U • GrrterW L11MA t>11a R . RtiWl1cm d A • Generally AccepW* . A•r,.r~. un.ee cbble D • Land Use DbooxaPd Apr+b!-Priob Special Skxliss or Cou* fta Nasara Zones m VL1) NA PS U R {Pipe VL3) Lk"faction Peter" Zone (Fig. VL1) MA a PS U R X10- VL4) CiroundsAakinp Zone (Fig VL1) NA 8 PS U R M VLS) 810M ft Ca a00 Scale 5101" Maps) Landslide Risk Zone OW. Co. SM Scale Seismic Maps or oft-64 inspection) NA a PS U R M VLB) RoddW Hazard P" ft inspection) Expansive Soils (USDA Soli Conservation Service Sol Surveys) 'Erosion (U.SDJL Soil Conservation Service Sol Surveys) Wine Eraoelon a 8lo~4 M VL1. Ord 40M Sac 112 i Ord. 454) tarn intax"on Aran (Fla VL7) Fioodpiair>s M VV) NA U R M VLF b of Near an AgftftwW Preserve I N. LAND UBE DEI PO ATION A. CbmvY /b fib p■ l urdw to; fd r broad in AdOpW Spwft !'We.'rAEMAr or "Rancho 1. MEN SPACE AND CONSERWTInN MAP DESIGNATION(sr Adopted Spec if i c P 1 a n No . 219 SL LAND LOSE PLANNM AAEk- Southwest Territory IL WMAREA. F ANY: 4L GOI*AUNTY POUCY ARC F ANY: Mt. Palomar Ob s e rva t nryt, S t; r t I i g t i n 1; c a n s_ S` COMMLpM pLAK FAW Southwest Area Community Plan 1ndPr ct„rlgl 4. CommUWI-y PLAN DESIGNAT1O 01 F ANY: 7. GARY OF pOLICE:S AFFECT*4 PROPOSAL- The maa i nr 001 i r i ac affnr t i n the A pr t are contained in Specific Plan No. 219. The proposed mitigation for significant environmental impacts is described in EIR No. 235. Issues of particular impor an concern the provision of public servirPC_ Psnoriallg With caga.td tch..T^novidi g schools, sewer system, and flood control facilities. SL For sl projects, hkkxte wt h a ys Mar no (M wfheOw any public faoMm and/or cervices issm may significarhtly affect or be Of-1.19 by ft vopomL AS refuenoed Agures are contsinad in 2ha Comprehenslve GOrWW Plan. For any "us mad yes M„ wrfte data eouroem agencies oo mAmd, ftn OV d tact and m&p bm measures under Section V. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES I v Ok uftban dip. N 1-#H.11. Obcuas In Sec. V E,cieSng. Pte WW i PA** W Roads) 2. ~ ~a lira4 ~ N 12 • N.1~ i`Y Nlddar ~lpency Lalltra) 4..X_ &vAW v4WCv LMOrei LY Rt sworn m N.1E • N.1h g..X- Shorn SwhAM ft N.» • N.10 7` SWOO M N.17.111i m & Y Stirs Nina ft W.17 - MIN & Y !lips and Rtcneation ft N.1• - N!0) 10.2- Equeaaian Tmb (Fig. N.19 . N241 Iliv. 04 $00 Scale Eauat W Trod faaas) 11" Uta lies ft N25 - IM) 12.- LbWft ftN.1T • N 10) 13.1_, HMO Sanim ft 1V.17 - N 12) 14.L- Airport; L162 - LIU. L14W • LWO • IV?? - IVY) 18J_ Diaader illoWednaas 1&!. CRY *two or W kW= 17... CxW G • aft or part d b pmbd b Iocslad In'AdwW 8 i M, PbW. OPMAW or 'Rancho Vitiapet Commrnlty Policy Irma'. mAmw In dtltf ft Waft poicr a00ylnp b h ; R; ma t, and oornpltla !re btowihF 1- Srla h UbW% W d ire dasipnsflorh* Adnntod Spar i f i r Plan Nn 919 L card on j t WW dW*.11 h; mg m Oonaitttnt vM the poiiciee and dtaipnst m of the appr'opdste dxur+eM and F efte oondtIrht w1h ft CorrfprefharWW Goners( Plan? I IsK erpbh• Yes N. LAND USE DETERM NATMN (OWOMad) D. / M or pal of the pcle f" a% b In 'Mm not Dssipnalad as Open Spam'. snd Y not In a Commonly Plan, complete cpme ors 1. 2. 3. 6 and 7. Compift a mdlions 4. a. 6 and 7 1 it la In a CAMMunltY Plan. 1. lard um catspory(les) nscs"MY b UgPxt ft V m; "asd proiea Aiiao indicate land use type fa, ms dwdiK oomaarciat, ski z Cmwt Ynd use clog y(ias) for to alts based on sxlatlnp oondMom " maklendal. oorrrrnsrLial. W4 a 2 D.1 dtim fiorn DZ. ws the drlarsnoa be resolved at ft deveioprnsnt gape? ERpla 4. Coma o tY Plan dmoution(# L fs the pvpoaed pro(sd consbard with ft policies and d"Oud+ona d the Commurft Plan? r tom. e► k to propoad compatible wtlh •xidting and propmad wrroorld" land um? not expiwn: 7. eased an this hMat addy. M ft proposv cwmk ant wtlh t w ComprMWSW Gerwal Plan? aoi a@eiars~ by Section and taus Number fmm bouaa idantl AV Icc nimbi k--.m E tT al ar part d tha pro d aft b M an Open Spm and W+ + "40ftI• Mmpba the Wowing: dastpndbr X L Sate to I 1 !ti to prcposat oor»bwd vft tti daatpR+slsor+(ar1 / not r eaasd an ftft WN study. b ft popo.r aonalaant wflh ft Compr.A.nsM. Garnral Plan? not viarenoe by SKSon and lawn FAWA r thoa. Mun ldantltyiinp InaxnistanctM Alan indicate land use type A. ADDITIONAL (FORMATION REWRED BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CAN 13E COMPLETED: DATE DATE ADEOUACY t1ECTIOW INFO h"Ilm IFOAMATION NFORMATION IEI$U1k(rCN SSUE NO. 1lEOUIRED AEOUE5TED RECEIVED MytpDATE) IL For sea issue martcad yea (1) under Sections K9 and IVA, Idenwy the Sec*)n and Issue number and do the bfbwing. In the format as shown below: 1. Ust ale additional relevant data sources. Including agencies consullad. 2 State ex firm frogs of fact regarding environmental owcems. S State w4cft mitigation measures. E Identifiable without nqukN an environmental impact report (E.I.R.) 4. M additional Information is rpuired before the environmental assessment can be completed, rater to Subsection A. a N additional sheets are needed to complete this section, check the bore at the and of the section and attach Me necessary sheets. SE&*W 13SUE NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MEASURES: IIIB.3 The General Plan designation for land use suitability pertaining to T unelchalginq is cuitahla Dntantial impart-, ran ho mitigated to an acceotable level through conformance with the Uniform Building Code and County ordinances. IIIB.4,8 Potential significant impacts related to slopes and erosion includes the visual appearance of permanently altered land forms, severe erosion of unprotected stones and possible slope instability. The potential impact pertaining to visual appearance is mitigated by Development Standards outlined in Section_ IIA.6 of Specific Plan No. 219. The potential for erosion is being studied in a slope stability study and the development of specific reouirements for alluvial/-,alluvial removal at the tract stage. Temporary groundcover will be provided to prevent erosion during the cpnstructipn 2hago ac indicated in FIR No_ 235. IIIB.17 Potential noise impacts will be determined by noise studies to be rv rnndurtod alnng rnadwaxi_ Mitigation will include height of ati4ion wall and any other recommended by the noise study. Monitoring and r~pnrtin0. i`uired V. INFORMATION SOMCE3, FVdDW03 OF FACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES (oontMued) SECTION! asm NO. SOURCES, AGENCIES CONSULTED, FINDMGS OF FACT. MITIGATION MEASURES: IIIB.18 A statement of overriding findings was adopted by the Board of Supervisors for cumulative effects on air quality which cannot be fullv mitigated. IIIB.26 Although a small portion of the Site has soils suitable for agriculture based on the General Plan, it was determined in EIR No. 235 that there _ would be no significant impact due to the loss of agricultural land. 177R-?R Thp cite within the historic range of the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat. A biological report prepared for The Meadows Specific Plan (SP 219) indicated that nnnp of tho cppri c w r lea od on he ci p f the tract- Therefore. no mitigation was required. TVR 1,.1-9, Thp icuipc have been dierueepd and addr ccnd in Sperifir Plan Nn- 219. 1~ 15 Corresponding environmental review is thoroughly discussed in EIR No. 235. Impacts have been reduced to an acceptable level. D Sew attachW peom NMPACT t M 1>ti p cle wN apt hot a 00 M"rMI etlaet on !r OWAGnment and a Mega" Decbmt n awy be OwOr'adI~f D T1r pojsc.! aouid hM a WV Mcant ~ an Abe erwk= rant howerK. two w* not be a sofficsnt aliact in 90 case because go a>00 NO awsuM descrbed in Saetbn V have been apples b ft poiec.t and a Neown Declaration way be p opwo . laf n TIr pr QO CI am hawe a alQ ac" on S+e envkorwwd and an Mrmm % rwnentat hnpact Report is requ4ML lli e 1 A tAWW t Ldw r-Y.. ( ✓i Flow by Chris Ormsby January 1969 N~.~v N (V i CV) (70 CO Now. CV) 0 'co coo) V~ MON# CD fti- @ mob row 4WE 1 1 1(111rr~~ _ ► ;r TRACT 24132 VICINITY MATS NOT TO -05CAL-F- CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT PARCEL MAP / TRACT NO. 24132-l(INCLUDING DATE 11/09/90 INFRASTRUCTURE) FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & LABOR SECURITY SECURITY 1,699,000.00 t, 849,500.00 Water 1 668,500.00 A 334 250.00 Sewer $ 589,000.00 294,500.00 TOTAL t2,956,500.00 $ 1,478,250.00 *Maintenance Retention (10% for one year) $ 295,650.00 *(or Bonds if work is completed) Monument Security $ 26,000 Inspection Fee: (Offsite Improvements) $ 41,917.50 Fee paid to date (Credit) $ 960.00 Inspection Fee Due $ 40,957.50 Monument Inspection Fee $ 705.25 City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs $ Total Inspection Fees Due t 41,662.75 RCFC Drainage Fee Due $ 84,907.00 Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD 0 $ 16,200- Road and Bridge Benefit Fee $ 0 ITEM NO. 13 APPRnVAT. CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Engineering Department DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Dedication of Easements for Public Road and Drainage Purposes for Tract No. 23100-3, Tract No. 23101-1, Tract No. 23101-2, and Tentative Tract No. 23102 PREPARED BY: Robert Righetti RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. ACCEPT the dedication of Chemin Clinet across a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 22554 for road, drainage and utility purposes, but not as a part of the City Maintained Road System, as an access for Tract No. 23100-3. 2. ACCEPT the dedication of a drainage easement for storm drain purposes across Metropolitan Water District's pipeline easement per the Conditions of Approval for Tract No. 23101-1 and Tract No. 23101-2, but not as a part of the City Maintained Drainage System. 3. ACCEPT the dedication of Heitz Lane, La Serena Way, Meadows Parkway as shown on Tract No. 23101-2, and Cabern Court as shown on Tentative Tract No. 23102, across Metropolitan Water District's pipeline easement, but not as a part of the City Maintained Road System. DISCUSSION: These easements are required for construction of STAFFRPT\FVT23100.-3 1 improvements as shown on the approved plans and for access and drainage to these tracts. Tract No. 23100-3 and Tract No. 23101-1 were previously approved by the City Council under the direction of County Staff. Tract No. 23101-2 was previously approved by City Council on September 18, 1990. Tentative Tract No. 23102 is currently being prepared for final recordation. The City, in accordance with Government Code 7050, may accept the dedication of any property for any public purpose. Upon recordation by the County Recorder's office, the offer is irrevocable. The City does not become liable for maintaining a street or a drainage facility until and unless the Council adopts a resolution accepting the street, highway, or drainage facility into the City system (Streets and Highways Code Section 1806). This can be done once the improvements have been completed and accepted by the City Council. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council accept these easements for road, drainage and utility purposes, but not as a part of the City Maintained Road and Drainage System. RR:ks Attachments: 1. Legal Descriptions and Plats 2. Tract Map No. 23101-2 3. Vicinity Map STAFFRPT\FVT23100.-3 2 CERTIFICATE of ACCEPTANCE of EASEMENT (Government Code Section 27281) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property granted by the easement dated from to the CITY OF TEMECULA, Is hereby accepted for the purpose of vesting title in the City Maintained Road System by the undersigned on behalf of the City CouncI I of the City of Temecula. Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: City of Temecula By: Tim Serial, R.C.E. 28738 Expires 9/30/94 City Engineer, City of Temecula THIS INSTRUMENT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ENTITLED TO BE RECORDED WITHOUT FEE. (GOV. CODE 6103) RETURN TO CITY OF TEMECULA. EASEMENT MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California Coro grant(s) to the City of Temecula an easement for public road and drainage purposes, including public utility and public services purposes, over, upon, across, and within the real property In the City of Temecula, State of California described as follows: SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT 'A' AND MADE A PART HEREOF Dated: November 28, 1990 MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corp. Richard . Niec• President Chris D. Bush6y Asst, Secretary AS TRUSTEE: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation I'Dated: / - aPresident ecretary NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California ) County of /(16)crSrD E ) ae. On •ZC this /T I cnr r 199[x, before me, t~ T, ~I D t r rrA 6 E" t~, a_ Notary public in and for said State, personally appeared Deitr)I=D /i ,(''EC and npersonally known to me/proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons who _executed the within instrument as (IC_t) President and ( i15b Secretary of MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORP., a IIIU FPw 'IA corporation, the corporation that executed the within instrument on behalf of amid corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. My commission expires% ({1A-4c" OFFICIAL SEAL Witness my hand and official seal. JUDY T. RINOCRHAGCN NOrAP rnnvRURUC.caLroRNln RIVERSICE COUNTY 7 ~ ' Mr Cantu. E,pn,. Ma<F 9, 1997 t~ ary /Public in and for said State NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of California County of Riverside on. On 26th this November • 1990, before me, Marv A. Kelly a Notary public in and for said State, personally appeared Roderick W. Johnston and Hal Thanas personally known to me/proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons who executed the within instrument as (Asst. Vice) President and (Asst.) Secretary of FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, the corporation that executed the within instrument as Trustee, on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. My commission expiresE July 30, 1993 '1 uy ft-?RYA- Kr LY` Witness my hand and official seal. s+r." F'5 IC C _IFOf VIA Mf«My 'Clmins,Ynrµ,J,_IIY3o,1993 Notary Public in and f 6r said State EXHIBIT 'A' EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR ROAD PURPOSES A portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No.22554, as shown by sap on file in Book 147 of Parcel Maps, at Pages 94 through 98 thereof, Records of Riverside County, California, located in the Rancho Temecula being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Rancho California Road, and the centerline of Butterfield Stage Road as shown on said Parcel Map No. 22554; Thence along the centerline of said Butterfield Stage Road, North 41039'51" West a distance of 1216.08 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 4800.00 feet; Thence Northwesterly, along said curve through a central angle of 01°31'35" an arc length of 127.87 feet to a point in the centerline of said Butterfield Stage Road; Thence leaving the centerline of said Butterfield Stage Road, South 49051'44" West a distance of 55.00 feet to a point in the Easterly right-of-way line of said Butterfield Stage Road said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 82024'07" West a distance of 33.78 feet; Thence South 500301291 West a distance of 157.11 feet; Thence South 05015'08• West a distance of 21.31 feet; Thence South 50023'28' West a distance of 60.00 feet; Thence North 86005'15! West a distance of 21.61 feet; Thence North 38017'39" West a distance of 60.12 feet; Thence North 04041'14' East a distance of 20.72 feet; Thence North 49057'31' East a distance of 60.01 feet; Thence South 84014'09" East a distance of 21.31 feet; Thence North 50030'29" East a distance of 157.11 feet; Thence North 03025'05" East a distance of 33.78 feet to a point in the Westerly right-of-way line of said Butterfield Stage Road, said point also being a point in a curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 4855.00 feet and to which point a radial line bears South 51009'15" West; Thence Southeasterly along the Westerly right-of-ray line of said Butterfield Stage Road and along said curve through a central angle of 01017'31" an arc length of 109.47 feet to a point in said curve to which point a radial line bears South 49051'44" West, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 199 Dateds 146111114;-51 Patrick M. Wallace R. C.E. 27366 (Registration Expires 3-31-93) )4 213" baal:Is EXH/B/T MAP PORTION OF PARCEL I, PARCEL MAP NO. 22554 P.M. 147/ 94 - 98 N ~o J \ v f CNEM 1 N0•~~~i>~ bo I 4 ' I ~ I rn C) rf) off . yti ~ Ri l 1 sJ~9iswl CL/NET * 41. 0~ ~Q. e~ 1q) y a r-- 1 f 00 Vv 4 .1 S1•44°WlRl _ g a ss' , 0 W h~ _ I g'~~CA,O t qL/Fp~,N/,4 - Rpq~ EXIT/B/T B" 3; /Y 9d ommunity ngineering rvices, Inc. 5225 CANYON CREST DR. SUITE 360 RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 ` (7111781.0950 J Recorded at the Request of THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA When Recorded Mail to THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Post Office Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX None (Exempt-Section 11922, California Revenue and Taxation Code) PERMANENT EASEMENT DEED 142-4-1 (Portion) THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a public corporation, hereby grants to CITY OF TEMECULA, a body politic and corporate, a permanent easement for storm drain purposes over real property in the Rancho California area of the County of Riverside, State of California, described on Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. This easement is granted subject to the following terms: 1. It is subject to Grantor's paramount right to use the above-described property for the purposes for which it was acquired. 2. Grantee shall submit in advance all plans for installation and construction or reconstruction of Grantee's facilities to Grantor for review and written approval. 3. Grantee shall not change the existing grade or otherwise modify the topography of property affected by this easement without prior written consent of Grantor. Permanent Easement -2- Deed 142-4-1 (Portion) 4. Grantor purchased the above-described property in fee for its existing San Diego Pipelines No. 4 and 5, and for possible future pipelines and facilities. Any additional costs incurred for construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and use of the existing or future pipelines and appurtenances attributable to the presence of Grantee's improvements shall be borne by Grantee. 5. Grantee assumes all risk of loss to itself, which in any manner may arise out of the use of the easement. Further, Grantee shall indemnify and defend Grantor and its directors, officers, and employees against any liability and expenses, including the reasonable expense of legal representation whether by special counsel or by Grantor's staff attorneys, resulting from injury to or death of any person, or damage to any property, including property of Grantor, or damage to any other interest of Grantor, including but not limited to suit alleging noncompliance with any statute or regulation which in any manner may arise out of the granting of this easement, or use by Grantee of the easement or any adjoining land used with the easement. 6. The above described real property is to be used only for the purposes herein specified, and in the event that said real property is not so used, or the uses for which this easement is granted shall permanently cease, Grantee shall immediately initiate formal statutory highway abandonment procedures as provided by law for County or City highways and streets. Dated: Jyj L THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Carl Boronkay General Manager By Ric and W. Balcer k Assistant General Manager JDC/hk-D210 Authorized by MWD Administrative Code Section 8220 July 10, 1990 M. W.D. PARCEL 142-4-1 ( PTN. ) EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 2 A 25.00 foot wide strip of land lying within that certain portion of land deeded to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California per deed recorded December 13, 1967, Instrument No. 109720, and per Parcel Map 22554, as shown by map on file in Book 147, Pages 94 through 98, inclusive, Records of Riverside County, California, located in Rancho Temecula, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land with the Northeasterly line of Rancho Temecula as shown on said Parcel Map 22554; Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 2390.48 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, South 83000'27" East a distance of 70.33 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; Thence along the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 25.12 feet; Thence leaving the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, North 83000'27' West a distance of 49.71 feet to a point on a curve concave to the Northeast having a radius 1350.00 feet, to which point a radial line bears South 56033'44' West, said point also being a point on the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Meadows Parkway (Kaiser Parkway as shown on said Parcel Map 22554); Thence Northwesterly, along the Northeasterly right-of-way line of said Meadows Parkway and said curve, through a central angle of 01013'25" an arc length of 28.83 feet to a point on said curve, to which point a radial line bears South 57047'09' West, said point also being a point on the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Meadows Parkway and the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; 1 Thence leaving the Northwesterly right-of-way line of Meadows Parkway, along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, North 12032'37" East a distance of 2.87 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.035 acre, more or less. Dated: 1990 1 ~ ~4 Patrick M. Wallace R. C. E. 27366 (Registration Expires 3-31-93) r c,,>- V 4 w \4 r:~ x No. 2 7 365 Z,Exp.3-31-93 IVIV V 2 July 10, 1990 M.W. D. PARCEL 142-4-1 (PTH. ) EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 4 A 25.00 foot wide strip of land lying within that certain portion of land deeded to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California per deed recorded December 13, 1967, Instrument No. 109720, and per Parcel Map 22554, as shown by map on file in Book 147, Pages 94 through 98, inclusive, Records of Riverside County, California, located in Rancho Temecula, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land with the Northeasterly line of Rancho Temecula as shown on said Parcel Map 22554; Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 1350.70 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, North 72022'00" East a distance of 80.97 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; Thence along the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 28.92 feet; Thence leaving the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 72022'00" West a distance of 80.97 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, North 12032'37" East a distance of 28.92 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1 Containing 0.047 acre, more or less. Dated: 199 v / / Patrick M. Wallace R. C. E. 27366 (Registration Expires 3-31-93) S-1 eRUHwe ~~z n * 366 E-'% 3-3 1.93 .~.,OF CAI~F~~ 2 (Balcerzak) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY Lo 5 Lt,,) 6.~ L-jE~: 5 ) On this '23 AA day of 0 ey- , in the year IckRW, before me, -P0"A--.er F- eu~~ , a Notary Public, personally appeared R. W. BALCERZAK, personally known to me to be the person who executed this instrument as Assistant General Manager of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a public corporation, and acknowledged to me that The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Y OFFICIAL SEAL PETER R. STEUER rj0TARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA CC LDS ANGELES COUNTY Mr comm. expires FEB 4, 1994 Signature ~z Notary Public in and for said State _,rt'r : i ; .Lz - . tiny y J co U _ W 1- LLI co Q U W < loj z N 14 "y I I I I I I w ~ ° a W - 5 b. 0 W N 1 U Z a W O W 0. Off"`, iV 0 ° v ow z Q a Ow W E ° w V w 0 z a N ~ j7 0 It ~I I N I rf) Z -1 I I cr- I I , I I a I F^ ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ -t~l-- I ~ I I I 1 / 1 ~ i O I I W I / 1 I _ -J I 1 I I 1 I it I I~ Ilk I 11 U. ` 4 b 11 o,~ 1b'd 1 ~ Arm N I I ~ ~ I a I ' I ~ I I I O W~ Q ~~g I I H w '1 p; v az~ r w +~7 w U s ~v Z W ' W fA AI w Lk- O W W 3 0 1- 1-- U . W E V Q a y y. a ~o Owl Z a N ~ Q h N W W ~ m o v~ x U W Q W \ R , t I La I / d rj I \ 1,. 11 ; I \ ~ ~ ~ I r mot: \ \ \ I 1,4 I / L -z I h I I ~ I i. I ~ I ~a a~ I ~ I I I I I I i t I ILh-_- 1 11 a vj ~A v I~ Recorded at the Request of THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA When Recorded Mail to THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Post Office Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX None (Exempt-Section 11922, California Revenue and Taxation Code) PERMANENT EASEMENT DEED 142-4-1 (Portion) THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a public corporation, hereby grants to CITY OF TEMECULA, a body politic and corporate, a permanent easement for public street and utility purposes over real property in the Rancho California area of the County of Riverside, State of California, described on Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. This easement is granted subject to the following terms: 1. It is subject to Grantor's paramount ri(Ilit to use the above-described property for the purposes for which it was acquired. Permanent Easement -2- Deed 142-4-1 (Portion) 2. Grantee shall submit in advance all plans for installation and construction or reconstruction of Grantee's facilities to Grantor for review and written npproval. 3. Grantee shall not change the existing grade or otherwise modify the topography of property Affected by this easement without prior written consent of Grantor. 4. A street in conformity with the public street standards of the City of Temecula shall be constructed within the easement area and incorporated into the city public street system, provided, however, that (a) the construction of such street, drainage facilities, and utilities therein shall conform to final plans approved in writing by Grantor, which show the location, character, dimensions, and details of the work to be performed, and (b) after initial construction is completed, any future changes to the street or changes to or installation of the drainage facilities or any utilities therein shall have the prior written approvni of Grantor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 5. Grantor purchased the above-described property in fee for its existing San Diego Pipelines No. 4 and 5, and for possible future pipelines and facilities. Any additional costs incurred for construction, reconstruction, walntonance, and use of the existing or future pipelines and appurtenances attributable to the presence of Grantee's improvements shall be borne by Grantee. 6. Grantee assumes all risk of loss to itsolf, which in any manner may arise out of the use of the ensemont. Further, Grantee shall indemnify and defend Grantor and its directors, officers, and employees against any liability an<l expenses, including the reasonable expense of legal representation whether by special counsel or by Grantor's staff attorneys, resulting from injury to or death of any person, or damage to any property, including property of Grantor, or damage to any other interest of Grantor, including but not limited to suit alleging noncompliance with any statute or regulntion which in any manner may arise out of the granting of this easement, or use by Grantee of the easement or any adjoining land used with the easement. 4 July 10, 1990 M. W. D. PARCEL 142-4-1 (PTN. ) EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1 A 100.00 foot wide portion of land deeded Southern California Instrument No. 109720, on file in Book 147, Riverside County, Cali particularly described strip of land lying within that certain to The Metropolitan Water District of per deed recorded December 13, 1967, and per Parcel Map 22554, as shown by map Pages 94 through 98, inclusive, Records of fornia, located in Rancho Temecula, more as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land with the Northeasterly line of Rancho Temecula as shown on said Parcel Map 22554; Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 2393.35 feet to a point on a curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 1350.00 feet to which point a radial line beers South 57047'09" West, said point also being a point on the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Meadows Parkway (Kaiser Parkway as shown on said Parcel Map 225n4), and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence, Southeasterly, along the Northeasterly right-of-way line of said Meadows Parkway and said curve through a central angle of 04004'35" an arc length of 96.05 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; Thence leaving the Northeasterly line of said Meadows Parkway, South, along the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 129.50 feet, to a point on the Southwesterly right- of-way line of said Meadows Parkway, said point also being a point on a curve concave to the Northeast having a radius 1450.00 feet, to which point a radial line bears South 50020'20" West; Thence leaving the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, Northwesterly, along the Southwesterly right-of-way line of said Meadows Parkway, and along said curve, through a central angle of 03035'24" an arc length of 90.85 feet to a point on said curve to which point a radial line bears South 53055'44" West, said point also being a point on the Southwesterly right-of-vey line of said Meadows Parkway and the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water 1 District of Southern California land= Thence leaving the Southvesterly right-of-way line of said Headovs Parkvay, North, along the Westerly line of said Hetropolitan Water District of Southern California land, North 12032'37" East a distance of 137.36 feet to a point on the Northeasterly right-of-vay line of said Headows Parkvay, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.214 acre, more or less. Dated 199 vl/~~//)rl/w//~X,~/ Patrick N. Wallace R. C. E. 27366 (Registration Expires 3-31-93) t h w r•:~ C. NO 2731 g ~.Y FXP- %1- -93 A 2 July 10, 1990 M.W. D. PARCEL 142-4-1 (PTN. ) EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 5 A 60.00 foot wide strip of land lying within that certain portion of land deeded to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California per deed recorded December 13, 1967, Instrument No. 109720, and per Parcel Map 22554, as shown by map on file in Book 147, Pages 94 through 98, inclusive, Records of Riverside County, California, located in Rancho Temecula, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land and the Northeasterly line of Rancho Temecula as shown on said Parcel Map 22554; Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 1185.52 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 69057132" East a distance of 53.94 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the North having a radius of 320.00 feet; Thence Easterly, along said curve through a central angle of 02058'29" an arc length of 16.61 feet to a point on said curve to which a radial bearing bears South 17003'59" West, said point also being a point on the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; Thence along the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 60.16 feet; to a point on a curve concave to the North having a radius of 380.00 feet to which point a radial line bears South 16021'04" West; Thence leaving the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, Westerly, along said curve through a central angle of 03041'24" an arc length of 24.47 feet; Thence North 69057'32" West a distance of 46.04 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; 1 I Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, North 12032'37" East a distance of 60.52 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.097 acre, more or less. 199 Dated: 12 Patrick M. Wallace R. C. E. 27366 (Registration Ex ires 3-31-93) M. W W C= t * 140. 27366 IC bA. 3.31.93 Clb1~ 2 July 10, 1990 M. W. D. PARCEL 142-4-1 (PTN. ) EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 6 A 88.00 foot vide strip of land lying within that certain portion of land deeded to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California per deed recorded December 13, 1967, Instrument No. 109720, and per Parcel Map 22554, as shown by map on file in Book 147, Pages 94 through 98, inclusive, Records of Riverside County, California, located in Rancho Temecula, more particularly described as follovs: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land and the Northeasterly line of Rancho Temecula as shown on said Parcel Map 22554; Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'37" West a distance of 625.18 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, North 71008'38" East a distance of 82.01 feet to a point on the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; Thence along the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 12032'371 West a distance of 103.10 feet; Thence leaving the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, South 71008'38" West a distance of 82.01 feet to a point on the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, North 12032'37" East a distance of 103.10 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.166 acre, more or less. Dated r^~) r•F= oG No-27366 EXP• 3-ZI-93 - -~al A& - Patrick M. Wallace R.C. E. 27366 (Registration Expires 3-31-93) 1 July 10, 1990 M.W. D. PARCEL 142-4-1 ( PTH. ) EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 7 A 60.00 foot wide strip of land lying within that certain portion of land deeded to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California per deed recorded December 13, 1967, Instrument No. 109720, and per Parcel Map 22554, as shown by map on file in Book 147, Pages 94 through 98, inclusive, Records of Riverside County, California, located in Rancho Temecula, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Metropolitan Water Northerly line of 22554; Thence along the District of Sout; distance of 237.76 intersection of the Easterly line of said District of Southern California land and the Rancho Temecula as shown on said Parcel Map Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water kern California land, South 12032'37" West a feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 12032'37" West a distance of 60.05 feet to a point on a curve concave to the North having a radius of 330.00 feet to which point a radial line bears South 11058'40" West; Thence leaving the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, Westerly, along said curve through a central angle of 12014'03" an arc length of 70.46 feet to a point on said curve to which point a radial line bears South 24012'43" West, said point also being a point on the Westerly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land; Thence along the Westerly line of said Metropolitan District of Southern California land, North 12032'37" East a distance of 61.56 feet to a point on a curve concave to the North having a radius of 270.00 feet to which point a radial line bears South 26051'17" West; Thence leaving the Westerly line of District of Southern California land, through a central angle of 14013'59" an to the beginning of a compound cu having a radius of 100.00 feet, to whi beginning bears South 12037'18" West; said Metropolitan Water Easterly, along said curve arc length of 67.07 feet rve, concave to the North, ch a radial line to said 1 Thence Easterly, along said curve through a central angle of 02004'42" an arc length of 3.63 feet to a point on said curve to which point a radial line bears South 10032'36" West, said point also being a point on the Easterly line of said Metropolitan Water District of Southern California land, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.097 acre, more or less. Dated: 1990 Patrick M. Wellacw R. C. E. 27366 (Registration Expires 3-31-93) \1 li A. , Sir 2 (Balcerzak) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) llam~'~) SS. COUNTY LO5) 6_~ S ) On this 2;~>NAday of C) [A-e~~> er- , in the year c o, before me, V, , , a Notary Public, personally appeared R. W. BALCERZAK, personally known to me to be the person who executed this instrument as Assistant General Manager of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a public corporation, and acknowledged to me that The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL S7N PETER R. STEU(Seal) rJOTARY PUBIC C:LOS ANGELES COUtiiy comm. exv a~es FED Signature Notary Public in and for said State J m U W m O X Z W cr Q w Q t ry) N ~ Q x \ -p, H ~W M Z) LL. J~ 1 ( ~Z 12 V I I I ~ I I I I U N R !Y W to W J x a w W 7 ~ \ 2. 0. 3 t U. z ~ CL. O O Z w ~ E Q o V cc w Q Z ~ IN i I 1 / 1 I 1 ~ i I I r I ~ _ Ir -.I r _ 1 I I s I I I ~ 2 I I I 1 l3 i~ I~ I ~ I ~ I ' I ' I 1 1 I 1 ~I 1 1 I 1 i r tti 1 t ,O l 1 I 1 ~ v 1 V 1 1 ` 1 t 1, I 1 N 1 I + o N I , t ' 1 V' 1 / a ~ ~ 1 1 } 1 ~ 1 ~ I 1 1 I 11 11 j ~ tl 1 1 II 1 L Lam, _ . . I ~ I I I I i I 1 ~o v~ V~ ~i a ~~g a w w _ I- O U W < a t i \ ' I 1 I ~ m , 1 w A Y [L W e*F y+ 00~~ , eF W z U w E C Al W O W W 0 a C : 0 a W N aa iw a F W ~l q V W C Q z a N OR M ~ ~ I ~ ' 3 li'p' ~ r I ~ I W~ I 3 r 1 1 ti o j I 11 1 W~ r i ~y 1 u r ~ r~ I \ I r Tom- r 1 r 1 w 1 rL----Et _ 1 I 1 r D , I 1 ~ d r r 1 1 ~ _ I ! i - ' '~-----L - - L - - g I I I \ I I v m w m o _ _ X C) WQ fY N \ \ - I U t I \ cc \ D p \ D ' . \ 41- a \ ~i a~ U 0 o8 a 60 0 N e f W N. N W y w in N W O W W o. O 3 F- W 0 ~ w h E c Q E3 z I a N ,"r,# -a ;svad-~ 00 asw-y :IJ ST rV-V i cy "a 0 I \I I / I r r /I i I I / I r r yZ v / ~ 30 n `4 1 0 . ~l tt R ~ e ~ t 1 y ~n~ c; I z n { ~ oro z n o m cT 3 n 0 £ j mrrnOm r 33 X (n M Z" / r r / / / A ?0 Z Sao Al b r •o nt~ ~u, n o v ~g 8 ~y r r / I / / r r 1 - INI 1 • 1 1 ti ~ t I ~ / 1 ~ t X W vo N TM QR W TEYECUL4 `S~~~~ COtM~' 6 ~'OISIOf. LMR OF GlR'0,'M TRACT No. 2,3101 2 o.1QI a► Klm A SLmumWoN CE A POMMO :I;" t ~ PAVM w 2=L AA ."40" i~' NAP ON I1lL S+tA7, 11 "AWAt tAAPS. AT RNE}SOR CGIMr'~. tAliDArMt PAGES S• TNI101JOM N. TIEReDII MOODS or LOCAICD M " AANCHO TDAMUTA COIIR"N Dx*JEvvf su"mm NG. ,ca < u'I r ALL 't<K <O~ 'fi'r t ~ SHEET S OF 7 SHEETS / 3n83 TRACT NO, m.s. E5311.35 Pi.nAf 1 f e< i C rL\h rivru „ ".47,7 I FAR 1o) 7 97- 7i+•pC 7O i~B. i+e►Awr V'W47m 0 OR FU ~~T 23101.. 11 ~ y .v v P ~t ~aA O ' f r1- l,r lr Vy, r . 1,51 !?~L»`\ ' t .ice P t F~. f /d Ise { i a / r ll A mire nw f~Mr 1 ~ PCEtT'ON CF PIJ+CIL 1 i MRCEL MAP'PZS54 < tom( 9rrtr Pat / FfA 147/ 04 - 46 M.l. l~P7rl a 1 TM ~NEAAI~'i tF,~ - y- : \ to p, ' rnvar PORTION OF FAstCEL 1. •vw(APrnP HM JP < PArtGEL MAP 225.5d .,,n•••w( II V } P.M. 147/ 24.OR <r(~.► C ~ 11 1 ~ FiC.1Kti ~ ~ ? INS T. W. 27911 11 ~1 u0.ti) .z i I c 1 T t P ,4 1 HA\~1Ar ..a Wl IL td ?I TRACY NO.201-YO :f 1~,1Z Ail Me "/Is I 11 PG yt r 1 I ~.e. r,•1_ -JZ~ 1 ~~-J,rl'0#014 k q \ ~ I -j- . 1I~}- - --.1 r- - - rAUM"la naNGHO J rM 14s / ~o e~ 11~ ' rrl ua/ 70 -71 o t~ rGe rr ~ f 10 I , I 1 , ~x 1 1~ r/w/w," Will 1 .r^ 1 1 1 ~ rrs a 4 T(.Tut 10 Or_C ~iiC 1 i 23102.23103 TLAND USE 1 AG. PRES. IA. 1, rl u p VAC - 1•RES• f ` ~I~ 'G. PREP T.TR -d..R.C. i3 I AP /108 A ::102 GRADED `f VINEYARD !2101::i . V~ 22102 R . •'J .w.. 1= IN YA VAC s. snt = M\► r • t Q p`\f Cp e VAC I' •W~TEq 22100 l TAMS • ItiERY U/C . i / - ♦ Y II VAC li M. H. P. P~~ •III ► ~ ~ VAC GRADING QI i VAC ■ v " mss- r ss, 9.1w. res, x2w GRADED VAC it App. MARLBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORP. LOCATIONAL fu AP Use 254.9 ACRES INTO 610 LOTS STAGE ER ROAD AD STAG Area RANCHO CALIFORNIA Sup.Dist. 1 '19 Sec. T.T S.,R. 2 W Assessor's Bk. 923 Pg. VAR. Circulation RANCHO CALIF. RD. ARTERIAL Ild Element BUTTERFIELD STAGE RD. ARTERIAL IIOd RANCHO Rd Bk. Pg. 55 C Date 8/11/1988 Drawn By F J.W Is CA LIFORNIA ROAD 1500' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO SCALE 1'= ITEM NO. 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER, CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM. David F. Dixon, City Manager DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT.- Western Riverside Council of Governments - Membership Dues Attached you will find a request for payment from the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Temecula is a party to the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Our membership in the organization requires financial support. The membership dues for the City of Temecula for Fiscal Year 1990/91 is $9,620.25. It is, therefore, the recommendation of the City Manager that the Council approve the expenditure for Western Riverside Council of Government's annual expenditure. DFD:swj WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Dave Dixon, City Manager City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, California 92390 Dear Dave: The Western Riverside Council of Governments is off and running. We are actively working to serve the needs of our member jurisdictions. We have been operating with the assistance of our member city, the City of Norco, who has established an account for our operation. We now need to collect our membership dues payments so we may continue our operations. The budget adopted by WRCOG's General Assembly constitutes the basis of member assessment. The assessment due from your city for fiscal year 1990-91 is $9,620.25. Please have the check made out to: Western Riverside Council of Governments c/o City of Norco Mail to: Western Riverside Council of Governments c/o City of Norco P.O. Box 428 Norco, California 91760 Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. Sinnperel.y, .J./Wilson & utive Director AJW/dmr PROPOSED WRCOG ANNUAL BUDGET SALARIES AND BENEFITS: Regular Salaries Executive Director Executive Secretary Fringe Benefits SERVICES AND SUPPLIES: Memberships Office Expense Postage/Mailing Publication/Legal Notices Lease Expense Travel/Trans./Conferences Car Allowance Contingencies EQUIPMENT: Office Furnishings/Computers $88,000 63,000* 25,000** 22,000 500 10,000 5,000 1,500 15,000*** 4,000 4,500 25,000 15,000 $110,000 65,500 15,000 SUB TOTAL $190,500 + Cash Reserve 1,905 TOTAL $192,405 ITEM. NO. 15 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Proposals for Curb-side Recycling Program PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Continue this matter to the meeting of December 11, 1990. BACKGROUND: The City Attorney has requested that this matter be continued for one week, to the meeting of December 11, 1990, to allow additional time to prepare three reports (Solid Waste Haulers, Solid Waste Hauling and Recycling-Request for Proposals and Integrated Waste Management Ordinance). ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Presentation of Land Use Inventory (Lightfoot Group) PREPARED BY: Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report. BACKGROUND: This will be a verbal report presented by George Williamson of the Lightfoot Planning Group. All support material will be presented under separate cover or at the City Council meeting. ITEM NC. 17 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM. City Manager DATE: December 4, 1990 SUBJECT.- Holiday Scheduling RECOMMENDATION.- That the City Council authorize abbreviated work days for December 24, and December 31, 1990. BACKGROUND: The City Council has adopted a holiday schedule which includes Christmas and New Year's Day. Both of these holidays fall on a Tuesday this year and therefore I believe that the Monday prior to the holidays will be very light and may be somewhat unproductive. With this in mind, I would recommend that the City offices be closed at noon on both the 24th and 31st of December, which are Christmas and New Years Eve respectively. DFD:jsg ITEM NO. 18 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER • CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Department of Building and Safety DATE: November 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Consideration of Adoption of A Revised Personnel Classification And Budget Structure PREPARED BY: Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a revised Personnel Resolution (Attachment 1) which decreases the number of authorized Building Inspector Positions from five to three; increases the number of Senior Building inspector positions from one to two, and; reclassifies one Building Inspector to a new class of Planning/ Building Technician (formerly Planning Technician). BACKGROUND: Each year the City develops an operating budget based on a variety of program, financial and other assumptions. As the budget is implemented, refinements to the original budget assumptions are necessary to assure the delivery of cost effective municipal services. The budgeted Building and Safety organization was based upon general assumptions in the absence of a full-time Director. DISCUSSION: One Senior Building Inspector and five Building Inspector positions have been approved by the City Council. In planning to fill these positions to meet workload needs, the Director of Building and Safety has recommended that one vacant Building Inspector position be reclassified to Senior Building Inspector. It is proposed that this position be assigned to perform the more difficult and complex inspection assignments and that it be responsible for assisting and directing other inspectors. These duties are consistent with the Senior Building Inspector cIassif ication. STAFFRPT\B-002 1 It has also been proposed that one vacant Building Inspector position be assigned to accept, process and review building permit applications and to provide other assistance at the public counter. These assignments are generally consistent with the typical duties for the existing class of Planning Technician. We are recommending that the proposed change be accommodated by changing the current Planning Technician title to Planning] Building Technician. The recommended action decreases the number of authorized Building Inspector positions f romf ive to three; increases the number of Senior Building Inspector positions from one to two, and; reclassifies on Building Inspector to a new class of Planningl Building Technician (formerly Planning Technician). Assuming the recommended changes are approved and also assuming that these positions are filled for a full year, the maximum fiscal impact on salaries (excluding benefits) is an increased cost of $96. The recommended changes to the list of authorized positions, titles and salary ranges may be accommodated by a basic adjustment to the existing personnel classification and budget structure. Once these positions are filled and become operational a formal classification study should be conducted to verify the actual duties and to develop formal position descriptions. AE:ks STAFFRPT\B-002 2 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 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. The list of Position Titles and Salaries shall become effective immediately and may be thereafter amended. SECTION 3. The City Manager shall implement the above list of Positions Titles and Salaries and has the authority to select and appoint employees in accordance with the City's personnel policies. SECTION 4. All prior resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby rescinded. PASSED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of December, 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 117 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 30th day of October, 1990, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks NOES: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Munoz ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 3/Resos 117 Attachment I - Exhibit A CITY OF TEMECULA Authorized Positions, Titles and Salary Ranges # of Exempt/ Positions Non-exempt Title Minimum Maximum 2 NE Account Clerk $1,600 $1,993 1 NE Accountant $2,498 $3,111 1 E Administrative Assistant $2,105 $2,621 5 NE Administrative Secretary $1,702 $2,120 1 NE Assistant Planner $2,464 $3,068 1 E Assistant to the City Manager $2,807 $3,495 2 NE Associate Planner $2,885 $3,592 3 NE Building Inspector $2,431 $3,027 1 E Chief Accountant $3,377 $4,205 1 E City Manager 1 NE Code Enforcement Officer $2,193 $2,731 1 E Deputy City Clerk $2,414 $3,006 1 E Director of Building and Safety $5,236 $6,519 1 E Director of Community Services $5,236 $6,519 1 E Director of Finance $5,236 $6,519 1 E Director of Planning $5,236 $6,519 1 E Executive Secretary $2,285 $2,846 1 E Information Systems Manager $4,148 $5,165 1 E Maintenance Supervisor $3,331 $4,148 2 NE Maintenance Worker $1,667 $2,076 7 NE Office Assistant $1,303 $1,624 2 NE Planning/Building Technician $2,193 $2,731 2 NE Recreation Leader $1,424 $1,774 1 E Recreation Superintendent $3,331 $4,148 0 E Recreation Supervisor $2,533 $3,154 1 NE Secretary $1,454 $1,811 1 E Senior Accountant $2,788 $3,471 2 NE Senior Building Inspector $2,675 $3,331 1 NE Senior Maintenance Worker $1,926 $2,398 2 E Senior Planner $3,424 $4,236 48 December 4, 1990 AGENDA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 4, 1990 PM CALL TO ORDER. ROLL CALL: Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks, Birdsall PRESENTA TIONS/ PRO CLAMA TIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD BUSINESS 1. &orts Park Liyh ft System Project RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT BOARD Of DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: December 11, 1990, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. ITEM NO. 1 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: DAVID F. DIXON DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1990 SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF PHASE I - CIP PROJECTS PREPARED BY.• SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve the Sports Park Lighting System Project and authorize staff to advertise formal bids on this project. FISCAL IMPACT.- $335,000 has been allocated for this project in the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) parks and recreation budget. DISCUSSION.- On October 22, 1990, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved and recommended for Board approval, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the TCSD for FY 1990-91. Phase I originally included the installation of lights to two (2) fields at Sports Park and two (2) fields at Temecula Valley High School. After reviewing the cur- rent usage of the playing fields for the high school program, an expanded, twelve-month, evening recreation program would have had a serious, adverse affect on the playing conditions and maintenance of the turf areas. Therefore, the light- ing system project was modified to delete the two (2) high school fields, and add one (1) additional field, to bring the total to three (3) lighted fields in Sports Park. On November 26, 1990, the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved and recommended for Board approval, the modified Sports Park Ballfield Lighting System Project. Due to the modified lighting system project, a revised Sports Park master calen- dar for 1991 was prepared. On November 14, 1990, the Temecula Sports Council unanimously approved the revised 1991 master calendar. An environmental assessment has been completed by City Planning, with a negative declaration given to the project. Further, all property owners within a 1,000' radius were notified concerning this public hearing. Enclosed is a site plan of the lighted fields, the completed environmental assess- ment, and the Sports Park Master Calendar for calendar year 1991 for your review. ~s ~ Q r'1 y~ n~ ~ a c~ z , m ~ m a ° O u e • ~ M ~ ~ v • .t • • •t V MEN V r b V I ti Wcn r -d r~~A O r ~32~F cm 0 fi s My~ i t 2 '2~' M 1 ~ Z M Q o 36 C ~b h r ~b ti ~a Z a --TJ -0 b0 a a u -i .4-4 g o L A O p O p t ~ ~ O O 4u UI O ~ V CITY OF TEMECULA NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City Planning Director is recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment for the following projects. The determination will be made December 2, 1990. PROJECT NUMBER: Environmental Assessment No. 3 (EA3) APPLICANT: City of Temecula - Community Services PROJECT LOCATION: Sports Park and Temecula Valley High School, Temecula, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of outdoor lighting fixtures to facilitate nighttime utilization of sports fields at the above referenced sites. Any person affected by the applications may comment in support or opposition to the Determination by December 2, 1990. The environmental findings along with the proposed project applications may be viewed at the City of Temecula Planning Department, 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92390, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. STAFFRPT\EA3 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 1 Background 1. Name of Proponent: City of Temecula - Community Services 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 43172 Business Park Drive PO Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 (714)694-1989 3. Date of Environmental Assessment: October 23, 1990 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: CITY OF TEMECULA 5. Name of Proposal, Environmental Assessment No.3(EA3)- if applicable: Initial Environmental Assessment of Potential Impacts Associated with Sports field lighting proposed for Sports Park and Temecula Valley High School. 6. Location of Proposal: As indicated above 11 Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering of the soil? X C. Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\EA3 1 Yes Maybe No 2. 3 f. 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? g. 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: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\EA3 2 Yes Maybe No 4. 5. X X X X X X X or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X C. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, zither through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? _ Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? _ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ d. Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, STAFFRPT\EA3 3 Yes Maybe No 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? X _ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? X 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. 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? X b. Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/ Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X STAFFRPT\EA3 4 Yes Maybe No 14 15 16. b. Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? _ X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ X _ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ X 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? _ X _ b. Police protection? _ X C. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X X _ X X X a. Power or natural gas? X - - e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: _ Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? _ Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: STAFFRPT\EA3 5 Yes Maybe No b. Communications systems? X C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ X _ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X STAFFRPT\EA3 6 Yes Maybe No 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? X b. 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.) X C. 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.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X STAFFRPT\EA3 7 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation 1.a,c-g. No. No substantial excavation or fill is proposed. As such, geologic substructures, topographic features, nor erosive qualities should be affected. Further, no unique geological/ physical features are present on the project site; and the property in question as well as the proposed lighting fixtures could not logically affect siltation factors or exposure to known geologic hazards. 1.b. Yes. Minor displacement and recompaction of soil is an expected normal construction activity associated with installation of the proposed lighting fixtures; no anticipated impacts of significance. 2. a-c. No. The project does not involve aspects or activities that will affect air quality factors. 3.a-i. No. As with air quality, installation of lighting fixtures is not normally associated with potential effects on water qualities nor quantities. 4.a-d. No. Minor amounts of vegetation may be removed in the course of installing the proposed light fixtures with no noticeable impacts on vegetative assets. 5. a-c. No. The proposal cannot be logically construed as having impacts of significance on wildlife nor their habitats. No rare or endangered species exist on the site at present due to past and present human activities in the vicinity. 6. a. Maybe. If implemented, the proposal may ultimately facilitate additional sports activities during evening hours, contributing minor increments to existing noise levels; no significant impact anticipated in regards to the vicinity's aural qualities. 6.b. No. Activities entailing generation of intense noise levels are not proposed. 7. Yes. The very intent of the project is to produce substantial additional light to facilitate sports activities during nighttime hours. The proposal, as designed should not adversely impact neighboring properties to a degree of significance. Glare affecting adjoining properties will naturally increase somewhat. However, such minimal impacts are considered acceptable in exchange for the positive impacts resulting from the additional hours available for constructive recreational activities. Further, proposed lighting will comply with all applicable City codes and ordinances addressing site lighting and its potential impacts. STAFFRPT\EA3 8 8. Maybe. The proposal will alter the physical characteristics of the subject site through installation of new lighting fixtures; which will in turn result in more intense utilization of existing recreational facilities. While impacts on these facilities may become substantial over their useful lifespan, immediate and short term impacts will not likely be noticeable. 9.a,b. No. Increased lighting requirements will create additional electric power demands which necessarily depletes fuels utilized to generate that power; fuels which are to a large extent, non-renewable. Given the limited scope of this proposal, impacts are not considered substantial. 10.a,b. No. The proposal does not involve creation or storage of hazardous substances, nor is the subject site within an identified emergency response/ evacuation plan movement corridor. 11. No. The project does not entail population altering aspects. 12. No. Similarly, the project does not propose addition nor deletion of housing assets. 13.a. Maybe. The proposal may encourage additional use of recreation facilities during evening hours. Traffic to and from these facilities during evening hours will likely increase accordingly. Localized impacts may be considered substantial relative to former utilization patterns of these recreation facilities, but are acceptable when weighed against positive impacts of this proposal; i.e., increased availability of recreational assets. 13.b. Maybe. Similarly, demands on existing recreation area parking facilities may increase during evening hours; no significant impact anticipated. 13.c. No. While evening traffic accessing the project site may increase, overall impacts on existing transportation systems should be negligible. 13.d. Maybe. Traffic patterns may be altered to the extent that there is a nominal increase in evening trips to and from the project site, with no significant impacts on transportation facilities. 13. e. No. The project does not propose elements that could logically impact waterborne, rail, or air traffic patterns. 13.f. Maybe. Increased evening auto traffic accessing the project site naturally correlates with the potential for a similar increase in auto- related accidents. Such localized impacts are not significant in the context of city-wide traffic hazard considerations. STAFFRPT\EA3 9 14. a, b. Maybe. Increased hours of evening operations of recreation facilities may generate increased demands for police and fire protection, as well as increased maintenance requirements of the facilities themselves. No area-wide impacts of significance are anticipated. 14. e. Yes. The proposal will facilitate full utilization of existing recreational facilities, impacts of which are considered to be positive. 14.f. No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified at this time. 15.a,b. No. Reference Item Nos. 9.a and b. 16.a. No. Due to its very nature, the proposal will require installation of new/extension of existing electrical power transmission lines. Impacts associated with such installations/ extensions are not considered significant given the project's limited scale. 16.b-f. No. No extensions of, or additions to the referenced systems are proposed. 17.a,b. No. The proposal does not include aspects normally associated with the creation of health hazards, nor are patrons exposed to abnormal hazards while utilizing the facilities in question. 18. Maybe. The proposed lighting fixtures may be considered visually offensive by a few individuals. However, such impacts are considered acceptable in the context of additional recreational opportunities facilitated by this proposal. 19. Yes. Recreational opportunities will be enhanced subsequent to this proposal's implementation, impacts are therefore positive. 20.a-d. No. None of the referenced resources/uses/values are logically impacted by this proposal. 21 .a-d. No. Reference Items 1 through 20. STAFFRPT\EA3 10 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. October 23, 1990 Date For CITY OF TEMECULA STAFFRPT\EA3 11 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SPORTS PARK MASTER CALENDAR JANUARY 1, 1990 - DECEMBER 31, 1990 NIS - NORTH & SOUTH RAN -RANCHO VISTA MAR - MARGARITA SCHOOL UPPER - UPPER SOUTH HS - T. V. HIGH SCHOOL NNIS RAN MAR PPER HS JANUARY OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN FEBRUARY OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN MARCH L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. A. S. A. S. APRIL L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. A.S. A.S. MA Y L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. A. S. A. S. JUNE L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. A. S. A. S. JUL Y L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. L.L. A. S. A. S. AUGUST A. S. Y. S. P. W. Y. S. OPEN SEPTEMBER A. S. Y. S. P. W. Y.S. Y. S. OCTOBER A. S. Y.S. OPEN P. W. Y. S. Y. S. NOVEMBER A. S. Y. S. OPEN P. W. Y. S. Y. S. DECEMBER OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN Y. S. L. L. - LITTLE LEAGUE Y. S. - YOUTH SOCCER P. W. - POP WARNER A. S. - ADULT SOFTBALL Spring - 1991 1. Sports Park North Little League 5pm to 8pm Adult Softball 8:30pm South 5pm to 8pm 8:30pm Adult Softball 9:45pm 2. Rancho Vista - Upper Little League 5pm to 7pm Adult Softball 7:15pm Adult Softball 8:30pm Adult Softball 9:45pm 3. Rancho Vista --Lower East Little League 5pm Little League 7pm 9:45pm * Adult softball could schedule games on Saturdays if high school available for Saturday Little League games. * * Use of facility requests will be made for all school sites except for Temecula Valley High School for after school practices. Fall - 1991 1. Margarita Middle School A. Pop Warner: August and September - 5pm to 7pm. 2. Upper South Field/Sports Park A. Pop Warner: October and November ( 3 practices per week). C I T Y OF T E M E C U L A COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL F I N A N C I A L R E P O R T S E V E N M O N T H S E N D E D J U N E 3 0 9 9 0 CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE SEVEN MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1990 MAYOR Ronald J. Parks MAYOR PRO TEM Karel F. Lindemans COUNCIL MEMBERS Patricia H. Birdsall Peg Moore J. Sal Munoz CITY MANAGER David F. Dixon Prepared by Department of Finance Mary Jane Henry Finance Officer Introductory Section CITY OF TEMECULA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Seven Months Ended June 30, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Page Table of Contents iv Letter of Transmittal vi Organizational Chart xi List of Principal Officers xii FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditors' Report ...................................................2 Combined Statements - Overview ................................................3 General Purpose Financial Statements Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Group 4 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - All Governmental Fund Types 5 Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) General and Special Revenue Fund 6 Notes to the Combined Financial Statements 7 Supplementary Information Supplementary Information 16 Special Revenue Funds Combining Balance Sheet 17 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances 18 General Fixed Asset Account Group: Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Source 19 Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Function and Activity 20 Schedule of Changes in General Fixed Assets by Function and Activity 20 iv CITY OF TEMECULA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Seven Months Ended June 30, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) STATISTICAL SECTION General Governmental Revenues by Source 22 General Governmental Expenditures by Function 23 Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt 24 Demographic Statistics ......................................................25 Largest Employers by Number of Employees 26 Miscellaneous Statistics ......................................................27 v CITY OF TEMECULA Mayor P.O. Box 3000 Ron Parks Temecula, California 92390 (714) 694-1989 Mayor Pro Tem FAX (714) 694-1999 Karel F. Lindemans November 9, 1990 Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager: Councilmembers Patricia H. Birdsall Peg Moore J. Sal Munoz The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Temecula for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1990 is submitted herewith. This report was prepared by the Department of Finance. The responsibility for the accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the City. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the enclosed data are accurate in all material respects and are reported in a manner designed to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of the various funds and account groups of the City. All disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the City's financial activities have been included. In accordance with the aforementioned guidelines, the accompanying report is presented in three sections: Introductory section - Table of contents, transmittal letter, the City's organizational chart, and a list of principal officers. Financial section - Independent auditors' report, combined financial statements and notes to the combined financial statements (the "general purpose financial statements"), and as required, individual fund and account group financial statements and schedules. Statistical section - Pertinent financial and nonfinancial data that present historical trends and other information about the City. Incorporation and Services Provided This report includes all fund types and account groups of the City. Following a vote by the residents on November 7, 1989, the City incorporated under the general laws of the State of California on December 1, 1989. The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) was also established at that time. The TCSD is responsible for providing parks and recreation services to the citizens of Temecula, as well as street lighting and slope maintenance in certain areas of the district. For the first seven months of cityhood (December 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990), the County of Riverside continued to provide police, fire, library, road maintenance, refuse collection, planning, building and engineering services to residents and businesses in Temecula, as it had prior to incorporation. As a result, the City received no property tax revenue during this time. Other governmental entities, such as the State of California, the County of Riverside and various school, water and other districts, also provide various levels of service within the City of Temecula. However, the Temecula City Council does not have a continuing oversight responsibility over these other governmental entities. Therefore, financial data for these governmental entities is not included in the accompanying financial statements. V1 Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 9, 1990 ECONOMIC CONDITION AND OUTLOOK Located in Southwest Riverside County, with proximity to major metropolitan areas, the City of Temecula continues industrial expansion. More specifically, the City benefits from its location near railroads, airports and interstate highways and attracts new markets because of its diverse economy. Studies indicate the City will continue to prosper from its carefully planned development. Additionally, employment opportunities grow with the diversified industry, providing a comfortable commute to Temecula residents. Approximately 32,000 residents enjoy an ideal lifestyle in the City of Temecula. Offering high quality schools, affordable housing, a healthy and mild climate, premium wine vineyards and equestrian ranches, this master planned community attracts people from all areas. Additionally, the crime rate is minimal as residents remain actively concerned about their community. MAJOR INITIATIVES For the seven months ended June 30. 1990 During the City's initial seven months of operations, the City Council and City staff succeeded in implementing the provision of basic municipal services for the community, consistent with the "contract city" approach. Highlights of the transition year included a creative approach to solving the City's traffic problems by collaborating with the community to hire independent traffic officers to control busy intersections. The City Council also approved a community facilities district to finance infrastructure improvements, including Ynez Road widening, Interstate 15 loop ramps and parkland acquisitions. For the Future 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. Additionally, the City will define and fund its first series of capital improvement projects. These projects will include road improvements and park development. FINANCIAL INFORMATION The City's financial records for general governmental operations are maintained on a modified accrual basis, with revenues recorded when available and measurable and expenditures recorded when the services or goods are received and the liability incurred. Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the government are protected from loss, theft or misuse and to ensure that adequate accounting data are compiled to allow the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of the control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived; and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. vii Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 9, 1990 Budaetarv Policy and Control Budgets are adopted annually by the City Council by minute action and prepared for each fund in accordance with its basis of accounting. As provided by City ordinance, the Finance Officer is responsible for preparing the budget and for its implementation after adoption. All appropriations lapse at year-end. The City Manager has the legal authority to transfer operating budget appropriations between budget categories within a budgetary department or between budgetary departments, provided that total appropriations for a program area (general government, public safety, community development, public works and community services are not changed. Changes to total program area appropriations require the majority approval of the City Council. The City maintains budgetary controls to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the appropriated budget approved by the City Council. The level of budgetary control (that is, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount) is established by budget category (personal services, maintenance and operations and capital outlay) within a budgetary department. General Government Functions: Revenues: The following schedule represents a summary of revenues for the General Fund and Special Revenue (gas tax, development impact and annexation fees) Fund for the seven months ended June 30, 1990: Percent Revenues Amount of Total Taxes $2,361,666 75.3% Licenses and permits 45,661 1.5 Intergovernmental 420,216 13.4 Charges for services 175,798 5.6 Fines and forfeitures 7,220 .2 Use of money and property 48,873 1.6 Annexation fees 9,600 .3 Other 66.335 2.1 Total revenues $3,135,369 100.0% Expenditures: The following schedule presents a summary of expenditures for the General Fund and the Special Revenue Fund for the seven months ended June 30, 1990: Percent Expenditures Amount of Total Current: General government $615,152 45.7% Public safety 97,414 7.2 Public works 7,920 .6 Community development 195,590 14.5 Community services 346,330 25.8 Capital outlay 82,579 6.2 Total expenditures $1,344,985 100.0% viii Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 9, 1990 Debt Administration There is no City debt authorized or outstanding as of June 30, 1990. Nevertheless, as a result of indebtedness issued by other governmental agencies operating within the City, net bonded debt (i.e., bonds not supported by user charges) per City assessed valuation was 7.75% as of June 30, 1990. The amount of net bonded debt issued by other entities per each City of Temecula resident, as of June 30, 1990 was approximately $4,070. Property tax rates for all overlapping governments varied significantly in the City, depending on the water district serving the property. For fiscal year 1988-89, the highest tax rate area for property within the Rancho California Water District, the Rancho Division, was subject to an approximate 1.13% combined tax rate, whereas a sample tax rate area within the Rancho California Water District had an approximate .36% combined tax rate. Cash Management The City adopted an investment policy on February 13, 1990 which is intended to minimize credit and market risks while maintaining a competitive yield on its portfolio. Cash during the 1989-90 fiscal year, was deposited in accordance with this policy in demand deposits and a pooled investment account administered by the State of California. Investment interest totaled $48,873 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990 or about 1.6% of the total City revenues. The City's portfolio earned monthly rates of return ranging from 8.382% to 9.056% during the seven months. At all times, the investment policy was adhered to, and safety and liquidity objectives were placed above rates of return considerations in making deposits and investments. All deposits during the year were either insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or collateralized. The preponderance of the City's investments were in the State investment pool. This pool is not able to be categorized in terms of credit risk in accordance with the guidelines of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Nevertheless, given the size and liquidity of this pool and the investment expertise of the management, it is believed that these investments clearly conformed with City's investment policy. Risk Management The City is insured for worker's compensation and employer's liability through the State Compensation Insurance Fund. In the coming year, the City plans to expand its risk management activities: (1) to join the Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, a consortium of approximately 64 California cities, which is a risk-sharing, self - funded pool providing insurance-like benefits for general and auto liability claims to its members; (2) to proactively identify and advise City management of liability and property risk exposure; (3) to develop appropriate means of avoiding risk; and (4) to effectively design and efficiently monitor the transfer of liability exposures to the City's contract service providers. OTHER INFORMATION Independent Audit It is the policy of the City of Temecula to have an audit performed annually by an independent certified public accountant. The independent audit of the June 30, 1990 financial statements was performed by KPMG Peat Marwick. Their opinion is included with the general purpose financial statements. ix Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager November 9, 1990 Awards This report has been prepared following the guidelines recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada, and by the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. Both organizations award certificates to those entities whose annual financial reports are judged to conform substantially with high standards of public financial reporting including generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. It is my belief that the accompanying fiscal year 1989-90 report meets the high standards of both programs and it will be submitted to both award programs for review. Acknowledgement I would like to take this opportunity to compliment and express my gratitude to all those staff members of both the City and our independent auditors who were associated with the preparation of this report. Special appreciation goes to Danelle Gray, Senior Accountant, whose efforts brought the report to a timely completion. Sincerely, V f9r-e- Mary Jane Henry Finance Officer CITY OF TEMECULA Organizational Chart - June 30, 1990 CITIZENS OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL CITY COMMISSIONS CITY MANAGER PARKS/RECREATION PLANNING CONTRACT PUBLIC SAFETY TRAFFIC SERVICES ANIMAL CONTROL BUILDING & SAFETY CITY ATTORNEY COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT ROAD MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL CITY STAFF CITY CLERK FINANCE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS xi CITY OF TEMECULA List of Principal Officers City Manager (City Treasurer, City Clerk) David F. Dixon City Attorney (Contract) Scott Field Deputy City Clerk ....................................................June S. Greek Finance Officer ....................................................Mary Jane Henry Director of Planning (Contract) Gary Thornhill City Engineer (Contract) Tim Serlett Chief Building Official Anthony Elmo Director of Community Services Shawn Nelson Manager of Information Systems Joseph P. Hreha Police Chief (Riverside County Sheriff Department) Rick Sayre Fire Chief (Riverside County Fire Department) John Winder xii Financial Section / Peat Marwick Certified Public Accountants 750 8 Street San Diego, CA 92101 Independent Auditors' Report The Honorable Members of City Council City of Temecula, California: We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the City of Temecula, California, as of and for the seven months ended June 30, 1990, as listed in the accompanying table of contents. These general purpose financial statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these general purpose financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the general purpose financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Temecula, California, at June 30, 1990, and the results of its operations for the seven months then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. The combining, individual fund, and individual account group financial statements and schedules listed in the accompanying table of contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the general purpose financial statements of the City of Temecula, California. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly presented in all material respects in relation to the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. November 9, 1990 2 Member Fvm of Ktvnveld Peat Marwick Goeraeler CITY OF TEMECULA Combined Statements - Overview The following three combined financial statements, along with the notes to the combined financial statements, present an overview of the City's financial position as of June 30, 1990 and results of operations for the seven months then ended. Individual funds and the account group utilized by the City are grouped on these statements into two categories. Governmental Fund Types These funds (General, Special Revenue and Capital Projects) are those through which governmental functions are typically financed. The governmental fund measurement focus is on "financial flow", the accounting for sources and uses of available spendable resources, not on net income determination. Account Group An account group is used to establish accounting control for the City's general fixed assets. Because these assets are long-term, they are neither spendable resources nor require current appropriation. Therefore, they are accounted for separately from governmental fund types. CITY OF TEMECULA Combined Balance Sheet All Fund Types and Account Group June 30, 1990 Account Governmental Fund Ty pes Group Total Special Capital General Fixed (Memorandum General Revenue Proiects Assets Only) Assets: Cash and investments (Note 2) $1,091,269 $236,157 $1,080 $1,328,506 Receivables: Interest 8,435 2,202 - 10,637 Taxes 7,475 - 7,475 Accounts 54,648 - 54,648 Intergovernmental (Note 5) - 850,849 850,849 Interfund (Note 4) 21,200 - 21,200 Fixed assets (Note 3) $7,591,793 7,591,793 Total assets $1,183,027 $1,089,208 $1,080 $7,591,793 $9,865,108 Liabilities, equity and other credits: Liabilities: Accounts payable $373,158 $41,458 - $414,616 Accrued payroll 18,301 - 18,301 Compensated absenses payable 9,794 9,794 Intergovernmental payable 19,020 - 19,020 Interfund payable (Note 4) - 21,200 21,200 Total liabilities 420,273 62,658 482,931 Equity and other credits: Investment in general fixed assets - - - $7,591,793 7,591,793 Fund balances: (Note 7) Reserved for encumbrances 196,700 10,596 $1,080 208,376 Unreserved: Designated for subsequent years' expenditures 566,054 1,015,954 - 1,582,008 Total equity and other credits 762,754 1,026,550 1,080 7,591,793 9,382,177 Total liabilities, equity and other credits $1,183,027 $1,089,208 $1,080 $7,591,793 $9,865,108 The accompanying notes to the combined financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 4 CITY OF TEMECULA Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances All Governmental Fund Types For the Seven Months Ended June 30, 1990 Total Special Capital (Memorandum General Revenue Projects Only) Revenues: Taxes $1,459,590 $902,076 $2,361,666 Licenses and permits 45,661 45,661 Intergovernmental - 420,216 420,216 Charges for services 143,902 31,896 175,798 Fines and forfeitures 3,769 3,451 7,220 Use of money and property 18,534 30,339 48,873 Annexation fees - 9,600 9,600 Other 56,078 10,257 66,335 Total revenues 1,727,534 1,407,835 3,135,369 Expenditures: Current: - General government 615,152 - 615,152 Public safety 97,414 - 97,414 Public works 2,500 - $5,420 7,920 Community development 169,726 25,864 195,590 Community services - 346,330 346,330 Capital outlay 79,988 2,591 82,579 Total expenditures 964,780 374,785 5,420 1,344,985 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 762,754 1,033,050 (5,420) 1,790,384 Other financing sources (uses) Operating transfer in - - 6,500 6,500 Operating transfer out (6,500) (6,500) Total other financing _ sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses; and fund balance as of June 30, 1990 (6,500) 6,500 57626754 $.l.,.026 ,55O $1,080 $1,790,384 The accompanying notes to the combined financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances-Budget and Actual (Budgetary Basis) General and Special Revenue Fund Types For the Seven Months Ended June 30, 1990 General Fund Variance Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Revenues: Taxes $1 ,541,607 $1,459,590 ($82,017) Licenses and permits 40,000 45,661 5,661 Intergovermental - - - Charges for services 143,902 143,902 Fines and forfeitures 3,769 3,769 Use of money and property 18,534 18,534 Annexation fees - - - Other 25,000 56,078 31,078 Total revenues 1 ,606,607 1,727,534 120,927 Expenditures: Current: General government 711,569 651,988 59,581 Public safety 150,958 181,456 (30,498) Public works 5,000 5,000 Community development 283,589 185,918 97,671 Community services - - - Capital outlay 200,315 137,118 63,197 Total expenditures 1 ,351,431 1,161,480 189,951 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures; and fund balance as of June 30, 1990 (budgetary basis) $255,176 $566,054 $310,878 Special Revenue Fund Variance Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) $271,259 $249,794 (521,465) 217,389 219,073 1,684 5,083 5,083 488,648 473,950 (14,698) 36,190 (36,190) 36,190 (36,190) $488,648 $437,760 (550,888) The accompanying notes to the combined financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 6 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements June 30, 1990 NOTE 1: SUMMARY OF REPORTING ENTITY AND SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES A. Description of the Reporting Entity: Two public agencies, the City of Temecula and the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD),are combined as one reporting entity (City). The City of Temecula was incorporated on December 1, 1989 under the laws of the State of California and enjoys all the rights and privileges pertaining to "General Law" cities. The City operates under a council-manager form of government and currently provides public safety, planning, building, code enforcement, engineering, street maintenance and general administrative services. The TCSD was also formed at this time. Operating under a board of directors, which is the City Council, the TCSD currently provides street lighting, parks, recreation and slope maintenance. As the City exercises oversight responsibility over the TCSD, it is included in the reporting entity. Other governmental entities, such as the State of California, the County of Riverside, and various school, water and other districts, also provide various levels of service within the City of Temecula. However, the Temecula City Council does not have a continuing oversight responsibility over these other governmental entities. Therefore, financial data for these governmental entities is not included in the accompanying financial statements. B. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies: The accounting policies of the City conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applicable to governments. The following is a summary of the more significant policies. 1. Fund Accounting: The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds and account groups, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. The various funds are grouped, in the financial statements in this report, into generic fund types and broad fund categories as follows: Governmental Funds General Fund - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Special Revenue Funds -The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (gas taxes, development impact and annexation fees) that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. Capital Projects Fund - The Capital Projects Fund is used to account for financial resources used for the acquisition and improvement of capital facilities. CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1990 General Fixed Assets Account Group Fixed assets used in governmental fund type operations (general fixed assets) are accounted for in the General Fixed Assets Account Group, rather than in governmental funds. Public domain ("infrastructure") general fixed assets consisting of certain improvements other than buildings, including roads, bridges, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems, and lighting systems are not capitalized along with other general fixed assets. No depreciation has been provided on general fixed assets. All fixed assets are valued at historical cost. Donated fixed assets are valued at their estimated fair market value on the date donated. The City capitalizes its fixed assets acquired under lease-purchases or similar contracts. The account group is not a "fund". It is concerned only with the measurement of financial position. It is not involved with measurement of results of operations. 2. Basis of Accounting: The accounting and reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending or "financial flow" measurement focus. This means that only current assets and current liabilities are generally included on their balance sheets. Their reported fund balance (net current assets) is considered a measure of "available spendable resources". Governmental fund operating statements present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Accordingly, they are said to present a summary of resources and uses of "available spendable resources" during a period. Basis of accounting refers to when revenues and expenditures are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. Basis of accounting relates to the timing of the measurements made, regardless of the measurement focus applied. All governmental funds are accounted for using the modified accrual basis of accounting. Their revenues are recognized when they become measurable and available as net current assets. The primary revenue sources susceptible to accrual are property, sales and cigarette taxes, investment income, fines and forfeitures collected by County courts, and gas tax subventions. Sources not susceptible to accrual are licenses, permits, transient occupancy taxes and franchise fees. Expenditures are generally recognized under the modified accrual basis of accounting when the related fund liability is incurred. An exception to this general rule is principal and interest on general long-term debt which is recognized when due. 3. Budgetary Policy and Control: General Budget Policy The City Council approves each year's budget submitted by the City Manager prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. Public hearings are conducted prior to its adoption by the Council. All appropriations lapse at year end. The City Council has the legal authority to amend the budget at any time during the fiscal year. The City Manager has the authority to make adjustments to the budget within budget category. Transfers of appropriations between budget categories and between departments require the approval of City Council. CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1990 The City maintains budgetary controls to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the appropriated budget approved by the City Council. As of June 30, 1990 the level of budgetary control (that is, the level at which expenditures cannot legally exceed the appropriated amount) was the category (personal services, maintenance and operations and capital outlay) within a department. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device for the Governmental Fund Types. Encumbrances Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of funds are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is employed in the governmental funds. Open encumbrances are recorded as reservations of fund balance since the commitments will be paid by subsequent years' budget appropriations. Encumbrances do not constitute expenditures or liabilities. Continuing Appropriations The unexpended and unencumbered appropriations that are available and recommended for continuation to the following fiscal year are approved by the City Council for carryover. These commitments are reported as designation of fund balance. Budgetary Basis of Accounting Budgets for the Governmental Fund Types (which include encumbrances) are adopted on a basis which differs from generally accepted accounting principles. The Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual - General and Special Revenue Fund Types presents comparisons of the legally adopted budget and actual data on the budgetary basis. Budgeted amounts are as originally adopted and as further amended by the City Council. The differences between the budgetary basis and GAAP fund balances are as follows: Fund balance-budgetary basis Encumbrances outstanding at year-end General Fund $566,054 196,700 Special Revenue Funds $437,760 10,326 Fund balances of unbudgeted funds 578,464 Fund balance-GAAP basis $762,754 $1,026,550 An annual budget was not adopted for the Development Impact Fund or for the Community Services District Fund. Accordingly, the revenues and expenditures for these funds have been excluded from the budgetary basis financial statements. The Gas Tax Fund, a Special Revenue Fund, was over expended by $36,190 on a budgetary basis for the seven months ended June 30, 1990, as expenditures for this fund could not be estimated during budget forecasting. CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1990 4. Investments: Investments are valued at cost or amortized cost which approximate market (see note 2). 5. Property Taxes: Property tax revenue is recognized on the basis of NCGA Interpretation No. 3 (adopted by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board); that is, in the fiscal year for which the taxes have been levied providing they - become available. Available means then due, or past due and receivable within the current period and collected within the current period or expected to be collected soon enough thereafter (not to exceed 60 days) to be used to pay liabilities in the current period. The County of Riverside collects property taxes for the City. Tax liens attach annually as of 12:01 a.m. on the first day of March preceding the fiscal year for which the taxes are levied. The tax levy covers the fiscal period July 1 to June 30. All secured personal property taxes and one-half of the taxes on real property are due November 1; the second installment is due February 1. All taxes are delinquent, if unpaid, on December 10 and April 10, respectively. Unsecured personal property taxes become due on March 1 each year, and are delinquent, if unpaid on August 31. The City of Temecula and the TCSD were established subsequent to the tax lien date. Thus, property tax revenues were not measurable nor available to the City nor the TCSD for the seven months ended June 30, 1990. 6. Compensated Absences: The City provides to its employees a comprehensive annual leave program. Leave pay is payable at the time it is taken or upon termination. An employee cannot accrue more than two times his/her annual entitlement. The City accounts for compensated absences in accordance with NCGA Statement No. 4 (adopted by GASB). The short-term portion of the liability is recorded in the General Fund and is determined to be the amount due to employees for future absences which is attributable to services already rendered and which is expected to be paid during the next fiscal year. As of June 30, 1990 the entire liability is treated as short-term and is recorded in the General Fund, since the City has been in existence for seven months and all fiscal year end accruals for compensated absences are required to expire during the subsequent fiscal year. 7. Total Columns on Combined Statements: Total columns on the Combined Statements are captioned Memorandum Only to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns do not present financial position or results of operations in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. 10 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1990 NOTE 2: CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investments as of June 30, 1990 consisted of the following: Pooled Deposits: Demand cash account (bank balance) $ 199,970 Less outstanding warrants (51,640) Book cash balance Pooled Investments: Local Agency Investment Fund Total Cash and Investments 148,506 1,180,000 $1,328,506 The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds. Each fund type's portion of the pool is displayed on the combined balance sheet as "Cash and Investments". Interest income earned on pooled cash and investments is allocated monthly to the funds based on average monthly cash and investment balances. Authorized investments: Under the provision of the City's investment policy, and in accordance with Section 53601 of the California Government Code, the City may invest in the following types of investments: Securities of the U.S. Government, or its agencies; Banker's acceptances; Commercial paper of prime quality; Negotiable certificates of deposit; Repurchase agreements; Local Agency Investment Fund (State pool); and Riverside County Treasurer's Investment Pool. Credit Risk, Carrying Amount and Market Value: The California Government Code requires California banks and savings and loan associations to secure a City's deposits by pledging government securities as collateral. The market value of pledged securities must equal at least 100% of a City's deposits. California law also allows financial institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of a City's total deposits. The City may waive and has waived collateral requirements for deposits which are fully insured up to $100,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In accordance with GASB Statement No. 3, deposits are classified as to credit risk by three categories as follows: Category 1 -insured or collateralized with securities held by the City or by its agent in the City's name; Category 2 - collateralized with securities held by the pledging financial institution's trust department or agent in the City's name; Category 3 - uncollateralized. All of the City's pooled deposits are insured by the FDIC and are, therefore, in Category 1. 11 CITY OF TEMECULA Supplementary Information General Fund - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. It is used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund. Special Revenue Funds Gas Tax Fund - The Gas Tax Fund is used to account for the proceeds of state gas tax sources legally restricted for the maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement of public streets. Development Impact Fund - The Development Impact Fund is used to account for the proceeds of developmental impact fees - restricted for capital improvement projects. Community Services District Fund - The Community Services District Fund is used to account for assessment proceeds restricted for parks, recreation, street lighting and slope maintenance. - Capital Projects Fund - The Capital Projects Fund is used to account for financial resources used for the acquisition and improvement of capital facilities. 16 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1990 Investments that are represented by specific identifiable investment securities are classified as to credit risk by three categories as follows: Category 1 - insured or registered with securities held by the City or its agent in the City's name; Category 2 - uninsured and unregistered with securities held by the pledging financial institution's or counterparty's trust department or agent in the City's name; Category 3 - uninsured and unregistered with securities held by the counterparty, or by its trust department or agent, but not in the City's name. Investments in pools managed by other governments are not required to be categorized. As of June 30, 1990, the City's only investment was in the Local Agency Investment Fund, which is not subject to categorization and which carrying amount approximates market value. NOTE 3: GENERAL FIXED ASSETS Changes in general fixed assets during the seven months ended June 30, 1990 were as follows: Balance Balance December 1, 1989 Additions June 30, 1990 Land $7,295,800 $ 1,000 $7,296,800 Buildings 82,964 - 82,964 Machinery and equipment 2,830 80,992 83,822 Furniture and fixtures 127,620 587 128,207 Total $ 7,509,214 $ 82,579 $7,591,793 NOTE 4: INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Interfund receivables and payables result from interfund loans to be settled within the subsequent fiscal year by the related funds. The following table summarizes interfund receivables and payables as of June 30, 1990: Due From Due To Other Funds Other Funds General Fund Special Revenue Funds - Development Impact Fund Community Services District Fund Total Interfund Balances $21,200 - $ 6,500 - 14,700 $21,200 $21,200 12 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 15 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1990 NOTE 5: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RECEIVABLE Intergovernmental receivables as of June 30, 1990 were due from the County of Riverside and consisted of Community Service Area funds and local transportation funds. The TCSD portion of the County Services Area's (CSA) December 1, 1989 fund balance, and the excess of revenues over expenditures attributable to the TCSD for the seven months ended June 30, 1990 are due from the County within the 1991 fiscal year. The local transportation amount due from the County as of June 30, 1990 of $219,073 was received in the subsequent month. NOTE 6: INSURANCE PROGRAMS The City is a member of the State Compensation Insurance Fund which insures all workers' compensation claims. There is no self-insurance retention requirement for this coverage. The City was insured for general and automobile liability up to $5,000,000. The policy had a self-insured retention up to $1,000,000 for each loss. The City is a member of the State Compensation Insurance Fund which insures all workers' compensation claims. There is no self insured retention for this coverage. NOTE 7: FUND EQUITY A. Reservations of fund balances: Fund balances have been reserved for the following purposes as of June 30, 1990: Amount General Fund: Reserved for encumbrances $196,700 Special Revenue Funds: Reserved for encumbrances 10,596 Capital Projects Fund: Reserved for encumbrances 1,080 Total reservations of fund balances $208,376 13 CITY OF TEMECULA Notes to the Combined Financial Statements (continued) June 30, 1990 B. Designations of fund balances: Fund balances have been designated for the following purposes as of June 30, 1990: Amount General Fund: Designated for subsequent years' expenditures $ 566,054 Special Revenue Fund: Designated for future years' expenditures 1,015,954 Total designations of fund balances $1,582,008 These designations are to earmark fund balance in both funds for carryover appropriations form fiscal year 1990-91 for unfinished capital projects and, in the General Fund only, for set-asides by the City Council for unspecified future capital projects, insurance costs and other services needing contingencies. 14 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Balance Sheet - Special Revenue Funds June 30, 1990 Development Community Services Gas Tax Impact District Total Assets: Cash and investments $226,900 $9,257 $236,157 Receivables Interest 2,113 - $89 2,202 Intergovernmental 219,073 - 631,776 850,849 Total assets $448,086 $9,257 $631,865 $1,089,208 Liabilities and fund equity: Liabilities: Accounts payable - $41,458 $41,458 Interfund payable $6,500 14,700 21,200 Total liabilities 6,500 56,158 62,658 Fund equity: Fund balances: Reserved for encumbrances $10,326 - 270 10,596 Unreserved; desginated for subsequent years' expenditures 437,760 2,757 575,437 1,015 954 , Total fund equity 448,086 2,757 575,707 1,026 550 , Total liabilities and and fund equity $448,086 $9,257 $6316865 $1,089,208 17 CITY OF TEMECULA Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Special Revenue Funds For the Seven Months Ended June 30, 1990 Revenues: Taxes Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Use of money and property Annexation fees Other Total revenues Expenditures: Current: Community development Community services Capital outlay Total expenditures Development Community Services Gas Tax Impact District Total $249,794 $652,282 $902,076 219,073 201,143 420,216 - 31,896 31,896 - 3,451 3,451 5,083 25,256 30,339 - 9,600 9,600 $9,257 1,000 10,257 473,950 9,257 924,628 1,407,835 25,864 - 25,864 - 346,330 346,330 2,591 2,591 25,864 348,921 374,785 Excess of revenues over expenditures 448,086 9,257 575,707 1,033,050 Other financing uses: Operating transfer out (6,500) (6,500) Excess of revenues over expenditures and other financing uses; and fund balance as of June 30, 1990 $ 448,086 $ 2,757 $ 575,707 $ 1,026,550 18 CITY OF TEMECULA Schedule of General Fixed Assets By Source June 30, 1990 General fixed assets: Land $7,296,800 Buildings 82,964 Machinery and equipment 83,822 Furniture and fixtures 128,207 Total general fixed assets $7,591,793 Investment in general fixed assets: General fund $82,579 Contribution from other government 7,509,214 Total investment in general fixed assets S7,591,793 19 CITY OF TEMECULA Schedule of General Fixed Assets by Function and Activity June 30, 1990 General Government City manager City clerk Finance Other-unclassified Total general government Public Safety Community development Community services Total general fixed assets Machinery Furniture and and Land Buildings Equipment Fixtures Total $12,737 $12,737 17,078 17,078 18,274 - 18,274 19,920 $587 20,507 68,009 587 68,596 5,794 - 5,794 - 5,598 - 5,598 $7,296,800 $82,964 4,421 127,620 7,511,805 $7,296,800 $82,964 $83,822 $128,207 $7,591,793 Schedule of Changes in General Fixed Assets by Function and Activity For the Seven Months Ended June 30, 1990 General Fixed General Fixed Assets Assets December 1, 1989 Additions June 30, 1990 General Government City manager - $12,737 $12,737 City clerk 17,078 17,078 Finance 18,274 18,274 Other-unclassified 20,507 20,507 Total general government 68,596 68,596 Public Safety 5,794 5,794 Community development 5,598 5,598 Community services $7,509,214 2,591 7,511,805 Total general fixed assets $7,509,214 $82,579 $7,5911793 20 Statistical Section CITY OF TEMECULA General Governmental Revenues by Source For the Seven Months Ended June 30, 1990' Licenses Intergovern- Charges Use of and mental for Fines and Money and Annexation Taxes Permits Revenues Services Forfeitures Property Fees Other Total $2,361,666 $45,661 $420,216 $175,798 $7,220 $48,873 59,600 566,335 53,135,369 Note: Includes all governmental fund types. Source: City Finance Department 'This represents the time since incorporation. 22 CITY OF TEMECULA General Governmental Expenditures by Function For the Seven Months Ended June 30, 1990' General Public Public Community Community Capital Government Safety Works Development Services Outlay Total $615,152 $97,414 $7,920 $195,590 $34.6 30 $82,579 31,344,965 i ,3 Note: Includes all governmental fund types. Source: City Finance Department 'This represents the time since incorporation. 23 CITY OF TEMECULA Computation of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt June 30, 1990 8 Fiscal 1989-90 Assessed Valuation; $1,680,728.58 Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt: % Applicable Debt 6/30/90 Riverside County Building Authorities 4.103% $ 18,732,902 Riverside County Board of Education 4.103 393,477 Metropolitan Water District 0.270 1,934,712 Eastern Municipal Water District Certificates of Participation 14.880 14,551,152 Eastern Muncipal Water District, I.D.'s 1125 & U8 100. & 97.579 9,962,415 Murietta Valley Joint Unified School District Certificates of Participation 0.888 82,748 Temecula Unified School District and Certificates of Participation 82.969 9,396,436 City of Temecula 100. - Rancho California Water District Certificates of Participation 53.327 49,650,103 Rancho California Water District, Rancho Division 77.774 3,375,391 Rancho California Water District, Santa Rosa Division 5.715 1,217,866 Rancho California Water District Community Facilities District 1188-3 100. 8,305,000 Riverside County Community Faciliites District 1188-4 35.425 10,627,500 County and Special District 1915 Act Bonds (Estimated) Various 52,318,178 Other Special Districts Various 108,907 Total Gross Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt $180,656,787 Less: Rancho California Water District Certificates of Participation (100% self-supporting) 49,650,103 Eastern Municipal Water District, I.D. f1U8 (%65 self-supporting) 773.801 Total Net Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt $130,232,883 Ratios to Assessed Valuation: Direct Debt - % Total Gross Debt 10.75% Total Net Debt 7.75% Share of Authorized and Unsold General Obligation Bonds: Metropolitan Water District ..............................................5 135,000 Rancho California Water District, Rancho Division $ 16,721,410 Eastern Municipal Water District, I.D. 11U8 $ 5,074,108 Temecula Unified School District $ 47,292,330 STATE SCHOOL BUILDING AID REPAYABLE AS OF 6/30/90: $0 Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. 24 CITY OF TEMECULA Demographic Statistics June 30, 1990 City of County of Temecula Riverside City Population Percent of County Population 32,000 1,014,779 3.2% Average household income $ 42,500 Average housing unit value $168,178 Average contract rent (monthly) $603 Unemployment rate 3.0% Sources: Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce State Department of Finance Board of Equalization Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy $ 46,312 $147,365 $687 6.9% 25 CITY OF TEMECULA Largest Employers by Number of Employees June 30, 1990 Number of Employer Employees Advanced Cardiovascular Systems 800 Hudson Oxygen Company 550 Bianchi Leather Products 205 Professional Hospital Supply 200 Temecula Creek Inn Golf Resort 188 Borg Warner Corporation 170 International Recifier 170 Banks and Savings and Loans 125 Safeway and Stater Brothers 100 Source: Temecula Chamber of Commerce. 26 CITY OF TEMECULA Miscellaneous Statistics June 30, 1990 Date incorporated December 1, 1989 Form of government Council/Manager Area 26 square miles Libraries Provided by the County of Riverside Police protection Provided by the County of Riverside Fire protection Provided by the County of Riverside Parks 1 site; 53.81 acres Employees 21 regular, full-time equivalents Number of registered voters 10,550 Source: City Departments 27